The Catalog of Good Deeds

Does the Orthodox Church believe in “transubstantiation” (μετουσίωσις in Greek) with regards to the Eucharist? Or is that only used in the Latin (Roman Catholic) church?

There’s certainly a lot of confusion and conflicting information out there, so let’s take a closer look.

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church

As a long-time blogger, I can vouch for the necessity of extending grace towards a writer when they are attempting to both honestly and carefully represent their beliefs. I intentionally place a disclaimer on my blog, making it plain that any mistakes or errors contained on the site are my own, and in no way discredit the Church. If one really wants to dive into the depths of our faith, the only place to do so is in the liturgical and confessional life of their local parish. Nevertheless, people keep telling me that my blog helps them, and so I keep on blogging. Lord, have mercy.

All that being said, I wanted to provide some brief comments on a new blog post by Dr. David J. Dunn titled “Top Ten Things Every Protestant Should Know About Eastern Orthodoxy.”

In point no. 4, Dunn writes:

4. The Eucharist? We call that Jesus. We believe it is actually the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine, but we do not believe in transubstantiation. That is a Catholic thing. We believe it is a mystery. In other words, “It’s the body of Christ. Now stop asking so many stupid questions, and open your mouth!”

It is clear from these points that Dunn is attempting to be brief and even catchy with his wording of each point, and so I won’t be overly critical of his short and to-the-point summary.

However, since it seems to make a dubious claim on the point of transubstantiation, I thought I’d try and bring some more detailed clarity to the issue, in a way that was not intended by Dunn’s intentionally-short piece (which is fine, really).

The Latin belief on this point is as follows:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651). (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), p. 347,356)

In other words, Roman Catholics believe that transubstantiation is the “change” that occurs in the “whole substance” of the bread and wine set apart for the Eucharistic mystery. This is a change that takes place at the words of institution or consecration (i.e. “This is My Body,” etc.). There’s some Scholastic language here, of course, but that’s the basic gist.

In the Orthodox tradition, you will find it taught variously that this change takes place anywhere between the Proskomedia (the Liturgy of Preparation)—which is now a separate service prior to both Orthros and the Divine Liturgy on a typical Sunday, though traditionally it is done during Orthros—and the Epiklesis (“calling down”), or invocation of the Holy Spirit “upon us and upon these gifts here set forth” (as in Chrysostom’s liturgy). As such, the gifts should be treated with reverence throughout the entirety of the service. We don’t know the exact time in which the change takes place, and this is left to mystery. This view is common among those such as the reposed Fr. Alexander Schmemann and others, although many in the Orthodox tradition will also insist the change does actually take place at the words of institution.

The key point of emphasis in the Eastern tradition, then, is not whether or not a change takes place (even if we can’t understand or describe it precisely), but that it does emphatically take place.

During the iconoclasm controversy (eighth–ninth centuries), the change in the Eucharist was used to refute the arguments of iconoclasts who claimed the Eucharist was the only true icon of Christ. In these debates, the iconodule St. Theodore the Studite wrote, “We confess that the faithful receive the very body and blood of Christ, according to the voice of God himself.” The reality of transubstantiation was a refutation of iconoclasm. The Eucharist was not an icon of Christ, but was the real and true presence of the person Jesus Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist; or rather, a true symbol.

There have been at least three confessional documents in recent Orthodox memory that refer to the doctrine of transubstantiation by name. Some excerpts:

Fourthly, attention must be paid that the priest have, at the time of consecration, the intention that the real substance of the bread and the substance of wine be transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

He makes this invocation when he confects this mystery by praying and saying: “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered and make this bread the precious body of your Christ, and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ, changing them by your Holy Spirit.”

Transubstantiation occurs immediately with these words, and the bread is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ and the wine into the real blood of Christ, with the visible appearances alone remaining. (Orthodox Confession of Faith, Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-1647))

In Metropolitan Peter’s confession—which was widely adopted and sanctioned by multiple patriarchates in the seventeenth century—the change is said to occur at the time of the Epiklesis. This is in agreement with Roman Catholics. The use of the word μετουσίωσις here means that the bread, water, and wine are truly become the Body and Blood of Christ at the invocation of the Holy Spirit. They are not merely so in our imagination or as a bare symbol, but in the true, “Greek” sense of συμβολον, which means to bring two things together (in this case, the real presence of the person of Jesus Christ with the elements in the chalice).

He is not present 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 baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits 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. (Orthodox Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1672))

In this confession of faith enjoying wide acceptance throughout the seventeenth century Orthodox Church, Patriarch Dositheus teaches that Christ is “truly and really” present in the Eucharistic elements. He does not mention here the timing of the change, but simply that the bread and wine are “transubstantiated” (again, μετουσίωσις) into the “true Body” and “true Blood” of the Lord.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.) (Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church by St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (1830))

In St. Philaret’s catechism, we are given the first distinction between the Eastern and Western description of transubstantiation of which I’m aware.

Writing in the nineteenth century, Philaret says that transubstantiation is not a reference to the change itself—since none can possibly understand exactly how/when this takes place—but that it is merely a reference to our Lord being “truly, really, and substantially” present in the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a reference to metaphysical or nominalist philosophy (as with Aristotle, for example), but is speaking to the reality of the change, albeit as beyond our comprehension.

In a sense, it is impossible to draw a true comparison between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints on this issue, since only one communion has dogmatically ruled on the question.

In their dialogues and disputes with the Protestant reformers, the Latin Christians dogmatically ruled a number of issues that had previously been left to relative mystery—or were not as “officially” defined as at the Council of Trent and following.

In the rare cases where the Orthodox Church has responded to the arguments of the Reformers, the word transubstantiate is used to clarify the Orthodox position, in contradistinction from the positions of both Luther and Calvin (among others). However, this has never risen to the level of dogma, nor has it been ecumenically mandated. In other words, the Orthodox clergy were (wisely) using the words of their own day to differentiate themselves from the Protestants, while not necessarily painting themselves into a dogmatic corner. And it should be noted too that Scholasticism itself is not wholly foreign to Orthodoxy, nor is it exclusive of the West.

In the end, while I appreciate the aim of Dr. Dunn’s post, I think on this particular point he has overstated his case.

As Orthodox Christians, we must be careful to balance and nuance our claims, especially with regards to the Latins or “the West.” The last thing we want to do is oversimplify matters to the extent of seeming deceptive or—perhaps worse—misinformed. After all, this is typically what gets thrown our way from those unfamiliar with Orthodoxy (beyond literature), often justly putting us on the “defensive” (an important distinction from “triumphalism”) in response to such misrepresentations. That being said, I’m open to feedback if anyone (Roman or Orthodox) thinks I’ve misrepresented one side or the other in this article.

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/14/the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

A Saint (from the Latin sanctus) is one who is holy, that is, set apart for God’s service. It is a person who has cooperated with God’s grace to the extent that his or her holiness is beyond doubt.

Saints in the Bible

In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes. As such, all members of the Church are called saints, regardless of their personal holiness or sinlessness. It is still appropriate to use the term in this way.

Christ is shown enthroned in heaven surrounded by the ranks of angels and saints. Adam and Eve are on either side of the throne. At the top are Kings David (left) and Solomon (right). At the bottom is Paradise with the Bosom of Abraham (left), the Good Thief (center), and Israel (right).

Saints in the Church

Aside from the more general use of the word saint to refer to all members of the Church, Holy Tradition also ascribes Saint as a title to particular persons whose lives have shown most clearly what it means to follow Jesus Christ. These saints are popularly glorified (canonized) by the Church, often in the modern era with a formal service to recognize and affirm the veneration of them by the faithful.

Saints are not thought of as either perfect or infallible, and it is only because of the work of Christ in them that the Church praises these people. It is because we see our Lord’s countenance reflected most clearly in their faces that we publicly laud them, ask them to pray for us, and encourage one another to follow their examples.

Recognition of Saints

The people of the church do not create saints, they recognize as saints those whom God himself has glorified, seeing in their lives true love for God and their neighbors. From the beginning, the Church recognized the righteous ancestors of Christ, forefathers, as grace-filled men and women whose lives were pleasing to God. Also the prophets who predicted Christ’s coming and the apostles and evangelists who proclaimed the Gospel were assumed to be saints. Next the martyrs and confessors who risked their lives and shed their blood in witness to Christ were also recognized as saints. In time, ascetics who followed Christ through self denial, were numbered among the saints. Bishops and priests who fought against heresy and proclaimed the true faith are recognized by the Church as saints. Today, holy people, in all walks of life, can be recognized as saints. (—From OrthodoxWiki, Saints)

Prayer to the Saints

Prayer to the Saints is encouraged by the Orthodox Church, because physical death is not a defeat for a Christian. It is a glorious passage into heaven. The Christian does not cease to be a part of the Church at death, nor is he or she set aside, idle until the Day of Judgment.

The Church is composed of all who are in Christ—in heaven and on earth. It is not limited in membership to those presently alive. Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, worshiping God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. They actively pray to God for all those in the Church and perhaps, indeed, for the whole world. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us. (—From Antiochian.org, Prayer to the Saints)

The Virgin Mary

Mary is called Theotokos, meaning “God-bearer” or “the Mother of God,” because she bore the Son of God in her womb and from her He took His humanity. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, recognized this reality when she called Mary, “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). Mary said of herself, “All generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). So we, in our generation, call her blessed. Mary lived a chaste and holy life, and we honor her highly as the model of holiness, the first of the redeemed, the Mother of the new humanity in her Son. (—From Antiochian.org, Mary)

Source: http://stgeorgegr.com/orthodoxy/beliefs/saints/

An exhibition that takes place in the Museum of Icons is for people, no matter how they read the information – either with their eyes or with their hands. The exhibits are supposed to be touched. If fact, you NEED to touch them.

The aim of the exhibition is to tell people about the world of icon painting from the very beginning, which is making paints, till the finished image.

The visitors can see the mortars in which the icon painters pound the paints, the paint-brushes with which they paint, and the boards on which icons are painted.

- The exhibition includes also the materials from which icons are created – wood, ceramics, alabaster, smalt and metals. – says Ekaterina Vasina, the head of the public affairs office of the Museum of Icons.

- The tradition of the relief icons is rather ancient. – said Alexey Lidov, an art historian, the head of the Eastern Orthodox Culture research center, a member of the Russian Academy of Art. – During the period of the early Christianity, there were even the statues depicting Christ and the apostles. Later they were rejected because of the fear of being accused of idolatry.

The icons created with such a technique always existed in the Byzantine Empire. Concerning the material, some of them were made of wood, but more often, it was either marble or ivory. There was also a tradition of making icons of special wax pasta – a mastic which reminds clay or playdough, in which a small particle of relics was added. The material itself became sacred, and such an icon became a great sacred image.

From the viewpoint of our secular and sensuous sight, we need to become blind if we want to perceive an icon for real. At the same time, there is no need to do this for the blind. The only way for them to see an icon is to imagine it in their mind.

One of my acquaintances, an iconographer, was bothered when she heard about icons for the blind: “How can you touch a holy face! Isn’t this blasphemous?”

“No one, including the Patriarchy, had no doubts about that. Every person has his own way of perceiving the world and faith. If we forbid a person to touch the images, we can prevent him from understanding art, from knowing faith and God. I do not think this is right.” – said Ekaterina Vasina.

Moscow know-how

“We can say that the exhibition of the relief images for blind people, organized by the Museum of Icons, is a know-how. – says Alexey Lidov. – However, if we speak about demonstration of other types of works for the blind, then we can say that special exhibitions for them are organized in Europe since the 90s.

I have seen a beautiful exposition, which took place in the Royal museum in Brussel and I have noticed the influence it had on children. When I was there, a group of blind children came. They were given various original works of art, such as an ancient Egyptian statue, some works of ancient Greek plastic arts and so on. I remember the look of joy and some kind of revelation on their faces, which transfigured through that spiritual experience. They saw those works, but with a different sight.

I would say that the idea to share the art of icon painting with those who are blind deserves to be commended. An icon as a piece of art is connected with the definition of seeing. It is a mediator image, which joins two worlds together. This is why, it is not just sight, contemplation of a plain picture, what plays an important role in perceiving an icon, but some kind of communication with the image, which brings the one who looks at it into a different world. The moment of seeing which is available to the blind is quite strong in the art of icon painting.”

What next?

The organizers are currently working on the audio accompaniment of the exhibition. Not all blind people can read Braille. What is more, audio information can be useful for seeing visitors as well.

Another point of the plan is to widen the exposition so that there will be more exhibits which the visitors can touch. Next step – partially sighted children from special schools will come to the Museum of Icons and have lessons there: not only in the subjects, which are connected with religion and art, but in other subjects as well. Children will have an opportunity to learn more about icons and to ask the staff of the museum any questions, which they will answer with pleasure.

An excerpt Translation from: http://www.pravmir.ru/kak-delayut-ikony-dlya-slepyx-foto/

The first day of September is celebrated as the Ecclesiastical or Church New Year by Orthodox Christians. It is also a day marked by prayers for the environment, reminding us to be good stewards of the world around us.

So This is the New Year?

The old Roman term for this day is Indictio, meaning “definition” or “order.” This was a day established as the beginning of a fifteen year cycle, marking the redefinition of tax obligations for Roman citizens (especially since Roman soldiers served fifteen-year terms), likely from the time of Caesar Augustus.

One of the Emperor St. Justinian’s novellas (AD 537) decreed that all official documents of the Empire should include the indiction reference. When attempting to date manuscripts from this era, it can be helpful to know the year of the indiction (1–15), as exact dates or years are less commonly found. And when a date is found, it usually corresponds to Anno Mundi (Hebrew: לבריאת העולם) or “the year of the world” since the date of Creation.

Anno Mundi (AM) served as the beginning point for calendars until the modern era in many parts of the world, and is still a liturgical point of reference for both modern Judaism and Christians. (Jews also mark the New Year in September, but on a floating date.)

The date of the creation of the world—as discerned by a literal reading of the Patriarchal histories of the Greek Septuagint—was determined to be around 5500 BC on our modern calendar, with variations here and there. On the Julian calendar, the date of creation was said to be September 1, 5509 (BC), with the birth of Jesus Christ taking place in 5509 AM–that is, 5,509 years from the foundation of the world.

In 1597, Patriarch Theophanes I Karykes of Constantinople first utilized a date based on the Christian Era. Instead of marking dates based on the foundation of the world, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ became the crux of human history—and thus the distinction between BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini or “in the year of our Lord”).

This became official in Constantinople in 1728 and in Russia (by Peter the Great) in 1700, with the Julian calendar still serving as the underlying reckoning of days and months.

While the Anno Mundi calendar is no longer mainstream (or part of the civil calendars of predominately Orthodox nations), it still serves as the basis of our liturgical calendar.

Harvest, Thanksgiving, and Sowing

By marking the start of a new year in September, the Empire—and later, the Orthodox Church—was associating the new year with harvesting crops. As preparations for winter were being made, so too were preparations for the upcoming year.

For Christians, it was a time of thanksgiving, remembering the good weather and abundant rain the Lord provided for that year’s harvest—something we pray for at every Divine Liturgy.

This draws close parallels with the Feast of Trumpets for the pre-Incarnation people of God (Lev. 23:23–25):

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘The seventh month, on the first of the month, rest will be yours, a memorial of trumpets; it will be a holy assembly to you. You will not perform any servile work, and you will bring a whole burnt offering to the Lord.’”

As the Synaxarion notes, this was also the day Christ entered a synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah (cf. Luke 4:16–30).

By marking the new year at harvest time, we remind ourselves annually of our dependence on both hard work and the blessings of God. Going beyond material blessings and healthy crops, this applied (as do many of our hymns) to Imperial concerns, including prayers for protection from our enemies:

Creator of the universe, setting times and seasons by Your sole authority, bless the cycle of the year of Your grace, O Lord, guarding our rulers and Your nation in peace, at the intercession of the Theotokos, and save us.

— Apolytikion (Second Tone)

You who created all things in Your infinite wisdom, and set the times by Your own authority, grant Your Christian people victories. Blessing our comings and goings throughout this year, guide our works according to Your divine will.

— Kontakion (Fourth Tone)

And if one considers the increasing natural disasters, droughts, floods, wildfires (especially here in the Pacific Northwest), hurricanes, and famines, we should be all the more mindful in this modern era of technology and abundance to pray for such things—not less so.

We have not engineered our way out of dependence on God. If anything, the more our abilities increase, the more we have shown need for God’s favor and mercy.

Ecological Stewardship

And that leads to my final point: the Ecclesiastical New Year is now a day marked by prayers for the care of the environment.

Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople issued an encyclical on the environment in 1989, calling all Orthodox Christians to both pray for and protect the world around us. His encyclical also established September 1—the beginning of the new Church year—as “a day of prayer for the protection of the environment” for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, something adopted soon after by the rest of the canonical Orthodox churches. (The Vatican has recently followed suit.)

Since his elevation to Ecumenical Patriarch, an encyclical has been issued each year on September 1 by Patriarch Bartholomew on the environment. Bartholomew is affectionately known as “the Green Patriarch,” and he often speaks on an international stage regarding the protection of Creation.

And this all makes perfect sense.

The beginning of the New Year was for centuries a commemoration of the foundation of the world (Anno Mundi). It is a day for giving thanks to God for plentiful harvest. It is a day that recognizes God’s protection over and providence for the world, along with our responsibility and stewardship towards the same.

This all goes back naturally to the story of Creation itself, and a story where mankind—represented by Adam and Eve—is given the awesome responsibility of caring for every living creature. A restoration of peace between mankind and the created order lies at the heart of redemption and deification, and that is ultimately what the Ecclesiastical New Year is all about.

Conclusion

As I’ve mentioned in other articles, our Church Year begins and ends with the life of Mary. The Nativity of Mary is the first Great Feast of the year, while her Dormition or “falling asleep” is the last.

In this cycle we see the Incarnation of the God-Man Jesus Christ at the heart of our story as God’s people. And in between those two reference points we have this feast that could, at first glance, seem a peculiar or even irrelevant holdover from the Roman Empire.

Rather, the Ecclesiastical New Year serves as the crux for our entire liturgical life each and every year.

We say goodbye to the old and welcome the new. We give thanks for what the Lord has done, and petition his lovingkindness and protection for the days yet to come. We take a moment to consider our impact on the world around us, and whether our actions proceed from hearts of selfishness or hearts of compassion.

This is a feast day that points to the very core of Christ’s message of true, Christian spirituality: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Prayers for blessings seen and unseen, fasting for the sake of the world and our own mortification, and almsgiving for the care of others. Self-sacrifice and promise, beauty and self-restraint.

So pop open a bottle of champagne and bring your petitions to the Lord. It’s the start of a new year.