|
0 members (),
323
guests, and
114
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,523
Posts417,632
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
One topic that comes up when I talk to non-denominational friends of mine is the Eucharist, and in particular the presence of God within it, as a fundamental aspect of our Faith (Catholic and Orthodox). Most North Americans seem to be familiar with this idea in the Roman, Western sense of literal transubstantiation, much less so the Eastern perspective. What I want to address is Fr. Taft's view (quoted from this interview [ uscatholic.org]) : Liturgy is symbol. That doesn't mean it's not real. One of the dumbest ideas in the world was invented in the ninth century when someone came up with the notion that something was either symbolic or real. The Eucharist is both symbolic and real. The presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread is obviously symbolic, otherwise you'd see ears and eyes and a nose. That's a no-brainer. But to say something is symbolic doesn't mean that it's not real. I am curious as to how others would articulate the Byzantine perspective of the presence of God within the Eucharist, when we say in the communion prayer in the Divine Liturgy, "I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own most precious Blood." EDIT: This is also certainly useful when discussing the matter with Roman Catholics, I realize.
Last edited by jjp; 01/24/12 09:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421 |
'faith is the realization of what is hoped for and the certitude of things unseen" (Heb 11:1)
According to Alexander Schmemann human beings thirst.
It is precisely this thirst for spiritual things which defines us as human and he says
" Faith is the encounter, the real encounter between what is deepest in that person - that thirst - which is so distinctly a part of him, and that toward which his thirst is directed -- even if he doesn't know what that thirst is"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
... One of the dumbest ideas in the world was invented in the ninth century when someone came up with the notion that something was either symbolic or real. The Eucharist is both symbolic and real ... Ditto for the term "mystical." For us, the Eucharist is indeed a *mystical symbol*, without either of these terms implying in any way that it isn't *real*. As we say in the Communion prayer, "... accept me this day as a partaker of Your *mystical* supper ... for I will not reveal Your *mystery* to Your enemies ..." (BTW, I am curious about this part of the Communion prayer, since it is not included in the UGCC liturgical texts: "I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own most precious Blood ..." Is it an authentic part of our Byzantine tradition?) Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
Is it an authentic part of our Byzantine tradition? I have actually wondered this as well, and hoped the differences in the communion prayer came up as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
No, the line is an interpolated latinization, added by us, in an attempt to show we are Really Catholic. That's why, in many liturgical books, the line is parenthesized.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 329 |
It seems to be in the Jordanville Prayerbook, at least in the 1986 version: http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/prayerbook/liturgy.htm#19So this is a ROCOR latinization too? Though they have, "And I believe that this is Thy pure Body and Thy own Precious Blood." So is it the "truly" that's in dispute?
Last edited by JBenedict; 01/27/12 03:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
It shouldn't surprise--the Russian Church adopted many latinisms from the 17th century onward. After all, its seminary system was based on the Latin system, right down to the use of Scholastic methods and instruction in Latin. But there are many versions of the communion prayer, which is based on this prayer attributed to St. John Chrysostom: I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood. Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting. Amen. Of thy Mystic Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of thy Mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess thee: Remember me, O Lord, in thy Kingdom. Not unto judgement nor unto condemnation be my partaking of thy Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
Silly me! I actually pasted in an interpolated version of the prayer. The second line is not present in the original Chrysostom. It was not necessary, as nobody questioned the reality of the Eucharistic presence. Such statements only became necessary from the Reformation onward. And the Orthodox in the borderlands were subjected to Protestant apologetics just as much as Roman Catholics were, and needed similar defenses of traditional doctrine.
Last edited by StuartK; 01/28/12 09:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
