Comments on: Quote of the Week: Bulgakov on the Eucharist

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:57:32 +0000

I agree very strongly that Thomas is not the problem, but the pop understanding of transubstantiation that is credited to him. McCabe does a good job of getting underneath that stuff.

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:41:56 +0000

Yes, I will grant Bulgakov isn’t necessarily being generous with his interpretation of Thomas (as is clear in the essay), but I think a part of it has to do with how Thomas was to be interpreted in the last few centuries (causing the problems you have to deal with yourself). But I also think he helps show what an Orthodox view of the eucharist entails, showing why one doesn’t have to use Western traditions to promote the eucharist (though transubstantiation, if understood properly, is a good way of discussing the real presence).

Beyond that, I know I have been getting more and more people to study Bulgakov through the years. His work is indeed a part of the future of Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant dialogues, imo.

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:35:26 +0000

Thanks Henry.
This is a nice piece. I must read my Bulgakov sooner rather than later. A close collaborator of mine does Bulgakov and Eucharist.
This has interesting links with the Herbert McCabe article I linked to below the Frank Sheed quote. I get the sense that McCabe would do a good job of reconciling Thomas and Bulgakov or, perhaps, of helping Bulgakov read Thomas more generously.

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:02:15 +0000

This post is inspired by Brett’s gracious efforts to discuss the eucharist.