What does the holy Orthodox Church teach about (1) Real Presence, (2) Transubstantiation (3) Liturgy as Sacrifice?

[Xavier]

Because of the challenges Protestantism posed to the Sacraments and the Western Church, the Latin Church had to decree, in the Council of Trent,

(1) The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, i.e. that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.
(2) Transubstantiation, i.e. the Change of Bread and Wine during the Mass into the Body and Blood of the Lord.
(3) that Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy is a true Sacrifice, i.e. the Sacrifice of the Lord's Body and Blood to the Father.

What is the Orthodox Church Teaching on these three issues? At the Council of Jerusalem presided over by the Patriarch Dositheus (I believe this Council had approval of 4 Eastern Patriarchs, someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the Orthodox Church was able to state its own Teaching on the matter. It had the opportunity either to agree more with Catholicism over Protestantism (specifically, Calvinism), or with Protestantism over Catholicism. Per most students of the Council, it chose Catholicism over Protestantism, while expressing the Orthodox Teaching on each question.

What are your views on the subject, the Council of Trent, the teaching of the Council of Jerusalem, and on dogmatic matters related to the Holy Eucharist? Is the Protestant understanding mostly true, or is the Catholic understanding closer to the Orthodox understanding? Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Alpo2]

IMO the RCC view is needlessly detailed but more or less correct. So I guess I would say yes to all three.

There's more than one Protestant view though. Lutherans and AFAIK some Anglicans believe in the Real Presence too but would dispute the latter two.

 

[bwallace23350]

Anglicans believe in the Real Presence but we just argue about how it is. I am an Anglican and lean towards the Lutheran view.

 

[Xavier]

Thanks, Alpo and Wallace. As I understand it, Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation and not Transubstantiation. Is that right, Wallace?

Fr. A. F. Kimel's site has an interesting article on it, written by Fr. Kappes. According to the article, Transubstantiation has roots in the Greek Fathers.

The 1672 Council of Jerusalem under the Patriarch Dositheos said: "In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven ; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread." https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/...on-or-maybe-patriarch-dositheos-got-it-right/

 

[Alpo2]

^Can't see anything wrong in that. Most present day EOs wouldn't probably use the same terminology but IMO it's one completely legitimate way to put it.

 

[Tzimis]

It's not proper to speak of the Eucharist post transformation as the RC's do. They try to explain a mystery using science.

 

[Xavier]

Thanks, Alpo. God Bless you.

Tzimis, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord are also great divine mysteries, yet the Church Fathers and the First Four Ecumenical Councils, in describing the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and of the Hypostatic Union, used scientifically precise terms in their dogmatic theology.

God Bless.

 

[hecma925]

Was it scientific precision of Greek philosophic precision?

 

[Tzimis]

Thanks, Alpo. God Bless you.

Tzimis, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord are also great divine mysteries, yet the Church Fathers and the First Four Ecumenical Councils, in describing the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and of the Hypostatic Union, used scientifically precise terms in their dogmatic theology.

God Bless.

Using an analogy is very different than specifically explaining the mechanism. A mystery cant be explained. Otherwise it wouldn't be a mystery.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Thanks, Alpo and Wallace. As I understand it, Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation and not Transubstantiation. Is that right, Wallace?

Fr. A. F. Kimel's site has an interesting article on it, written by Fr. Kappes. According to the article, Transubstantiation has roots in the Greek Fathers.

The 1672 Council of Jerusalem under the Patriarch Dositheos said: "In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven ; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread." https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/...on-or-maybe-patriarch-dositheos-got-it-right/

For the record, as has been discussed here before, more than once, most Orthodox do not regard the 1672 Jerusalem council as completely authoritative because of its use of scholastic Roman Catholic concepts, including sections where the nature of the Eucharist is discussed. In additon, the Orthodox may well use the term "transubstantiation" without meaning to include any Trentian, Thomistic or Aristotelian understandings of the term, but simply taking it to mean a "change" or a "turning about". Orthodox commentators are generally loathe to comment on how the change takes place or on what happens to the bread and wine when it is transformed, except in some cases where they simply affirm strongly that a real alteration has taken place or in others such as the idea put forth by St. John of Damascus, who uses the metaphor of a piece of wood being infused with fire to describe what takes place to the bread. Just as the wood is completely enveloped in the fire becoming a transformed kind of wood, so it is with the Holy bread in the Eucharist. (The wood is still wood but transformed and unlike any other wood, as is the case with the eucharistic bread.)

Of course we believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ. But you are well aware of this. I don't know what it is that you are looking for here. We are not going to speak about the whole concept of "real presence" because we have not taken part in Western phiosophical/theological debates about this, wherein such terminology makes sense. But outside of such debates one is left scratching one's head and asking "can there be a presence that is somehow not real?".

The Council of Jerusalem is also somewhat problematic in its Western-style overemphasis on Calvary in discussing the eucharistic sacrfice. Calvary is of course essential to the whole "process", if you will, but the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist is that of the resurrected and glorififed Christ. Of course we regard the Eucharist as a true sacrifice; as THE true sacrifice. But of course, you are aware of this too. As to who receives the sacrifice, the Orthodox believe that it is Christ Himself who is offered in the sacrifice, who offers it, and who receives it, all at the same time. So is it a sacrifice offered to God the Father who somehow "requires" it of his Son? Not so much. Of course, we also believe that all the Persons of the Trinity act seamlessly together at all times.

 

[bwallace23350]

Thanks, Alpo and Wallace. As I understand it, Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation and not Transubstantiation. Is that right, Wallace?

Fr. A. F. Kimel's site has an interesting article on it, written by Fr. Kappes. According to the article, Transubstantiation has roots in the Greek Fathers.

The 1672 Council of Jerusalem under the Patriarch Dositheos said: "In the celebration whereof we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven ; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread." https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/...on-or-maybe-patriarch-dositheos-got-it-right/

Yes Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation

 

[Serge]

In the Eastern churches, no Berengarius denied the real presence or sacrifice so no Aquinas was needed to rise and defend them.