Eucharistic Presence – an Eastern perspective

 

By Velopilger - Own work, Public Domain

In yesterday’s blog I wrote about areas of agreement between Roman Catholics and Anglicans regarding the Eucharist, and in particular the mystery of Christ’s real presence in the consecrated bread and wine. It should be noted, of course, that Anglicans represent only one strand of Christianity that emerged from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Moreover, there are arguably as many theologies of the Eucharist among Anglicans as there are among Christians across all denominations.

It may therefore be helpful to step aside for a moment from debates among ‘Western’ Christians (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Reformed or Protestant) and to offer a short reflection on how the Eucharist is understood in the East, among Orthodox Christians of the Russian, Greek, Coptic, and other autocephalous Churches in communion with them. In using the term Orthodox Catholic, I refer to Christians within these Eastern Churches and do not intend to suggest that others are not ‘orthodox’ in their faith. I am not including Eastern Catholics following Byzantine rites and in full communion with Rome.

I attach particular importance to this perspective for two main reasons.

1. First, the validity of the Eucharistic celebration in the Orthodox Churches has never been in question from the Roman Catholic point of view. This is no a point of contention, even though issues of authority were – and remain – significant.
2. Second, doctrinal development and liturgical practice in the East have generally evolved very slowly. As a result, what we encounter today in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is likely to be substantially continuous with what prevailed in the first millennium of the Church. I recognise that this may sound like a sweeping generalisation. I write not as an expert, but as a seeker after truth, relying on what I have read and learned over time.

What has consistently struck me is that Orthodox explanations of the Eucharist clearly affirm that the change which occurs in the consecrated (or “eucharistised”) bread and wine is real, not merely symbolic or figurative. Christ is said to be really, truly, and objectively present, and this mystery is accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

For example, Article 27 of the Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus (A.D. 1672) expresses this teaching as follows:

The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very Body and Blood of Christ are truly and really present under the figure and type of bread and wine. They are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real, though unbloody, sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead, and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects.

The document rejects the Lutheran position and affirms – in language as strong as possible - the Catholic doctrine traditionally known in the West as transubstantiation, while declining to explain the mode by which this mysterious and miraculous change takes place. In particular, it does not accept the imposition of a specific metaphysical or philosophy-based system as necessary for faith.

The term metousiosis is often used in Orthodox theology, though not universally. Orthodox Churches are generally cautious about explanatory models and are content to affirm that the change occurs without specifying how it occurs. While the Synod of Jerusalem addressed this matter for the Eastern Churches represented there, the Western Church defined the same mystery earlier: first at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), and later at the Council of Trent (1562), using the terminology and conceptual framework of transubstantiation.

In other words – and here careful language is essential – the debate concerning the real presence needs to distinguish between:

• the affirmation of a real change, accepted by most catholic Christians (with a small c), and
• particular theological or philosophical systems used to articulate that change, which may be helpful in some contexts but may also present unnecessary obstacles to fuller communion.

I say this not to reject or side-line the doctrine of transubstantiation, but rather to create space in which Christians may continue to grow in wisdom, knowledge, and love of God, while seeking an ever deeper communion – ultimately including sacramental communion – with one another.