The Holy Eucharist

[Linus7]

It is not my purpose to stir controversy with this poll.

I am just curious.

Frankly, I was surprised by the amount of debate on the recent Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation thread.

This poll purposely avoids the use of those terms.

I would just like to see what the folks who frequent this web site think.

If you need to clarify something with regard to what you believe, please do so with a post.

[Doubting Thomas]

I think my viewpoint would fall somewhere between choices one and two, perhaps somewhat closer to the second (depending on what you mean by "unchange"):

(1)The bread and wine are literally and completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Only the appearance, taste, smell, feel, etc. of bread and wine remain.
(2) The Body and Blood of Christ are present, but the bread and wine remain unchanged.

I believe that on one LEVEL, the level of physical sense-perception, the objects remain bread and wine.  However, on the HIGHER  LEVEL, the mystical level, the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ.  The bread and wine are no longer common but transformed.

I feel that neither term--transubstantiation nor consubstantiation--adequately describe my view, but I could be wrong.

[Linus7]

I think my viewpoint would fall somewhere between choices one and two, perhaps somewhat closer to the second (depending on what you mean by "unchange"):

(1)The bread and wine are literally and completely transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Only the appearance, taste, smell, feel, etc. of bread and wine remain.
(2) The Body and Blood of Christ are present, but the bread and wine remain unchanged.

I believe that on one LEVEL, the level of physical sense-perception, the objects remain bread and wine.  However, on the HIGHER  LEVEL, the mystical level, the elements are the Body and Blood of Christ.  The bread and wine are no longer common but transformed.

That sounds like Option #1 to me.

Of course the Eucharist is perceived by the senses as bread and wine.

The question is: What is the reality?

Is the Eucharist really the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Body and Blood of Christ + something less?

Sorry for appearing to debate. I don't mean to turn this thread into The Other Thread Part II.

[Doubting Thomas]

That sounds like Option #1 to me.

Of course the Eucharist is perceived by the senses as bread and wine.

The question is: What is the reality?

Is the Eucharist really the Body and Blood of Christ, or the Body and Blood of Christ + something less?

Again, I think it depends on which level of reality one is describing.  However, the higher, mystical level of reality would be the ultimate reality, if that makes sense.  I don't think its the "Body/Blood plus something else" as the two refer to different levels of reality.

Sorry for appearing to debate. I don't mean to turn this thread into The Other Thread Part II.

Nothing to be sorry about.  
When one speaks of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, it's not surprising people have difficulty describing such a supernatural event.  I think terms like "tran-" and "con-" needlessly complicate the issue.  I'm content to leave it as a mystery.

[Saint Polycarp]

It is not my purpose to stir controversy with this poll.

I am just curious.

Frankly, I was surprised by the amount of debate on the recent Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation thread.

This poll purposely avoids the use of those terms.

I would just like to see what the folks who frequent this web site think.

If you need to clarify something with regard to what you believe, please do so with a post.

Number one, Linus. Never read any orthodox church  documents or ECF which would agree with any of the other choices till after the 16th century.  
Peace,
Polycarp

[Doubting Thomas]

Number one, Linus. Never read any orthodox church  documents or ECF which would agree with any of the other choices till after the 16th century.  
Peace,
Polycarp

Why?

[Br. Max, OFC]

Of course I chose #1 - of course I'd allow personally for any but the 3rd choice to be a valid understanding of the Real Presence - NOT THE BEST understanding, but passable

[The young fogey]

That so far everybody but one has answered with No. 1 (I did) shows me that the Eastern Orthodox belief about the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic Church's.

of course I'd allow personally for any but the 3rd choice to be a valid understanding of the Real Presence - NOT THE BEST understanding, but passable

Non-negotiable. No. 1 is the right answer.

[Br. Max, OFC]

serge: the Real Presence is the right answer Transubstantiation is the best explanation and understanding, but since the church fathers did not feel it was important to understand HOW the Lord is real in the Eucharist, I'm willing to allow for many HOWS as long as the Real Presence is confessed.

[Keble]

That so far everybody but one has answered with No. 1 (I did) shows me that the Eastern Orthodox belief about the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic Church's.

Maybe what it means is that the decks are heavily stacked with a lot of current or ex- Catholics.

[Αριστοκλής]

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

[The young fogey]

Maybe what it means is that the decks are heavily stacked with a lot of current or ex-Catholics.

-£-+-¦-¦-é -¦-ï-é-î - you may be right! There's not enough evidence to prove that, though, unless some knowledgeable born Orthodox answer the survey and reveal their views on this thread.

But it's still clear that Orthodoxy teaches Answer No. 1.

The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine.

An astounding teaching: that the Eastern Orthodox are proto-Lutherans! No. If that were true, the Catholic Church would allow their people to have limited intercommunion with them. They'd be Protestants.

[Αριστοκλής]

The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine.

An astounding teaching: that the Eastern Orthodox are proto-Lutherans! No. If that were true, the Catholic Church would allow their people to have limited intercommunion with them. They'd be Protestants.

No, it's the other way around. They're proto-Orthodox. I don't care what the"Catholics" do  or allow.

Demetri

[Fr. Anastasios]

I posted this once before when we discussed this.  It is from Byzantine Theology by Fr John Meyendorff.

16. The Eucharist

FORMAL CONSERVATISM was one of the predominant features of Byzantine civilization, affecting both the secular and the sacred aspects of life, and the forms of the liturgy in particular. But if the avowed intention was to preserve things as they were, if the basic structures of the Eucharistic liturgy have not been modified since the early centuries of Christianity and even today retain the forms which they acquired in the ninth century, the interpretation of words and gestures was subject to substantial change and evolution. Thus, Byzantine ritual conservatism was instrumental in preserving the original Christian lex orandi, otherwise often reinterpreted in the context of a Platonizing or moralizing symbolism, though it also allowed in due time—especially with Nicholas Cabasilas and the Hesychast theologians of the fourteenth century—a strong reaffirmation of the original sacramental realism in liturgical theology.

1. SYMBOLS, IMAGES, AND REALITY

Early Christianity and the patristic tradition understood the Eucharist as a mystery of true and real communion with Christ. Speaking of the Eucharist, Chrysostom insists that "Christ even now is present, even now operates";1 and Gregory of Nyssa, in spite of the Platonizing tendencies of his thought, otherwise stands for the same view of the Eucharist as a mystery of real "participation" in the glorified Body of Christ, the seed of immortality.

By dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose existence comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He "trans-elements" [metastoicheiosisJ the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.2

Participation in these sources of immortality and unity is a constant concern for every Christian:

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day [Basil writes,] and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" [In 6:55]. And who doubts that to share frequently in life is the same thing as to have manifold life? I indeed communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.3

This realistic and existential theology of the Eucharist was, as we have seen,4 challenged by pastoral needs in the post-Constantinian Church: large congregations in large churches caused a lessening of participation by the laity.

It may be argued that the pastoral considerations which prompted this evolution were at least partially justified; the eschatological meaning of the Eucharist implied a withdrawal from the "world," a "closed" community of committed participants. Now that in the empire of Constantine and Justinian, the Church and the world had become indistinguishable as a single society, the Eucharist had to be protected from the "crowd," which had ceased to be the "people of God." More questionable, however, was the theological rationalization of this new situation, which was endorsed by some commentators on the liturgy who began to explain the Eucharist as a system of symbols to be "contemplated"; sacramental participation was thus gradually replaced with intellectual vision. Needless to say, this new attitude was perfectly suited to the Origenistic and Evagrian understanding of religion as an ascent of the mind to God, of which liturgical action was a symbol.

Most influential in promoting this symbolic understanding of the Eucharist were the writings of pseudo-Dionysius. Reducing the Eucharistic synaxis to a moral appeal, the Areopagite calls his readers to a "higher" contemplation:

Let us leave to the imperfect these signs which, as I said, are magnificently painted in the vestibules of the sanctuaries; they will be sufficient to feed their contemplation. As far as we are concerned: let us turn back, in considering the holy synaxis, from the effects to their causes, and, thanks to the lights which Jesus will give us, we shall be able to contemplate harmoniously the intelligible realities in which are clearly reflected the blessed goodness of the models.5

Thus, the Eucharist is only the visible "effect" of an invisible "model"; and the celebrant "by offering Jesus Christ to our eyes, shows us in a tangible way and, as in an image, our intelligible life." 6 Thus, for Dionysius, "the loftiest sense of the Eucharistic rites and of sacramental communion itself is in symbolizing the union of our minds with God and with Christ. . . . Dionysius never formally presents Eucharistic communion as a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ." 7

Dionysius' symbolism only superficially affected the Eucharistic rites themselves, but it became quite popular among commentators on the liturgy. Thus, the great Maximus the Confessor, whose use of the concept of "symbol" is probably more realistic than Dionysius', nevertheless systematically applies the terms "symbol" or "image" to the Eucharistic liturgy in general and to the elements of bread and wine in particular.8

In the eighth century, this symbolism led to a serious theological debate concerning the Eucharist-the only one Byzantium ever knew. The iconoclastic council of 754, in condemning the use of religious images, proclaimed that the only admissible "image" of Christ is the one established by Christ Himself, the Eucharistic Body and Blood.9 This radical and clear contention, based upon a long-standing tradition, was a real challenge to the Orthodox party; the ambiguity of the Areopagite was evidenced once more, and a clarification of symbolism made necessary.

Thus, the defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it. For Theodore, the Eucharist is not "type," but the very "truth"; it is the "mystery which recapitulates the whole of the [divine] dispensation." 10 According to Nicephorus, it is the "flesh of God," "one and the same thing" with the Body and Blood of Christ,11 who came to save the very reality of human flesh by becoming and remaining "flesh," even after His glorification; thus, in the Eucharist, "what is the matter of the sacrament, if the flesh is not real, so that we see it being perfected by the Spirit?" 12

As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine "Eucharistic realism," clearly departing from Dionysian terminology; was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines; in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the "essence of God," 13 but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink. In his treatise Against Eusebius and Epiphanius, Patriarch Nicephorus is particularly emphatic in condemning the Origenist idea that in the Eucharist man contemplates or participates in the "essence" of God.14 For him, as also for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine "energies." Characteristically, one never finds the category of "essence" (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like "transubstantiation" (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as "trans-elementation" (metastoicheiosis) or "re-ordination" (metarrhythmisis). Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the Latinophrones of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios;15 but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be "contemplated" from outside nor an "essence" distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, "made known through the breaking of bread" (Lk 24:35); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as that of the glorified humanity of Christ.

The rejection of the concept of the Eucharist as "image" or "symbol" is, on the other hand, very significant for the understanding of the entire Eucharistic "perception" of the Byzantines; the Eucharist for them always remained fundamentally a mystery to be received as food and drink, and not to be "seen" through physical eyes. The elements remain covered, except during the prayers of consecration and during communion; and, in contrast with Western medieval piety, were never "venerated" outside the framework of the Eucharistic liturgy itself. The Eucharist cannot reveal anything to the sense of vision; it is only the bread of heaven. Vision is offered another channel of revelation-the icons: hence, the revelatory program of the Byzantine iconostasis, with the figures of Christ and the saints exposed precisely in order to be seen and venerated. "Christ is not shown in the Holy Gifts," writes Leonid Ouspensky; "He is given. He is shown in the icons. The visible side of the reality of the Eucharist is an image which can never be replaced either by imagination or by looking at the Holy Gifts." 16

As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine Eucharistic theology retained and re-emphasized the mystery and hiddenness of this central liturgical action of the Church. But it also reaffirmed that the Eucharist was essentially a meal which could be partaken of only through eating and drinking, because God had assumed the fullness of our humanity, with all its psychic and physical functions, in order to lead it to resurrection.

Byzantine theologians had an opportunity to make the same point in connection with their anti-Latin polemics against the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The discussion on the azymes, which started in the eleventh century, was generally entangled in arguments of purely symbolic nature (the Greeks maintained, for example, that the Eucharistic bread had to be leavened in. order to symbolize the animated humanity of Christ, while the Latin use of azymes implied ApolIinarianism, i.e., the denial that Jesus had a human soul), but the controversy also recognized that the Byzantines understood the Eucharistic bread to be necessarily consubstantial with humanity, while Latin medieval piety emphasized its "supersubstantiality," its otherworldliness. The use of ordinary bread, identical with the bread used as everyday food, was the sign of true Incarnation: "What is the daily bread [of the Lord's prayer ]," asks Nicetas Stethatos, "if it is not consubstantial with us? And the bread consubstantial with us is none other than the Body of Christ, who became consubstantial with us through the flesh of His humanity." 17

The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance—the Body of Christ—but viewed this bread as the "type" of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ.18 For this reason, Eucharistic theology played such a prominent role in the theological debates of the fourteenth century, when the basic issue was a confrontation between an autonomous concept of man and the Hesychast defense of "deification." The great Nicholas Cabasilas, though still bound to the old Dionysian symbolism, overcomes the dangers of Nominalism; clearly, for him as also for Gregory Palamas, the Eucharist is the mystery which not only "represents" the life of Christ and offers it to our "contemplation"; it is the moment and the place, in which Christ's deified humanity becomes ours.

He not merely clothed Himself in a body. He also took a soul and mind and will and everything human, so that He might be able to be united to the whole of us, penetrate through the whole of us, and resolve us into Himself, having in every respect joined His own to that which is ours. . . . For since it was not possible for us to ascend and participate in that which is His, He comes down to us and participates in that which is ours. And so precisely does He conform to the things which He assumed that, in giving those things to us which He has received from us, He gives Himself to us. Partaking of the body and blood of His humanity, we receive God Himself in our souls-the Body and Blood of God, and the soul, mind, and will of God-no less than His humanity.19

The last word on the Eucharist, in Byzantine theology, is thus an anthropological and soteriological understanding of the mystery. "In approaching the Eucharist, the Byzantines began not with bread qua bread, but with bread qua man." 20 Bread and wine are offered only because the Logos has assumed humanity, and they are being changed and deified by the operation of the Spirit because Christ's humanity has been transformed into glory through the cross and Resurrection. This is the thought of Cabasilas, as just quoted, and the meaning of the canon of John Chrysostom: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts, and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ, so that, for those who partake, they may be a purification of soul, a remission of sins, the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Kingdom of heavenGǪ"

The sacrament of new humanity par excellence, the Eucharist, for Cabasilas "alone of the mysteries perfects the other sacramentsGǪ, since they cannot fulfill the initiation without it." 21 Christians partake of it "continually," for "it is the perfect sacrament for all purposes, and there is nothing of which those who partake thereof stand in need which it does not supply in an eminent way." 22 The Eucharist is also "the much praised marriage according to which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as a bride";23 that is, the Eucharist is the very sacrament which truly transforms a human community into "the Church of God," and is, therefore, as we will see later, the ultimate criterion and basis of ecclesial structure.

[TomS]

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

I agree 100% with Demetri, so I answered #2. 'Cause if you put the bread and wine under a microscope, it still IS bread and wine, but combined with the faith it becomes the Body and Blood in the other dimension.

FYI - It's a mystery and that's all there is to it! Why the need to try to label it?

[Linus7]

I don't see how what Meyendorff said squares with the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and the subsequent Council of Constantinople in 1727.

What some of the Fathers wrote about the Eucharist is a bit ambiguous - probably because they had never encountered anyone who denied that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ - but what was written by other Fathers is clear on the subject and leaves no room for "consubstantiation."

It seems to me that our Lord's words - "This is My Body; this is My Blood" - make possible only two reasonable alternatives:

1) The Eucharist actually and literally becomes the Body and Blood of Christ and nothing less; or

2) The expression was a metaphor and the eucharistic bread and wine are symbols of Christ's Body and Blood.

Our Lord did not say, "This contains My Body; this contains My Blood."

He said is.

Either the Eucharist is in reality, or it is as a metaphor. The use of is eliminates the compromise of consubstantiation.

If you ask for cheese and I give you a 12" submarine sandwich, you would be right to say, "But I asked you for cheese!"

Would it be reasonable for me to answer, "This is cheese,"  based upon the fact that there is a slice of provolone in the sandwich somewhere?

No; it is a submarine sandwich that contains a slice of cheese.

Likewise, the Eucharist either is the Body and Blood of Christ literally and truly or as metaphor, or it merely contains the Body and Blood of Christ.

The last choice is eliminated by our Lord's own language.

[Jakub]

I screwed up my vote, but being 50% Polish is excuse enough, although I can throw in over 50 and under the influence of Night Quil.

It should have been 1 but hit 2.

hey bartender, pour me another!

james

[Linus7]

I screwed up my vote, but being 50% Polish is excuse enough, although I can throw in over 50 and under the influence of Night Quil.

It should have been 1 but hit 2.

hey bartender, pour me another!

james

Perhaps if you pm a moderator you can correct the error.

[Doubting Thomas]

The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Yeah...what he said.  
(Which is also basically what I said--which was very "un-Baptist" of me  )

[TomS]

which was very "un-Baptist" of me  )

It's cool DT -> I was Baptist before Orthodox....."I got better!"

[Ben]

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!

[Br. Max, OFC]

I was Baptist before Orthodox....."I got better!"

ROTFL

snort!

[Linus7]

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!

I agree, Ben (not about wondering if the Orthodox Church is the true Church; I mean the rest).

The statement, "The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine, " is thoroughly and unmistakably Lutheran.

I too am amazed.

Is it Orthodox to believe the Holy Eucharist is Christ and NOT CHRIST all at the same time?

Could a priest elevate it and, speaking truly (having the bread and wine in mind), say, "This is NOT the Body and Blood of Christ" ?

It is and is not?

That's the "mystery"?

[TomS]

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!

Ya see, here is the confusing part -- my Priest has said during his sermon "put the Eucharist under a microscope and it IS bread and wine. The FAITH makes it the true Body and Blood"

How is this statement un-Orthodox?

[Linus7]

I must refuse to participate in this poll because none of the offered answers is completely Orthodox:
The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine. How is this possible? It's a Holy Mystery...a Sacrament.

Demetri

"The Holy Eucharist is BOTH the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior AND bread and wine."

^^That is not a mystery, that is a heretical un-Orthodox protestant belief. The mystery is that the bread and wine, while remaining bread and wine only in taste, shape, color, etc. becomes the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. So many Orthodox Christians seem to not believe this that I am starting to wonder if Orthodoxy is the true Chruch or not, this is very disturbing! Lord have mercy!

Ya see, here is the confusing part -- my Priest has said during his sermon "put the Eucharist under a microscope and it IS bread and wine. The FAITH makes it the true Body and Blood"

How is this statement un-Orthodox?

It is not unorthodox because he has not denied that it truly becomes the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course it looks, tastes, smells, feels, etc. like bread and wine . . . even under a microscope.

But it is NOT bread and wine. It is the Body and Blood of Christ.

I know I have posted this before, but the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem are worth repeating in this connection:

"What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p. 61).

The Holy Eucharist can be nothing less than the Body and Blood of Christ.

Otherwise it is some sort of combination of Christ and Not Christ.

[TomS]

"What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p. 61).

May the Lord be praised for ever and ever!

[Ben]

Yes may he be praised! May his sacred mysteries be praised forever and ever!

[Linus7]

"What seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste; but the Body of Christ. What seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so; but the Blood of Christ" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted in Mike Aquilina's The Way of the Fathers, p. 61).

May the Lord be praised for ever and ever!

Amen!

I once read a story from the life of St. John Maximovitch and I wish I had it handy. Anyway, St. John attempted to give a man dying of tuberculosis (highly contagious) the Eucharist. The man was unable to receive it and coughed it up. St. John picked up what the sick man had coughed up and consumed it despite the protests of the others present there.

He told them that the Body and Blood of our Lord could never harm him.

Not only did St. John not contract TB, the terminally sick man was completely healed.

[Br. Max, OFC]

Athanasius,

   "You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wondrous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442)

Augustine (AD 354-430)
   "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

Clement of Alexandria
   "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS
   "We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: 'This is really Me.' And He gave to His disciples and said: 'This is really Me.' And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, 'This is really Me.'; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior." -"The Man Well-Anchored" [57] 374 A.D.

Irenaeus of Lyons -
   If the Lord were from other than the Father [and thus capable of performing miracles], how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus (AD 120-202)
   "For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity" (Against Heresies, Book 4, Ch XVIII)

Theodore of Mopsuestia
   "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

[Saint Polycarp]

Did Jesus not say it is his body and his blood? What EFC's teach that it is still bread and wine after consecration? What CHurch council says there is still bread and wine?
Peace,
Polycarp

[Αριστοκλής]

Ya see, here is the confusing part -- my Priest has said during his sermon "put the Eucharist under a microscope and it IS bread and wine. The FAITH makes it the true Body and Blood"

How is this statement un-Orthodox?

It is not unorthodox because he has not denied that it truly becomes the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course it looks, tastes, smells, feels, etc. like bread and wine . . . even under a microscope.

But it is NOT bread and wine. It is the Body and Blood of Christ.
...

Amazingly, through all the noise someone's figured it out!
I don't think many here have any issues with Christ being BOTH FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. But applying the same seeming contradiction to, well, Christ, once again,  in the Eucharist provokes howls of protest.
I do not deny that 'it' becomes "the literal Body and Blood of Christ." Nor do I speculate how it seems, sensually,  to be bread and wine. (This usually, as I know personally some who have partaken of the Holy Cup and found something else- actual flesh, blood- in their mouth to their eternal surprise).
'Tis still a mystery! A thing not understood or perhaps not meant for our understanding. Seems some more study of "mystery" in the Orthodox Church is in order here.
Or, perhaps I split hairs too finely, but that is what the poll seemed to do.
Good dialogue, through!

Demetri

[Linus7]

Ya see, here is the confusing part -- my Priest has said during his sermon "put the Eucharist under a microscope and it IS bread and wine. The FAITH makes it the true Body and Blood"

How is this statement un-Orthodox?

It is not unorthodox because he has not denied that it truly becomes the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course it looks, tastes, smells, feels, etc. like bread and wine . . . even under a microscope.

But it is NOT bread and wine. It is the Body and Blood of Christ.
...

Amazingly, through all the noise someone's figured it out!
I don't think many here have any issues with Christ being BOTH FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. But applying the same seeming contradiction to, well, Christ, once again,  in the Eucharist provokes howls of protest.
I do not deny that 'it' becomes "the literal Body and Blood of Christ." Nor do I speculate how it seems, sensually,  to be bread and wine. (This usually, as I know personally some who have partaken of the Holy Cup and found something else- actual flesh, blood- in their mouth to their eternal surprise).
'Tis still a mystery! A thing not understood or perhaps not meant for our understanding. Seems some more study of "mystery" in the Orthodox Church is in order here.
Or, perhaps I split hairs too finely, but that is what the poll seemed to do.
Good dialogue, through!

Demetri

Of course Christ is fully God and fully Man. What He is not, however, is part Christ and part Not Christ. I see the Eucharist the same way. It is the Body and Blood of Christ, not part Christ and part Not Christ.

I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding involved here.

I don't think my poll split hairs too finely. It set up the major viewpoints on the meaning of the Eucharist and asked everyone to choose among them.

The mystery in part is how the Eucharist can seem to be bread and wine and yet be the Body and Blood of Christ. We do not know how, except to say the Holy Spirit performs a miracle.

The mystery is not that the Eucharist is Christ and NOT CHRIST both at the same time.

I do not want to give offense to anyone, but I think this is an important topic to discuss.

I also do not think the word mystery should be used as a pretext to allow the infiltration of erroneous Protestant eucharistic doctrines into the life of the Church (I am NOT saying you are doing that, +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é) - "It's a 'mystery'; we can't talk about it! Let everyone think what he or she will!"

[Ben]

I think the important thing here, from my outlook, is what does the Orthodox Church teach?

I am learning about Orthodoxy and opinions of Orthodox individuals means very little, I want to know the ORTHODOX teaching.....can anyone give me that? please?

[Linus7]

I think the important thing here, from my outlook, is what does the Orthodox Church teach?

I am learning about Orthodoxy and opinions of Orthodox individuals means very little, I want to know the ORTHODOX teaching.....can anyone give me that? please?

Well, I think the Council of Constantinople (1727) is pretty representative.

From the Orthodox Council of Constantinople (1727): "Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is bloodlessly sacrificed. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in one kind only, the whole and complete Christ is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Underlining mine for emphasis).

[Αριστοκλής]

Linus7 :
Of course Christ is fully God and fully Man. What He is not, however, is part Christ and part Not Christ. I see the Eucharist the same way. It is the Body and Blood of Christ, not part Christ and part Not Christ.

Absolute agreement! "Fully" means "Fully"!

I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding involved here.

I don't think my poll split hairs too finely. It set up the major viewpoints on the meaning of the Eucharist and asked everyone to choose among them.

The mystery in part is how the Eucharist can seem to be bread and wine and yet be the Body and Blood of Christ. We do not know how, except to say the Holy Spirit performs a miracle.

Again, I absolutely agree

The mystery is not that the Eucharist is Christ and NOT CHRIST both at the same time.

I'll have to give THAT more thought. Seems un-Orthodox to pose the question, even.

I do not want to give offense to anyone, but I think this is an important topic to discuss.

No offense taken. And discussion is probably good because quick, one sentence easy answers can and do lead to misconceptions, as I can see in the above postings.

Demetri

[Linus7]

Linus7: The mystery is not that the Eucharist is Christ and NOT CHRIST both at the same time.

+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é: I'll have to give THAT more thought. Seems un-Orthodox to pose the question, even.

I didn't think I was posing a question. I was making a statement about the belief that the bread and wine of the Eucharist remain bread and wine even after their consecration.

If they remain bread and wine, then the Eucharist is part Christ and part NOT CHRIST, which is to me a thing unthinkable.

If it is true, then the priest could elevate the chalice and (referring to the unchanged bread and wine) proclaim, "This is NOT the Body and Blood of Christ!"

How can the Eucharist be and yet not be the Body and Blood of Christ?

That it is not "mystery." It is simply wrong.

[Αριστοκλής]

To Linus7:
<SIGH....> I give up. Apparently theology and metaphysics do not mix well.

How can the Eucharist be and yet not be the Body and Blood of Christ?

Good question---if a non-believer, one who denys Christ, by some mistake, oversight, or subterfuge, approaches and partakes of the Cup, what did he receive? The Precious Gifts or just bread and wine?

To Ben:
You deserve an answer...pick Number 1.


Demetri

[prodromos]

I guess I fall into the same category as +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é. Why cannot it be fully bread and wine and fully Christ at the same time in the same way that Christ is fully man and fully God?

This is not, to the best of my knowledge, the Lutheran view, which if I understand correctly states that the bread is bread and Christ is Christ but the bread is not Christ and Christ is not the bread, they simply coexist in the Eucharist. That is, the bread and wine are filled with the presence of Christ, but they are still no more than bread and wine, they are like a dry sponge that is now filled with water (if this is an awful caricature of Lutheran belief then please correct me).

John.

[Doubting Thomas]

I guess I fall into the same category as +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é. Why cannot it be fully bread and wine and fully Christ at the same time in the same way that Christ is fully man and fully God?

I agree.  And to believe that is not the same as believing: "The Eucharist is part Christ and part non-Christ".  It is indeed fully Christ, which is why a priest cannot raise the Eucharist and say: "This is not Christ".  Again on the level of mere physical sense-perception it is bread, but on the higher mystical level it is in truth, the Body and Blood of Christ.  The confusion lies in conflating the two "levels". That is why it is not correct characterize this position as saying the Eucharist is part-A and part-non-A, or that it is both A and non-A in the exact same sense (the latter would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction).

[Br. Max, OFC]

isn't it a contradiction to say that Christ is fully and perfectly human and fully and perfectly divine?

[Doubting Thomas]

isn't it a contradiction to say that Christ is fully and perfectly human and fully and perfectly divine?

I would say, No, because humanity and divinity exist on different levels.  I don't understand how one Person can have two natures like that, but I'm sure it's no problem for God to "figure out" how to take on humanity without losing His divinity.  The Incarnation is certainly a mystery, but not a contradiction.

[David]

I like the way one of the Orthodoxy intro books explains it.  Don't think of the Incarnation as Christ being 50% human and 50 % divine, but rather 100% human and 100% divine.  Fully God and Fully Man is how it's usually phrased.  Technically, I don't think it would be a contradiction but rather a paradox.  Sort of like how God is both completely transcendant and yet completely imminent at the same time.

[Br. Max, OFC]

so if it's not a problem for Christ in the Incarnation to be both 100% God and 100% man, whats the problem with the Eucharist being 100% Christ and 100% the elements?

Just playing devils advocate.

[erracht]

I have not been told about the issue of whether or not it is bread and wine or just looks like it, I would have to ask a priest. But one thing I have learned so far: IT IS LITERALLY THE BODY AND BLOOD. This is doctrine.

I read an interesting defense of this in "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers." There was a monk about the 4th century who had doubts or disbelief about this teaching. Some others went to correct him and he was open to being proven wrong. So he prayed for an answer to his question. And his prayer was answered: when they held the divine liturgy, the Eucharist took on the shape of a child.  An angel descended with a sword and cut the child into pieces. However, this assumed the appearance of bread or bread and wine again. And the monk understood why bread and wine are used for the true body and blood of Christ - we as humans are unable to consume human flesh or what looks like it.

[Linus7]

prodromos:
I guess I fall into the same category as +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é. Why cannot it be fully bread and wine and fully Christ at the same time in the same way that Christ is fully man and fully God?

Because bread and wine are not Christ.

Christ's human nature is fully, 100% His.

Christ's divine nature is fully, 100% His.

He has no bread-and-wine nature, nor does the Scripture or any of the Fathers ever suggest that He does.

Thus, if the bread and wine of the Eucharist remain bread and wine, then in some way the Eucharist remains NOT CHRIST.

prodromos:This is not, to the best of my knowledge, the Lutheran view, which if I understand correctly states that the bread is bread and Christ is Christ but the bread is not Christ and Christ is not the bread, they simply coexist in the Eucharist. That is, the bread and wine are filled with the presence of Christ, but they are still no more than bread and wine, they are like a dry sponge that is now filled with water (if this is an awful caricature of Lutheran belief then please correct me).

John.

That seems to me to be exactly what you have suggested: the Eucharist is fully bread and wine yet fully Christ.

That is the Lutheran view.

I don't mean to sound facetious, but how can that work unless one is saying that Christ has three natures: Divine, human, and bread-and-wine ?

Unless Christ has a third, bread-and-wine nature, bread and wine remain things that are not Christ.

Thus, in order for the Eucharist to be fully the Body and Blood of Christ, the bread and wine must be completely transformed.

The mystery is in part that the bread and wine still seem to be bread and wine.

They are NOT bread and wine, however, but the Body and Blood of Christ (see the quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem in my prior post above).

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: The Holy Eucharist