The Catalog of Good Deeds

A certain elder, who was asked by the brothers what condemnation is and what it means to speak ill of another, gave the following explanation:

"In the case of speaking ill of someone, one reveals the hidden faults of his brother. In the case of condemnation, one censures something obvious. On the one hand, if someone were to say, for example, that such-and-such a brother is well-intentioned and kind, but lacks discretion, this would be to speak ill of him. If, however one were to say that so-and-so is greedy and miserly, this is condemnation, for in this way he censures his neighbor's deeds. Condemnation is worse than speaking ill of another."

* * *

A young monk went to consult a certain spiritual elder.

"I fulfill all of my monastic duties," he told him, "and then some; nevertheless, my soul finds no peace. I receive no consolation from God."

"You live according to your own will - for this reason all of these things occur to you," the elder explained to him.

"What must I do, then, Abba, to be at peace?"

"Go find an elder having the fear of God in his soul. Surrender yourself to him in all that he wishes and let him guide you, as he sees fit, to the path of God. Then your soul will find consolation."

The youth listened to the elder's advice and his soul found peace.

* * *

A modern elder said: "Any man who thinks that he can solve his own problems is like a bird which intends to fly without wings."

* * *

An inexperienced monk consulted a certain insightful elder regarding what rule of fasting he should follow.

"Avoid excesses, my child," he advised him. "Many have tried to fast beyond their powers and did not endure for very long."

* * *

A young monk, going down from the skete to the city, passed by the but of Abba Ammoun and confessed to him: "My elder, Abba, is sending me to the city on an errand. I, however, who am a man of weakness, fear temptation."

"Be obedient," the holy man advised him, "and if temptation should arise before you, say these words: 'O God of powers, through the intercession of my spiritual Father, deliver me.'"

The brother took courage from the words of the Abba and went immediately about his duty. The devil, however, who had been biding his time to bring harm to the monk, sent a woman of evil ways hastily to entrap him in her evil den. In his despair, the monk suddenly remembered the advice of Abba Ammoun and shouted with faith: "O God of powers, through the intercession of my spiritual Father, deliver me."

He then found himself, without knowing how, on the road that led to the desert.

* * *

The following is an excerpt from a letter of Saint Basil the Great to a certain noble patrician:

"It is good and profitable to communicate everyday and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ, for He Himself tells us: 'Whoever eats my Body and drinks my Blood has eternal life!' Who, then, doubts that partaking continually of life means nothing other than having manifold life? We, here, have the custom of communicating four times a week; namely, Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or any other day on which the memory of a Saint falls."

"It is not wise," Abba Isaias the Anchorite writes, "for anyone to know how to converse masterfully. Wisdom is to know when to talk and what to say. Appear to be ignorant, in order to save yourselves many pains. He who thinks himself very learned has many fruitless worries. Do not boast of great learning, for the things which you do not know are more than those which you have learned."

* * *

A holy archbishop in our own times gave the following advice to a young monk regarding the monastic style he should follow:

"Seek humility at all costs. Those who have attained the highest degree of humility are the 'fools for Christ,' who, in order to hide their great spiritual gifts, let others believe that they are fools. But in these days, when arrogance is epidemic, there are many who, if they try this monastic path, will become proud in being fools. It is too easy for Satan to make their hidden motives public. And there is always the temptation for the fool to disclose his monastic style or podvig to a few, in order to release himself from this hard path. I would, therefore, advise anyone who wishes to undertake this path to do it in an even deeper way. Do foolish things, but be ever so obvious, so that others perceive that you are pretending foolishness. In this way you will be judged as spiritually naive and deluded. Everyone will curse you. And you will have succeeded in the very thing to which the 'fools' of times past aspired. At every moment you must know that the warfare of the devil against the monk is especially strong today."

* * *

"However much you may toil in scattering seed on the path that you walk on, not a green leaf will grow. As well, as much as you labor to cultivate a heart weighed-down with worldly cares, you toil in vain; it is impossible to foster virtues there. For this reason the Fathers chose to leave the world," a certain Abba says.

"When the Hebrews ceased being occupied with labors for the Egyptians, and lived in tents, they learned to worship God," said a wise Father. "And ships do business and make profits in the harbor, not on the open seas. It is the same with the soul; if it does not cease being occupied with worldly things and does not stay in a quiet place, it neither finds God nor acquires virtues."

* * *

"True escape from the world is for a person to know how to control his tongue, wherever he might be," Abba Tithoes said.

* * *

A young disciple, seeing his elder frequently withdraw deep into the desert, asked him with perplexity: "Why, Abba, do you avoid people? Is it not of greater value when, staying in the world and facing evil and sin, one abhors them?"

"Listen, my child," the kind elder explained to him: "Until one reaches the stature of Moses, becoming deified, he receives no profit from his relations with the world. I, the unfortunate offspring of Adam, suffer frequently that which my father suffered. The moment I behold the fruit of my disobedience, I desire it, I taste it, and I suffer. In the desert, one does not easily find material things to feed the passions and they are, therefore, more likely to die."

One of the Fathers at a certain skete had the gift of clairvoyance. When a gathering (monastic council) took place and the Fathers discussed spiritual matters, he would see angels around him, applauding them. When the discussion turned to worldly matters, the angels withdrew, saddened.

* * *

It was often said of Abba Or by his fellow ascetics that neither a falsehood nor an oath ever came out of his mouth. He never judged another man, nor was he at any time heard to speak, unless it was absolutely necessary.

To his young disciple he used to say: "Take great care, Paul, never to bring outside talk to this cell."

* * *

"With what difficulty I work to control my tongue," a young monk agitatedly said one day to Abba Nistheros.

"When you talk, do you find peace?"

"Never."

"Then why do you talk? Learn to be silent. When it is a matter of something of profit, it is better to listen to others than to speak," the wise elder advised him.

* * *

"He who has learned to be silent has found peace in all things." Abba Poimen likewise says.

* * *

"If you succeed in having God always before you eyes," another Father says, "whether you are lying down to sleep, or rising from your bed, or doing some kind of work, the devil will not dare to harm you. The grace of God will protect you, to the extent that your mind is united with Him."

"What wretches we are," laments one elder. "We are ashamed to commit some evil act before men, but we are not afraid or ashamed to act impiously and to sin before God, who knows all of the hidden things of our hearts."

* * *

A certain holy elder once saw the devil with his own eyes and he boldly asked him: "Why do you battle me with such persistence?"

"Because you resist me continuously with your humility," the devil answered, becoming invisible.

* * *

Just as Saint Makarios was returning to his cell one day, loaded down with palm leaves for his handicraft work, the devil stopped him, ready to assault him; but he could not. Some invincible force prevented him.

"You have tormented me a great deal, Makarios," the devil shouted at him fiercely. "I have battled you so many years and yet I cannot pull you down. But what more have you accomplished than I? Perhaps fasting? I, of course, do not eat. Vigils? I do not even need sleep. You have only one threat that frightens me."

"What is that?" the Saint asked with great interest.

"Humility," he unwillingly acknowledged, disappearing.

* * *

"Why does the devil battle monks so passionately?" the brothers asked a spiritual elder. "How does he have such effrontery?"

"If the monks knew immediately how to raise defensive weapons - humility, poverty, and patience - the devil would never dare to approach them," the elder replied.

* * *

In the last moments of his life, Abba Pambo said these words to the brothers, who surrounded him: "From the time that I became a monk, not even once did I not repent for the words that came out of my mouth. Nevertheless, now that I am going to my Lord, I realize that I have not even made a beginning."

* * *

"Why, Abba, do today's monks, though they toil, not receive the same gifts from God that the ancient Fathers received?" a certain brother asked an elder.

"In ancient times," the venerable elder replied, "there was love between the monks, and each one showed readiness to aid his brother in ascending to higher things. Now love has grown cold and one monk leads another to lower things, and for this reason God no longer grants spiritual gifts."

* * *

Abba John, who was the Abbot of a large monastery in Egypt, once went deep into the desert to meet Saint Paisios, the renowned ascetic, who had struggled alone there for a full forty years.

"What have you accomplished, living so far from people, Father?" Abba John asked him.

"From the time I came here, the sun has never seen me eat," replied the Saint.

"As for me, it has never seen me angry," the Abba said.

* * *

The Patriarch Theophilos of Alexandria once set out to go visit the ascetics at Nitria. On the road, he met an elderly ascetic.

"What have you gained, Abba, living in this solitude?" the Patriarch asked.

"I have come to know myself well," the elder answered, "and I have learned to reproach myself."

"It is impossible for a man to attain any greater profit than this in his life," the Patriarch acknowledged.

When he reached the skete, the Fathers came out to greet him, and each found some word to say to him. Only the holy Pambo stood out of the way, silent.

"Are you not going to say anything to the Patriarch for his benefit?" the elders asked.

"If he does not benefit from my silence, brothers, neither will he benefit from my words," answered the wise Father.

* * *

"Many people," a modern spiritual writer says, "have the virtue of humility in some circumstances. They then succumb to a supposed demand of their social stature or profession and, under the guise of 'social necessity' or 'professionalism,' become arrogant in other circumstances. This is much like mixing soil and water in a container. When the container is untouched and at rest, the soil will settle and the water will remain sweet. But if the container is agitated, then the water and the soil are mixed and become mud. The mud then dries, the water evaporates, and only soil is left. Thus only a person of true peace, incapable of agitation, can actually maintain humble virtue, meanwhile tolerating in himself any ostensibly worldly behavior."

* * *

Yet another spiritual man of our time has said: "When we look down upon any man, because of his color, nationality, or some other shallow thing, we destroy our own souls. Since we are one with all men in Christ, we condemn ourselves when we condemn others. And since the Holy Spirit dwells in all people, when we denigrate anyone for what he is, we blaspheme the Holy Spirit, which indwells him. It is wise for a man, therefore, to avoid anyone who speaks against others because of the color of their skin or because of any other external attribute which God has given them."

* * *

"My dog," Abba Isidoros once said, "is in a more advantageous position than I; for, he has love and he does not have to give a defense for his deeds."

* * *

"I, too, will go to the place to which the devil will be condemned," Abba Poimen said, humbling himself.

Another time he said: "Man needs humility and the fear of God as much as he needs the air which he breathes."

On another occasion, he said: "The most useful tools for the soul are humility, self-reprobation, and disdain for one's own will."

* * *

The devil appeared to a very humble monk as an angel of light and told him, in order to pull him down into arrogance: "I am Gabriel and I came to salute you, for you have many virtues and are worthy."

"Look, you must have made a mistake," the humble monk answered, without losing his composure. "I am still living in sin, and for this reason I am not worthy to see angels."

* * *

In modern times, a novice told his elder: "I am especially prepared for spiritual life, since my family has a history of mystical gifts."

The elder said, "Apparently the only thing that your family has inherited is the condemning pride of Adam. This is the legacy they have left you."

* * *

A certain Christian man went to consult Abba Silouan.

"I have a deadly enemy, Father," he confessed. "The evils which he has brought upon me are innumerable. A short time ago he gained a large piece of my land by deceit. He slanders me wherever he is and he speaks ill of both me and my family. He has made my life unbearable. Now, finally, he is even plotting to take my life. A few days ago, I learned that he attempted to poison me. But he is not getting away with anything else. I have decided to hand him over to the law."

"Do as you like," Abba Silouan told him with indifference.

"Do you not think, Father, that when he is punished, and especially severely, as he should be, his soul will be saved?" asked the man, who was now beginning to show concern for the welfare of his enemy's soul.

"Do whatever gives you peace," the Saint continued to say, with the same air.

"I am going straight to the judge, then," the Christian said, getting up to leave.

"Do not hurry off so," the Saint told him calmly. "Let us first pray for God to bring success on your action."

He began the "Our Father."

"And do not forgive us our trespasses, as we do not forgive those who trespass against us," he heard the Saint saying in a loud voice, as if making an error in this verse.

"You made an error, Abba. The Lord's Prayer is not said that way," the Christian hastened to correct him.

"Nevertheless, that is the way it is," the elder answered in all of his impassivity. "Inasmuch as you have decided to hand over your brother to the court, Silouan is offering no other prayer."

* * *

A young monk went to Abba Theodoros of Fermi, to tell him his troubles.

"In the world, Abba, I fasted a great deal, I held frequent vigils, I had tears and contrition in my prayers, and I had in my heart a great passion for every act pleasing to God. Here in the desert I have lost all of these things, and I fear that I will not save my soul."

"That which you did in the world, my son," the wise elder said to him, "was nothing more than a work of vanity, for human praise. God did not accept it. There in the world, the devil did not battle you, nor did he impede your eagerness, since it brought you no profit. Now, however, that you are more decisively enlisted in the army of our Christ, the devil, too, has armed himself against you. You must learn that one psalm said with humility here in the desert is more pleasing to the Lord than the thousands that you said there with vanity; moreover, He receives more gratefully the one day of fasting that you do here secretly than the many entire weeks of fasting that you did in front of others in the world."

"I do nothing now," insisted the youth. "I was better there."

"It is arrogance," Abba Theodoros sternly told him, "that you still think you were better in the world. The Pharisee in the parable of Jesus had the same opinion of himself, and he was censured. Say, my child, that you have never accomplished any good. It is in this way that the tax collector was justified. The sinner, with a broken heart and humble thoughts, is more pleasing to God than a proudly virtuous man."

The elder's lesson, replete with practical experience, brought the young monk to his senses.

As he was saying farewell and leaving, he told him, "Thanks to you, Abba, I have saved my soul."

* * *

A certain elder was asked when one attains humility. "When he remembers his sins continuously," he replied.

* * *

"As the ground on which we walk has no fear of falling," a certain elder said, "so is the humble man."

* * *

Abba Agathon was asked how one manifests sincere love towards his neighbor, and that blessed one, who had attained the queen of the virtues to a perfect degree, answered: "Love is for me to find a leper and gladly to give him my body, and, if possible, to take his."

* * *

"The ancient Fathers," a certain elder said, "when their spiritual work became known to others, saw this not as a virtue, but as a sin."

* * *

"If you are troubled by evil spirits," another Father advises, "reveal them in confession, so as to be released from them quickly. Just as a snake is destroyed as soon as it comes out of its burrow, so an evil thought comes to ruin as soon as it is openly expressed.

"A brother was tormented by carnal desire. For many years, he labored alone, but saw no profit to himself. Finally, in order to conquer his passion, he stood in the middle of the church one Sunday after Liturgy and said loudly, so that all the monks could hear: 'Pray for me, brothers, that God may have mercy on me, because for fourteen whole years I have warred against the flesh.'

"Saying these things, he felt immediately freed from the passion. What he could not do with years of toil and asceticism, confession accomplished in one moment."

* * *

One modern bishop is so accomplished in obedience that, before he celebrates the Divine Liturgy, he venerates the relics of his elder, contained in the cap of his episcopal walking stick, and asks his blessing to serve. His years of obedience to his spiritual father, who was a simple monk with no priestly orders, have never ceased, even with his elder's death.

* * *

Another holy bishop in our day confided to a monk that, when his spiritual children kiss his hand, he imagines himself under their feet.

* * *

A present-day monk, lamenting the spiritual poverty of the modern age, said that the greatest sin of all is that today we receive the words of the desert Fathers as beautiful rhetoric, yet never heed or live them.

Translated by the V. Rev. Chrysostomos

Source: https://www.goarch.org/-/the-ancient-fathers-of-the-desert-section-7

The Kiev Pechersk Lavra is a major Orthodox monastery located in Kiev, Ukraine, also referred to as the Monastery of the Kiev Caves. Founded in 1051 AD, during the times of Kievan Rus' (a medieval state in Europe, from the late 9th to the mid 13th century), the monastery has remained a major center of Orthodox Christianity in the Slavic world.

The monk Anthony is credited with founding the monastery when he settled in one of the caves that are now part of the Far Caves (also called the Caves of Theodosius). This occurred most probably in the year 1051, which is the traditional date for the foundation of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. As the community grew to twelve monks new caves were excavated. Among those who joined Anthony in the early years were Theodosius and Barlaam. In 1057, Anthony, who desired a life of seclusion, named Barlaam as the first abbot and withdrew from the community to new cave in a hill that today is part of the Near Caves (also called the Caves of Anthony).

During the early times when Theodosius was abbot (1062-1074), a wooden structure was built over the Far Caves and the monks, whose number was reaching one hundred, moved out of the caves. As the monastery grew the need for rules that would govern the life of the community was recognized. Theodosius decided to use the rules of the Studion Monastery in Constantinople.

The Monastery of the Kiev Caves was supported generously by the princes of Kiev, who donated not only money but land and buildings as well. Also, many of the educated men of the area became monks at the monastery as it became the largest religious and cultural center of Kievan Rus'. Of these monks twenty became bishops during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

In the mid 1070s the center of the monastery began to move to the area of the present Upper Lavra with the building of the Dormition Cathedral. In time the Near and Far Caves became places of seclusion and burial for the monks. In 1073, Anthony became the first burial in the Near Caves, followed in 1074 with the burial of Theodosius in the Far Caves.

During the ensuing years the monastery was raided several times. Significant raids happened in 1096, 1169 and 1203. In 1240, the invading hordes of the Tatars came through Kiev, destroying the city and the monastery. During the times of Tatar occupation the monks moved into the caves, to remain there for a long time. After each raid the churches and buildings would be replaced and the system of underground caves and catacombs would be expanded. In 1470 the monastery was rebuilt again by Prince Semen Olelkovich, but was once again destroyed by Tatars in 1482.

From these times until the end of the sixteenth century little documentation remains as historical materials were destroyed during each raid. Beginning in the sixteenth century, reports by travelers provide descriptions of the caves and the monastic life then practiced at the monastery. These reports noted the length of the underground caves and also noted that liturgy was celebrated in the two underground churches every Saturday. By the late sixteenth century the monastery had once again recovered. At this time it was granted self-control status by the Patriarch of Constantinople. This freed the monastery from the control of the government of Kiev. The monastery was also granted the status of a lavra.

Following the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596, those who supported the union and became Greek Catholics made an effort to gain control of the lavra, but the Orthodox prevailed and retained control.

A major fire in 1718 severely damaged the monastery and the main church, library and archives were destroyed. Restoration of this damage took ten years. In 1720, Peter I’s government prohibited printing of new books and imposed censorship on all publications from the monastery. This severely limited the monastery’s cultural influence.

By this time, the lavra was large and had acquired much wealth. The heart of the monastery remained the two underground labyrinths of tunnels, cells, and catacombs, from which the name of the monastery is derived and in which monks lived and were buried. But, the extent of the lavra grew beyond that. It owned three cities, seven towns, some 200 villages and hamlets, and about 70.000 serfs. This ended in 1786 when the Russian government secularized the property and made the lavra dependent upon the state.

At the same time the government changed the organization of the monastery by abolishing its custom of electing its own council. Thereafter the Metropolitan of Kiev appointed the council. The Metropolitan also became the abbot of the monastery with his residence within the monastery’s grounds. A trend toward Russification of the monastery began in the late eighteenth century and continued in time.

In the early twentieth century, before the Bolsheviks' assumption of power, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra was the residence of over one thousand monks. It was one of the most famous centers of religious life in the Orthodox world, visited each year by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims. The monastery was renowned for the relics of many saintly monks. This changed after the Soviets assumed control of the government in late 1917.

Changes by the Soviet authorities began in 1921. Initially, the authorities confiscated the relics and historical and artistic objects that belonged to the monastery. Buildings were converted to commercial and other uses. Many of the monastery's monuments were combined into a museum, the Lavra Museum of Religious Cults and Way of Life, which also contained collections from other museums in Kiev. After closing down the monastery completely in 1926, the Soviet government first turned the grounds into a museum preserve, the All-Ukrainian Museum Quarter, that consisted of a number of museums which emphasized anti-religious propaganda, and included archives, libraries, and workshops before closing the Quarter in 1934 and transferring the collections to new museums in Kiev. The Soviet authorities removed all the bells during the period 1931 to 1932.

During World War II the Soviet army mined the Dormition Cathedral before the advancing Nazi forces. The explosives were then detonated after the Nazi forces had occupied Kiev on November 3, 1941 severely damaging the cathedral. After the war the monastery grounds were restored and renamed the Kievan Cave Historical-Cultural Preserve, which housed a number of museums and institutions. Also, a functioning monastery of about one hundred monks was allowed to operate until 1961.

As the atheistic times began to wane in the 1980s, the Soviet government transferred in 1988 the area of the Lower Lavra, with the Far Caves, to the possession of the Ukrainian Church of Russia in commemoration of the one thousandth anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. With the return of the Lavra to the Church the monastic and spiritual life was slowly restored. During 1998 to 2000 the city of Kiev rebuilt the Dormition Cathedral and returned it to the Church. As new monks have joined elderly monks who have returned to the Lavra, the cycle of services has been re-established, building on the primary duty of the monk of never ceasing prayer.

Source: http://orthochristian.com/82144.html

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/

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Top 5 Blog Posts for the Week of September 11th, 2017

The Wisdom and Stories of the Ancient Desert Fathers

Video Monologue: The Meaning Of Prayer

The Legacy of Sts. Anthony and Theodoseus: the Kiev Caves Lavra

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church

Partners

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Top 5 Blog Posts for the Week of September 11th, 2017

The Wisdom and Stories of the Ancient Desert Fathers

Video Monologue: The Meaning Of Prayer

The Legacy of Sts. Anthony and Theodoseus: the Kiev Caves Lavra

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church

About Our Blog

Most Popular Posts

Partners