The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Comments

• Michael_Thoma

  January 2006

  The issue of Transubstantiation was raised in a previous thread on the RCC dogma of Immaculate Conception, and so I thought i'd create a new thread to focus on transubstantiation specifically so that the other thread does not get too distracted. I will briefly explain the Coptic Orthodox position on this issue, and then I will go on to respond to the comments of our RC friend Michael_Thoma.

  Just a small correction Moderator, I am not Roman Catholic but Syro-Malankara Catholic - our theology is similar to the Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches. That being said, I may not represent the Latin Catholic position as correctly as the Eastern Catholic one.

  With respect to 2) one of the fundamental differences between the Orthodox and RC conception of the Holy Eucharist is the RC doctrine of “transubstantiation.” The problem the Orthodox have with the doctrine of transubstantiation, is that the RCC sought to rationalise the process by which the transformation takes place, via the imposition of philosophical language and concepts. In contrast, the appropriate and Orthodox answer concerning how the transformation takes place is simply: “by the Holy Spirit”, and the appropriate and Orthodox answer concerning how the Holy Spirit performs the transformation is even more simply: “we don’t know.”
  
  This understanding of the Holy Eucharist, and this response to the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation, is advocated by H.G Bishop Youssef on the suscopts.org Q&A section.
  
  Furthermore, Lecture XII: The Question of The Real Presence, which is in fact a lecture adapted from The Church Sacraments by Archdeacon Habib Guirgess, in fact appeals to the following quote of John of Damascus in making the case against the doctrine of transubstantiation:
  
  “And now you ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought … Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit”
  
  Now my response to Michael_Thoma's comments:
  
  

  Transubstantiation was decreed to counter the protestant innovation of "consubstantiation" - the idea that Christ is mixed with bread.

  Both transubstantiation and consubstantiation are “innovations”; we simply do not know the manner in which the bread and wine transform to the body and blood of Christ – whether the substance transforms, or whether the divine substance co-mingles with the earthly substance; these are all theories of men, invented to provide a rational/scientific explanation of things that are beyond rational/scientific investigation or explanation. It suffices for the Orthodox to know that they consume the true body and blood of Christ, and that such change/transformation occurs by the work of the Holy Spirit.

  The RCC contends that the change (that they call transubstantiation) occurs by the work of the Holy Spirit - they do not describe how because that is literally impossible but they do condemn the protestant description as inadequate.

  I’m sorry, but I cannot honestly agree with your claim that transubstantiation is merely a confirmation of “real presence” so to speak; it does delve into the question of “how” the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and answers it by alleging that the substance changes whilst the accidents remain the same.

  That no more describes 'how' than a theologian who says Baptism changes the spirit/soul of a person even though they look the same on the outside - this doesn't describe how in any way.

  The RC doctrine of transubstantiation was not a reaction to the Protestant denial of “real presence” per se, but more accurately, it was a reaction to the Protestant polemic that it is irrational and non-sensical to claim that one can consume the body and blood of Christ upon consuming bread and wine, respectively. The RC’s felt compelled to explain how the bread and wine could be the body and blood of Christ, in a way that appeases the intellect.

  That is impossible because the intellect cannot understand this - only faith. From the (Latin) Catechism of Catholic Church:
  1375
  It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
  
  It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.
  
  And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
  
  Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.
  
  1381
  "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"
  
  Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
  Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
  See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
  Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
  
  Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
  How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
  What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
  Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.

  Neither of those terms are legitimately used by Orthodox theologians. From Fr. Meyendroff’s book Byzantine Theology:
  
  “…one never finds the term "essence" (ousia) used by Eastern Orthodox theologians in a Eucharistic context. A term like "transubstantiation" (metousiosis) would be considered improper in designating the Eucharistic mystery; generally the concept of metabole would be used, and it is found in the canon of John Chrysostom...”
  
  Furthermore, Fr. Michael Pomazansky in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, writes:
  
  "The term "transubstantiation" is derived from Latin scholasticism of the medieval period: following the philosophical categories of Aristotle, "transubstantiation" refers to a change of the "substance"…of the Holy Gifts with the "accidents" or appearance of bread and wine, remaining constant. Orthodox theology, in contrast, does not attempt to "define" this Mystery in terms of such philosophical categories, and hence prefers the simple word "change." (page 280)

  Orthodox Confession of 1640 --
  
  "Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.
  
  "Where it is fitting to WORSHIP and ADORE the Holy Eucharist even as our Savior Jesus Himself.
  
  "The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,
  
  'Send down Thy Holy Ghost on us and on these gifts set before Thee, and make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost.'
  
  "For immediately after these words the TRANSUBSTANTIATION [metousiosis] takes place, and that bread is changed into the real body of Christ, and the wine into His real blood. ONLY THE SPECIES WHICH ARE SEEN REMAIN, and this by the ordinance of God, first, that we may not see the body of Christ, but may believe that it is there....
  
  Also Fr. Meyendorff goes further:
  "....in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the 'essence of God,' but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink....for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine 'energies.' Characteristically, one never finds the category of 'essence' (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (metastoicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (metarrhythmisis). [Yes, many of these terms were used, including and along with Transubstantiation].
  
  Archbishop Ware and Archbishop Fouyas also remarked on this issue:
  From the popular work The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware [emphasis added] --
  
  "As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the REALITY of the change, it has never attempted to explain the MANNER of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the nuetral term metaballo, to 'turn about', to 'change', to 'alter'.
  
  "It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term 'transubstantiation' (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.
  
  "Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.
  
  "Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts." (Timothy Ware, page 283-284)
  
  From the book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism (1972) by the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aksum, Methodios Fouyas [emphasis added] --
  
  "Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)
  
  After quoting an Anglican writer who said "Orthodox theologians do not adhere to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation..." Fouyas responds:
  
  "This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727] -- see above)
  
  Fouyas continues and provides several words used by the Orthodox to describe the change in the elements:
  
  "In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)
  
  Fouyas concludes on the word Transubstantiation:
  
  "The difference between Orthodox and Romans is this: the latter used this word to mean the special theory according to which the change is made, but the Orthodox used it to mean the FACT of the change, according to the Patristic conception." (Fouyas, page 189)
  
  The connection between the Holy Spirit tranforming the bread and wine and the overshadowing of the Theotokos is mentioned in the Latin Catechism as well:
  Just as Christ came into the world when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, so Christ also comes into the world in the Eucharist by the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, all the sacraments "are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in…the Church" (CCC 1115).
  
  In providing the Eucharist, the Spirit’s work is particularly manifest at the consecration when the priest prays: "Let your Spirit come upon these gifts and make them holy so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eucharistic Prayer II).
• Safaa

  January 2006

  Michael_Thoma,

  Just a small correction Moderator, I am not Roman Catholic but Syro-Malankara Catholic - our theology is similar to the Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches. That being said, I may not represent the Latin Catholic position as correctly as the Eastern Catholic one.

  I understand that this question is directed to Iqbal, but forgive me I can’t stand still without replying.
  
  With due all respect you are a Catholic and belong to the Catholic Church, whether the Catholic Church is Roman or Syro-Malankara.
  If your theology is more toward the Orthodoxy rather than the Catholic, why don’t you leave the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox Church.
  It is rather awkward to stay in a place that you do not agree with its teaching!!!
  
  
• Unknown

  January 2006

  Michael_Thoma,

  That being said, I may not represent the Latin Catholic position as correctly as the Eastern Catholic one.

  I personally don’t see the difference. Essentially you are claiming the same concept, and it is one that we Orthodox reject.

  The RCC contends that the change (that they call transubstantiation) occurs by the work of the Holy Spirit - they do not describe how because that is literally impossible but they do condemn the protestant description as inadequate.

  Let us be specific here. The RCC may not be attempting to explain how the substance changes and accidents remain, but in acknowledging the very claim that the substance changes and the accidents remain per se, they do indeed inevitably attempt to describe “how” or “in what manner” the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ i.e. through a change of substance. We Orthodox simply say – we do not know. The change occurs beyond philosophical categories, and thus it cannot be attributed to substance, or nature, or essence, or hypostasis, or anything of the sort.

  That no more describes 'how' than a theologian who says Baptism changes the spirit/soul of a person

  You have no analogy, for the fact that baptism changes the spirit/soul of a person is not theological conjecture propagated by theologians in the last couple of centuries or so. It is an eternal truth grounded in the Scriptures and patristic literature. I don’t see anything in the Scriptures or the Patristic literature which accounts for the concept of transubstantiation, and that is the point. We do not define mysteries beyond what is revealed to the Church.

  Orthodox Confession of 1640 –

  One must wonder whether you in fact even read the quotations you have pasted for us, for in a subsequent quotation, Bishop Kallistos Ware explains how the general and retrospective Eastern Orthodox attitude to this council’s use of latin terminology and concepts was in fact negative. As you are aware, no Eastern Orthodox council has any weight of authority within the Oriental Orthodox Communion, but clearly, according to your own quotations, the EO Church recognised that this particular local council had erred in its representation of the Eucharist in terms of transubstantiation:
  
  "It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term 'transubstantiation' (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.
  
  "Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed. (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, page 283-284)

  Also Fr. Meyendorff goes further:

  This very quotation from Meyendroff was provided by myself above, since it clearly goes to prove my point. I am baffled as to why you are pasting it, since it clearly only serves to contradict your position. Allow me to underline the significant parts for you:
  
  "....in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the 'essence of God,' but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink....for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine 'energies.' Characteristically, one never finds the category of 'essence' (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (metastoicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (metarrhythmisis).
  
  
• Michael_Thoma

  January 2006

  
  I personally don’t see the difference. Essentially you are claiming the same concept, and it is one that we Orthodox reject.

  Moderator, you don't have to see the difference to acknowledge that their is one. Your use of the term "we Orthodox" is misleading as there is not unified authoritative Orthodox voice on the matter. For example, the Syriac and Malankara Orthodox Churches - which your Church is in Communion with - has Eucharistic sharing with the Catholic Church. The Coptic Church, at this time, refrains from such a position. You mentioned that the EO Church at one time used this wording, then retracted - who knows if they will later retract the retraction?
  
  Also, the difference between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church is in theology, ritual, perspective, Traditions, some Saints, our conceptions of Doctrine, etc. These are not exclusive to Orthodox but is also of Eastern Catholicism.

  Let us be specific here. The RCC may not be attempting to explain how the substance changes and accidents remain, but in acknowledging the very claim that the substance changes and the accidents remain per se, they do indeed inevitably attempt to describe “how” or “in what manner” the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ i.e. through a change of substance. We Orthodox simply say – we do not know. The change occurs beyond philosophical categories, and thus it cannot be attributed to substance, or nature, or essence, or hypostasis, or anything of the sort.

  Then what of the terms you quote Fr. Meyendorff: They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (metastoicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (metarrhythmisis) ? It seems to be the key phrase is: improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, which the Latins deny they are doing. If it is in using any terminology at all, they why is it ok to use Greek terminology as opposed to Latin?
  

  Safaa wrote:
  I understand that this question is directed to Iqbal, but forgive me I can’t stand still without replying.
  
  With due all respect you are a Catholic and belong to the Catholic Church, whether the Catholic Church is Roman or Syro-Malankara.
  If your theology is more toward the Orthodoxy rather than the Catholic, why don’t you leave the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox Church.
  It is rather awkward to stay in a place that you do not agree with its teaching!!!

  This idea that the Catholic Church = Roman is wrong. The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 EQUAL Churches. Now the Roman Church may be louder and more vocal as they are greater in number, but their theological descriptions are no more grand or superior. I do not need to join Orthodoxy to hold my view, because quite frankly they are just as Catholic as the Pope of Rome's.
  
• Unknown

  January 2006

  Your use of the term "we Orthodox" is misleading as there is not unified authoritative Orthodox voice on the matter.

  It seems to me that there is, unless you can prove otherwise. I have yet to see one respectable Orthodox authority who accepts this doctrine. Whilst many may have used the term transubstantiation, it has nonetheless been made clear (according to the very quotations you personally pasted for us) that they explicitly reject the meaning attributed to the term by RC’s.

  For example, the Syriac and Malankara Orthodox Churches - which your Church is in Communion with - has Eucharistic sharing with the Catholic Church.

  According to the Ecumenism section of the official Syrian Orthodox Church website (that is blessed and sanctioned by H.H. Mar Ignatios Zakka I), the latest Ecumenical incident of significance between the RCC and SOC was the joint declaration of 1984, between Pope John Paul II and His Holiness Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I. Point 8 of this dialogue reads:
  
  Since it is the chief expression of Christian unity between the faithful and between Bishops and priests, the Holy Eucharist cannot yet be concelebrated by us. Such celebration supposes a complete identity of faith such as does not yet exist between us.
  
  Source: http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/RC.html
  
  Surely, had full communion (which is pre-requisite to Eucharistic communion) been restored upon the basis that all differences were reconciled, this official website of the SOC would have updated its Dialogue and Joint Declarations with the Roman Catholic Church page. Apparently it has not. So please refer us to the relevant official document that outlines the restoration of full communion between the Syrian/Indian/Malankara Orthodox Churches and the RC’s, for apparently it is unheard of.

  You mentioned that the EO Church at one time used this wording, then retracted - who knows if they will later retract the retraction?

  I don’t see your point. As it stands, the EO recognises that the use of “substance” terminology was wrong. Period. I don’t see how making unwarranted and baseless speculations of future retractions of an already made retraction proves anything or has any cogency. Local councils can err, there is nothing detrimental about the concept of the universal Orthodox Church repudiating a concept that a local council has unwittingly implicitly advocated. From an OO perspective, the issue is further mitigated by the fact it was a local council of a Church outside of our communion.

  Also, the difference between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church is in theology, ritual, perspective, Traditions, some Saints, our conceptions of Doctrine, etc.

  I may not know much about the Eastern Catholic Church, but I do know a thing or two about basic ecclesiology, full Eucharistic Communion cannot be maintained by two bodies who diverge according to matters of faith, for Eucharistic communion is in fact a very expression of unity in faith, docrtine and Tradition.

  It seems to be the key phrase is: improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, which the Latins deny they are doing.

  I think it is misleading to interpet Bp. Kallistos Ware as accenting that term in particular. The statement is clearly to be understood in light of the fact that the Orthodox understand RC’s to be designating the term in relation to the Eucharistic mystery, and hence Bp. Ware is attempting to assert the Orthodox position in contrast to the RC position. Despite all your denial that the doctrine of transubstantiation seeks to explain a mystery, it remains clear, to me at least, that this is not the logical implication of transubstantiation, for as I said above:
  
  The RCC may not be attempting to explain how the substance changes and accidents remain, but in acknowledging the very claim that the substance changes and the accidents remain per se, they do indeed inevitably attempt to describe “how” or “in what manner” the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ i.e. through a change of substance. We Orthodox simply say – we do not know. The change occurs beyond philosophical categories, and thus it cannot be attributed to substance, or nature, or essence, or hypostasis, or anything of the sort.

  If it is in using any terminology at all, they why is it ok to use Greek terminology as opposed to Latin?

  As was stated in your own quotations, the issue here is not about semantics, it is about concepts. No matter what term is employed by an Orthodox theologian, even if it be the latin term transubstantiation itself, the fact remains that the only concept underlying this term, is the concept of their being a change; not a change of substance…just a real and actual change…period.

  The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 EQUAL Churches.

  The Orthodox Church, whether Oriental or Eastern, is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, nor any Church which accepts the supremacy and infallibility of the Church of Rome (which I presume is a fundamental doctrine of the “Eastern Catholics”), so I am rather curious to know, what, in light of the above mentioned facts, these “23 equal Churches” are.
• Unknown

  January 2006

  Can someone kindly post a concise definition of the Church "Sacrements"?
  
  So your Church follows the RCC referral to substance or molecular changes in order to scientifically explain the manner by which the Holy Bread and Wine become the Holy Body and Holy Blood of Our Savior. It won't be surprising that one day someone would be allowed to conduct a study consolidated by lab tests. God forbid.
  
  Don't you think it is time to consider why the Lord did not actually physically change the appearance of the Eucharist? Even the simplistic mind would ask: why would the Lord change the molecular substance while still keeping the physical properties of both the bread and wine? It is solely the work of the Holy Spirit beyond any human thoughts. It would be like someone saying "I know how Jesus made that miracle of turning water into wine."
  
  Simply, it's God's KNOW HOW.
  
  Further, may I remind you that our babies have the benefits of their First Communion right after their Baptism and Holy Anointment. In the Coptic Orthodox Church we do not have to research how God intervenes in Sacrements and we do not force ourselves to make compromises in order to convince other parties.
• Michael_Thoma

  February 2006

  So your Church follows the RCC referral to substance or molecular changes in order to scientifically explain the manner by which the Holy Bread and Wine become the Holy Body and Holy Blood of Our Savior. It won't be surprising that one day someone would be allowed to conduct a study consolidated by lab tests. God forbid.

  What? In Latin theology "Molecular" is accident not Substance. Substance is a philosophical term meaning the essence of something. It is not something that can be measured scientifically. The Eastern Churches do not use Latin terms or theology.

  Don't you think it is time to consider why the Lord did not actually physically change the appearance of the Eucharist? Even the simplistic mind would ask: why would the Lord change the molecular substance while still keeping the physical properties of both the bread and wine?

  Read above

  It is solely the work of the Holy Spirit beyond any human thoughts. It would be like someone saying "I know how Jesus made that miracle of turning water into wine."
  
  Simply, it's God's KNOW HOW.

  Agreed.
• Unknown

  February 2006

  I am going to have to step in here and, I pray, settle some of the misunderstandings. I have to agree with Michael_Thoma that the Aristotelean-Thomistic term "transubstantiation" has nothing to do with some sort of molecular change taking place during the epiklesis. But by the same token, there have been random Catholic writers (not theologians or ecclesial authorities) who have almost said the same thing about the Eucharist on an atomic level ( the guy who founded the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima is one). So Orthodox objections about the intellectual presumption inherent in such a formulation seem valid to me. Though the Counter-Reformation Romans adopted Aquinas whole-hog, the world has gone far beyond Aristotle's physics. If one wanted to rationalize the mystery today, mightn't one adopt String Theory just to be up to date? No, Orthodoxy is wise to be silent here. Faith, not reason is called for.
• StVictor

  February 2006

  I have an antecdote that will solve this problem. This is a true story.
  
  Several scientists work in a lab in Egypt. Two of these are friendly aquantances; one Coptic Orthodox, and the other muslim. The muslim idividual is intrigued by the Copt's religion. He wondered what ws so special about the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ that these Christians commonly partake. One day the muslim individual went to partake of the Holy Communion; both body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  
  He kept the Holy Communion in his mouth even after the liturgy. He took it to his lab and studied it under a microscope (taking it out of his mouth and into the slide). He discovered that the contents of the Holy Communion were real living skin cells and blood cells. The Communion is NOT a representation of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus but its the real deal.
  
  This is a true story.
  
  
  
  Likewise also, when a certain Coptic priest prayer on a qorbana (Bread soon to become the Body of Christ) and took it into the oven to reheat it (so that it won't harden). He later found it to be bleeding. That is certainly a human property unless you know bread that bleeds regularly.
  
  The Holy Communion is the actual living Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
• Unknown

  February 2006

  StVictor,
  
  Your stories, though seemingly incredible, could indeed be true (I would tend to believe them, certainly), but they would fall under the category of Eucharistic miracles, if true. In other words, such miracles reveal the spiritual reality of Christ's presence among us in the Eucharist, but they do not establish a "scientific" proof of the doctrine of transubstantiation. Does this distinction make sense to you?