Holy Communion

qawe

What exactly do we believe regarding the conversion of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood?
Is it changed:
-on a spiritual level?
-on a physical level?
-on a molecular level?
-truly?

I know we do not use the term transubstantiation but the Catholics do; thus how do we differ on the above points?

mark.naguib7

I believe that the Orthodox church proclaims that we simply do not know. We believe that Jesus initiated this sacrament and it is for our salvation. It is the greatest miracle and mystery ever. 

imikhail

We do not believe in transubstantiation but a change of wine into blood, and bread to flesh of Jesus just as what happened during the last supper.

George_Mina_Awad

Why don't we believe in transubstantiation?

minatasgeel

[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=13145.msg154392#msg154392 date=1333828194]
Why don't we believe in transubstantiation?

because you simply can't prove that. you clearly see in front of you bread and wine.

George_Mina_Awad

[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=13145.msg154393#msg154393 date=1333830143]
[quote author=George_Mina_Awad link=topic=13145.msg154392#msg154392 date=1333828194]
Why don't we believe in transubstantiation?

because you simply can't prove that. you clearly see in front of you bread and wine.


Thanks Peter. It was a big vague, though. I feel like the term itself at the very least implies that it's a mystery. By definition it is saying that the bread and wine are transformed into body and blood despite the fact that it still appears as bread and wine. Isn't this the case? I just don't think the RCC is selling this as an explanation; it simply describes what happens vs. what we physically perceive. Does anyone have a more detailed explanation of this?

qawe

The point is that the RCC is selling this as a rationalist scientific explanation
I know that much from the introduction to Orthodox Study Bible

mrpete33

This is an issue where western spirituality has departed from the tradition of the early church, atleast in my opinion. While the fathers did seek to understand what they were believing, they never sought to go out and define[i][/i] these things. The spirituality of the church in the east (and especially the early alexandrian church) was to use allegory and not to use this sort of scientific study of the mysteries or even of the Scriptures. The literalism we see in our day, with people INSISTING that, because Genesis use the language of "days",  the world must have therefore been created in 6, 24 hour, days. (totally ignoring the fact that the sun wasnt around until later in the process and thus the notion of the first and second and third 'day' couldnt even logically exist. And that in the Psalms and St. Peter's Epistle we clearly read that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and vice versa) wasnt existent with the fathers. Yes there are some exceptions, but for the most-part, the fathers didnt seek to go about things the same as the west has commonly done, especially after the reformation.

The church has never sought to define mysteries. Wouldnt this defeat the purpose of describing the sacraments of mysteries if we could empirically measure them?

Rather let us take our source from the fathers on what we should understand of communion, as a life giving sacrament and the source of life in our lives.

St. Severus clearly states in his letter to the presbyter Victor (on page 61-62 of the Selected Letter of Severus of Antioch from the Oriental Orthodox library (God bless you Fr. Peter),

"For the bread that is consecrated on the holy tables and mystically transmuted is itself truly the body, the body of him in whose name it was in fact transmuted, that is of him who voluntarily died and rose for our sakes. But, if it is the body of him who rose, it is plain that it is impassible and immortal. If we do not look at the bread that is mystically transmuted, but at that which comes under the eyes of the senses, and, seeing it broken, do not confess it to be indeed immortal, it is time for us to say that neither is it God's body: for what is seen is indeed bread. By the faith therefore by which we understand and believe it to be the body of God who became incarnate without variation for our sakes, and voluntarily suffered and rose, by the same faith we understand and confess that it is also immortal and impassible, and bestows impassibility and immortality on us. For he who allowed it to be cut and divided, because indeed it was otherwise impossible for us to partake of it, in the same mercifulness also allows God's body which has been already transmuted to appear as bread. And for a confirmation of the transmutation that is accomplished this has been seen by many even with the eyes of their senses themselves, and they have seen bloodstained flesh being broken, not the bread that is laid upon the altar."

Please pray for me, a sinner

George_Mina_Awad

Thank you. This made it a lot clearer.

Please pray for my weakness.