Topic: Eucharist question

[JLatimer]

I found this critique of "transubstantiation" (the author is arguing against the RC doctrine, but his "dilemma" vould just as easily apply to the Orthodox teaching of the Real Presence) on a Calvinist blog. Frankly, it seems rather absurd, but since I've never encountered it before, I was wondering how others on here might go about responding to it. Especially if anyone can do a good Scriptural refutation.

While the New Testament does not explicitly teach us everything we would want to know about the glorified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, what it does teach us helps see just how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones? For it is written:

“Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”[1]

Further, we note that because Christ is no longer corruptible it would be impossible for the bread and wine to turn into the corruptible flesh and blood that our Lord bore while He was on the cross dying in the place of His elect sheep. What we also must note, before we move on to our next refutation of the heresy of transubstantiation, is that even if the Lord’s words concerning His flesh and bones were not intended to teach us about the constitution of His resurrected body, although that is the present author’s understanding of the passage in question, it nonetheless remains a hard and fast fact that the apostle Paul declares,

“What you sow does not come back to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He has chosen, and to each seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another…I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable…”[2]

Thus, the heresy of transubstantiation is shown to be false in this way, for it purports to know of what nature the resurrected body of Christ is made apart from the Scriptures. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then Christ’s resurrected body must be different than these, for He inherited the kingdom of God and now sits at the right hand of the Father. And if different, then it cannot be that the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus our Savior.

Are the wafer and wine the body and blood of the resurrected Christ? If they are, then they were not given for you for Christ suffered in His corruptible flesh, i.e. non-glorified flesh. However, if the wafer and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ in His humiliation, on the cross for the sins of His people, then how is it that He has both an eternally incorruptible and glorified body and flesh and blood corruptible body.

[PeterTheAleut]

First off, the distinction the author makes between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bones" looks like a distinction without a difference. Seems as if he could find more important things to split hairs over.

Reading on through the body of the heading "Moral Dilemmas", I find disturbing the author's approach of reading Christ in the light of the Old Testament. This is foreign to the Orthodox practice of reading the Old Testament in the light of Christ.

The Lord tells His people that He does not change; therefore, the command to literally eat literal flesh and literally drink literal blood cannot be a command from God. For the Lord expressly forbids the eating of meat with blood still in it, as well as the drinking of blood; both of these practices were pagan abominations which the Lord strictly commanded Israel to not engage in.

Later, this author equates the Blood of Christ presented to us mystically in Communion with the material blood of all other earthly flesh, as if they're fundamentally the same.

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that Christ truly did establish the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation. If it were the case that Christ taught “clearly,” as the Romanists pontificate, that the bread and wine turned into His flesh and blood, then  why did the apostles in Acts 15:1-29 tell the Gentiles to not partake of sacrificial blood? The dilemmas that arise here are as follows. In the first place, if the Lord Jesus taught His disciples that the bread and wine turned into His flesh and blood, and that the consumption of this flesh and blood was requisite to one’s salvation, then the declaration of the council in Acts 15:1-29, which makes no distinction between the sacrificial blood offered to idols and the sacrificial blood offered to God, would be wrong for commanding the Gentiles to “stay away from blood.”

This supposed equivalence is the basis for the many Protestant accusations that we engage in cannibalism by eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Savior, but what it misses is the sacramental understanding of our participation in the Holy Mysteries of Christ, a sacramental world view that cannot be reduced to mere materialism. In that the Flesh and Blood of our Savior is a mystical truth that transcends the material world, it cannot be compared to the purely material flesh and blood of animals.

[Melodist]

I found this critique of "transubstantiation" (the author is arguing against the RC doctrine, but his "dilemma" vould just as easily apply to the Orthodox teaching of the Real Presence) on a Calvinist blog. Frankly, it seems rather absurd, but since I've never encountered it before, I was wondering how others on here might go about responding to it. Especially if anyone can do a good Scriptural refutation.

Thus, the heresy of transubstantiation is shown to be false in this way, for it purports to know of what nature the resurrected body of Christ is made apart from the Scriptures. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then Christ’s resurrected body must be different than these, for He inherited the kingdom of God and now sits at the right hand of the Father. And if different, then it cannot be that the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus our Savior.

Are the wafer and wine the body and blood of the resurrected Christ? If they are, then they were not given for you for Christ suffered in His corruptible flesh, i.e. non-glorified flesh. However, if the wafer and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ in His humiliation, on the cross for the sins of His people, then how is it that He has both an eternally incorruptible and glorified body and flesh and blood corruptible body.

Matt 28:5-7
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

The Body that was crucified is the same Body that was risen, only it was raised in glory.

[akimori makoto]

While the New Testament does not explicitly teach us everything we would want to know about the glorified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, what it does teach us helps see just how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones? For it is written:

lololololololol.

The gymnastic performances these sola imaginationists undertake to avoid admitting any thing which has the whiff of Romanism about it are actually quite impressive, in a perverse and depressing sort of way.



Fixed the quote boxes  -PtA

[akimori makoto]

While the New Testament does not explicitly teach us everything we would want to know about the glorified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, what it does teach us helps see just how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones? For it is written:

lololololololol.

The gymnastic performances these sola imaginationists undertake to avoid admitting any thing which has the whiff of Romanism about it are actually quite impressive, in a perverse and depressing sort of way.

Screwed up the quote boxes. The latter words are mine.

[witega]

I'd agree with PetertheAleut that the attempt to distinguish the phrase 'flesh and blood' from 'flesh and bone' seems incredibly strained--neither phrase is meant to be an actual exhaustive catalog of the make-up of the Lord's body. Since phlegm is never mentioned are we supposed to presume that the Bible teaches Christ's body (pre- or post-ressurection) lacked mucus?.

Are the wafer and wine the body and blood of the resurrected Christ? If they are, then they were not given for you for Christ suffered in His corruptible flesh, i.e. non-glorified flesh. However, if the wafer and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ in His humiliation, on the cross for the sins of His people, then how is it that He has both an eternally incorruptible and glorified body and flesh and blood corruptible body.

This sounds very Nestorian. The whole point of the Empty tomb and of Christ's appearance to the Apostles to display the wounds of the Crucifixion still present, is that Christ did not have one body that 'suffered in His corruptible flesh' and a second 'incorruptible and glorified body.' afterwards. He had/has one body which was changed--not replaced. The scriptural refutation of his claims is actually contained in the verses immediately following the passage from St. Paul he quotes (the end of his quote in italics:

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” - I Cor 15: 50-54

To answer his question, yes, the bread and wine are the flesh and blood of the Resurrected Christ--and this is is the same flesh and blood that suffered and died for us. It is changed, 'clothed with immortality', but the Christ who died and the Christ who rose are the same person--so the flesh and blood of the Christ who dies and the flesh and blood of the Christ who rose are the same flesh and blood.

The Lord tells His people that He does not change; therefore, the command to literally eat literal flesh and literally drink literal blood cannot be a command from God. For the Lord expressly forbids the eating of meat with blood still in it, as well as the drinking of blood; both of these practices were pagan abominations which the Lord strictly commanded Israel to not engage in.

This is a good example of the problems with proof-texting. The Lord tells us why He forbade the drinking of blood in the Old Testament, and it's not because it's a pagan practice:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life - Leviticus 17:11

and again

That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood" - Leviticus 17:14

Christ specifically referred back to this passage when he said:

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:53-54

The Jewish response to this teaching was "“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." If Christ was only speakinging metaphorically, what would the Jews consider so hard about this teaching? No, they found it hard because the clearly didn't think He was speaking metaphorically--and like Calvinist they couldn't reconcile it with their own understanding of the Law (when they--and he--should have realized that Christ understood the Law better than anyone else. And that His sacrifice, ressurection, and giving us His Life through His blood is the fulfillment of that law).

This supposed equivalence is the basis for the many Protestant accusations that we engage in cannibalism by eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of our Savior

This particular complaint is odd (ironic?), given that cannibalism was also one of the primary accusations made against Christians in the first and second centuries by their pagan and Jewish antagonists. Guess we're in good company :-)

[David Young]

it seems rather absurd,

...how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones?

You are right: it is "absurd". I don't believe in transubstantiation any more than the man who thought this argument up, but this particular argument is just plain daft. In the verse quoted Christ is saying he has a real body and is not a disembodied spirit. This is the meaning of "flesh and bones"; it no more implies a lack of blood than it implies a lack of hair, skin or eyes.

[Cleopas]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

[ialmisry]

I find disturbing the author's approach of reading Christ in the light of the Old Testament. This is foreign to the Orthodox practice of reading the Old Testament in the light of Christ.

I have never heard it expressed that way, but it struck me as immediately clear.

[ialmisry]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

[ialmisry]

it seems rather absurd,

...how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones?

You are right: it is "absurd". I don't believe in transubstantiation any more than the man who thought this argument up, but this particular argument is just plain daft. In the verse quoted Christ is saying he has a real body and is not a disembodied spirit. This is the meaning of "flesh and bones"; it no more implies a lack of blood than it implies a lack of hair, skin or eyes.

First, glad to see you, as always.

The flesh and bone is interesting, in that the second Adam, rising on the Eigth Day of Creation, breathes on the disciples that breath/spirit which the first Adam lost, and the command to touch His flesh and bone that Christ tells His Body the Church (represented by the disciples, soon to be Apostles) echoes the exclamation of identity that the first Adam says when presented his Bride (thereby distinguishing her from the animals, as the Apostles distinguished the blood of animals from the Eucharist).

Btw, the prohibition of blood was a foreshadowing, prefigure, and preparation to receive the True Blood.  Blood was forbidden because "Life is in the blood."  Now we are commanded to partake of His Blood, because the Life is in Him.

[HandmaidenofGod]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

You had me until the last sentence! 

You are right, it is not in the same state or else the corruptible would have turned to dust and we wouldn't be here today discussing this.

Throughout the prayers of the Divine Liturgy, Christ's entire life is recounted, but it is his resurrection that is celebrated. For it is through His Resurrection that we have hope of resurrection.

Below are the prayers of the Anaphora, that is, the prayers the priest prays when asking the Holy Spirit to come down and transform the gifts. It is clear that we worship a living, incorruptible God, and not one susceptible to the decay of death.

Priest: It is proper and right to sing to You, bless You, praise You, thank You and worship You in all places of Your dominion; for You are God ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same; You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us into being out of nothing, and when we fell, You raised us up again. You did not cease doing everything until You led us to heaven and granted us Your kingdom to come. For all these things we thank You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit; for all things that we know and do not know, for blessings seen and unseen that have been bestowed upon us. We also thank You for this liturgy which You are pleased to accept from our hands, even though You are surrounded by thousands of Archangels and tens of thousands of Angels, by the Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, soaring with their wings,

Singing the victory hymn, proclaiming, crying out, and saying:

People: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest.

Priest: Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was delivered up, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:

Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest: Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest: Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,

Priest: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.

People: We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.

Priest: Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Bread.)

Deacon: Amen.

Priest: And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Cup.)

Deacon: Amen.

Priest: Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

(He blesses them both.)

Deacon: Amen. Amen. Amen.

[JLatimer]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Forcing a dichotomy between Christ's corruptible and incorruptible flesh would also seem to undermine this sort of Pauline reasoning:

Romans 6:8-9 (KJV)
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: [9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Galatians 2:20 (KJV)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

[jckstraw72]

Christ never had a corruptible body though. He voluntarily laid down His life, but that was not "natural" for His fully deified Humanity which was actually above nature (hyper physis)

[orthonorm]

The gymnastic performances these sola imaginationists undertake to avoid admitting any thing which has the whiff of Romanism about it are actually quite impressive, in a perverse and depressing sort of way.

I mean who is really going to start the fan club?

srsly. This is one club I would join and buy the t-shirts.

[Benjamin the Red]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Forcing a dichotomy between Christ's corruptible and incorruptible flesh would also seem to undermine this sort of Pauline reasoning:

Romans 6:8-9 (KJV)
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: [9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Galatians 2:20 (KJV)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I agree. I think the words of the priest in the Liturgy (immediately before the epiklesis) make this very clear as well:

"...Remembering all the things that have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection, the Ascension into Heaven, the Sitting at the Right Hand and the Second and Most Glorious Coming Again..."

The Liturgy is an entrance into eternity. We can say all of these have "come to pass" even though, clearly...the second coming has not chronologically occurred for us yet. We can talk all about the "incorruptible" vs. "corruptible" flesh of Christ, that is His pre- vs. post- resurrected flesh...but it is the self-same flesh. The risen Christ participates in the cross as much as the pre-risen...for it is the same Christ, and it is His same flesh! The words of the priest above encompass the entire salvific act of our Lord, all parts of which being necessary for eternal life.

Let us not become temporal Nestorians!

[JLatimer]

Christ never had a corruptible body though. He voluntarily laid down His life, but that was not "natural" for His fully deified Humanity which was actually above nature (hyper physis)

"My Lord, my Comfort, Who wast clothed in corruptible flesh for my miserable sake, deliver me from misery and grant comfort to my miserable soul." - from evening prayers

[orthonorm]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Forcing a dichotomy between Christ's corruptible and incorruptible flesh would also seem to undermine this sort of Pauline reasoning:

Romans 6:8-9 (KJV)
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: [9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Galatians 2:20 (KJV)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I agree. I think the words of the priest in the Liturgy (immediately before the epiklesis) make this very clear as well:

"...Remembering all the things that have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection, the Ascension into Heaven, the Sitting at the Right Hand and the Second and Most Glorious Coming Again..."

The Liturgy is an entrance into eternity. We can say all of these have "come to pass" even though, clearly...the second coming has not chronologically occurred for us yet. We can talk all about the "incorruptible" vs. "corruptible" flesh of Christ, that is His pre- vs. post- resurrected flesh...but it is the self-same flesh. The risen Christ participates in the cross as much as the pre-risen...for it is the same Christ, and it is His same flesh! The words of the priest above encompass the entire salvific act of our Lord, all parts of which being necessary for eternal life.

Let us not become temporal Nestorians!

Those bolded words were probably the second words I "latched onto" one my head quit spinning during the DL. The epiklesis then those.

Both moments of hearing both truly for the first time were striking.

Great post.

[Cleopas]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Thanks brother.  It's good to be seen. 

I understand your contention, but find it fallacious. If we can eat Christ then we are by definition consuming Him. And if He is edible then He is yet corruptible (both for the act of eating or chewing itself, and the process of digestion that follows), and our eating is itself then a denial of His glorification. But we know He is glorified, so then the other must be false. That is my point.

[Benjamin the Red]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Thanks brother.  It's good to be seen. 

I understand your contention, but find it fallacious. If we can eat Christ then we are by definition consuming Him. And if He is edible then He is yet corruptible (both for the act of eating or chewing itself, and the process of digestion that follows), and our eating is itself then a denial of His glorification. But we know He is glorified, so then the other must be false. That is my point.

The full quote from the priest that Isa is pointing out occurs immediately before the fraction and is: "Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken, but not disunited; ever eaten, yet never consumed; sanctifying all who partake thereof."

The theology here is that Christ is broken on the cross (as well as in the Eucharist, literally at this point in the Liturgy) for the faithful.

He is broken, yet not disunited (His Church is one).

He is ever eaten but never consumed (His sacrifice is eternal, as St. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but entered into eternally by the Faithful...there is no end to the abundance of Christ. He is infinite).

Your response falls flat in addressing the mystical theology of our Church in regards to the Eucharistic celebration. We do eat his flesh and drink his blood, as commanded, but we do so eternally. Each time we enter into the Liturgy, we do so again. We eat that same flesh...drink that same blood. It is never fully consumed, we may always return to the Cross and partake of the sacrifice of our Lord. To quote the Psalmist: "His mercy endureth forever."

By eating Christ, we do not deny His glorification. On the contrary, we eat His flesh in hopes of uniting ourselves to Christ that we, too, may be glorified with him. Our Lord taught that "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." Life is what we seek, that life which is eternal. As the priest says for each member of the faithful as we commune, "The servant of God Name, partakes of the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and unto life everlasting. Amen."

[Cleopas]

Yes well, dear Benjamin, with all due respect ... your mystical theology falls flat for me as well, for it is flatly contradictory and circular.

[ialmisry]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Thanks brother.  It's good to be seen. 

I understand your contention, but find it fallacious. If we can eat Christ then we are by definition consuming Him. And if He is edible then He is yet corruptible (both for the act of eating or chewing itself, and the process of digestion that follows), and our eating is itself then a denial of His glorification. But we know He is glorified, so then the other must be false. That is my point.

You mean by definition we are consuming Him Who multiplied the loaves?  You are saying that He cannot do what the lowly flatworm and starfish can?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(biology)

Take for instance the average human body: is it buried with the same atoms it was born with?

No, He Who regenerates as well as counts the hairs of every head is more than able to offer Himself yet not be consumed.

[Cleopas]

Btw, I'm not ignoring anyone. I just felt like my previous replies sufficiently answered all, to this point at least.
It's good to interact with you guys a bit. I do miss you, and from time to time pop in and take a look around.

Blessings friends!

[Cleopas]

Agreed, the former argument is strained at best.
However, the later argument I have made myself here sometime back.

I admit it is the same body, and in that sense the same flesh. However it is not the same state. It is contradictory then to contend on the one hand that Christ's one body has been changed into an incorruptible body in the ascension and then to turn around and say we yet receive the sacrificial body of our Lord, which was/is the corruptible state, in communion. To say so is tantamount to a rejection of the resurrection and ascension, not to mention the once for all sacrificial offering of Himself. Christ is either risen and glorified or He is not. If He is (and He is) then we are not receiving His sacrificial flesh, which would still be corruptible in order to even be consumed. Albeit we cannot consume the incorruptible and glorified flesh of the Savior either precisely because it is incorruptible. Therefore we may conclude we are not actually receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord at all in any literal sense, but rather in a figure.

First, glad to see you.

In the Divine Liturgy it is said about Christ the Eucharist "broken, yet never consummed."  Why do you say we cannot partake of the incorruptible and glorified flesh?  The disciples, after all, could touch, feel and handle it/Him, and He was the same flesh transfigured on Tabor which they partook of in the mystical supper the night He was betrayed.

Thanks brother.  It's good to be seen. 

I understand your contention, but find it fallacious. If we can eat Christ then we are by definition consuming Him. And if He is edible then He is yet corruptible (both for the act of eating or chewing itself, and the process of digestion that follows), and our eating is itself then a denial of His glorification. But we know He is glorified, so then the other must be false. That is my point.

You mean by definition we are consuming Him Who multiplied the loaves?  You are saying that He cannot do what the lowly flatworm and starfish can?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(biology)

Take for instance the average human body: is it buried with the same atoms it was born with?

No, He Who regenerates as well as counts the hairs of every head is more than able to offer Himself yet not be consumed.

Ah, well, now I see the point of divergence is in the intended use of the word consume. I did not mean it in the sense of consuming to the point of non-existence, or to do away with completely. Rather I meant it in the sense of to consume as in to ingest and digest, to eat or drink. Bot valid definitions of the term. Apologies for not being clearer before. ;-)

[witega]

And if He is edible then He is yet corruptible (both for the act of eating or chewing itself, and the process of digestion that follows),

On what do you base this assertion?
Corruption, in the Fathers, is the natural process by which physical things in a Fallen universe (i.e., separated from God, the source of Being), tend to fall apart (i.e., it's a theological way of looking at the same insight as the Second Law of Thermodynamics). To be incorruptible is to no longer be subject to this process (because the relationship with the Source of Being has been fully restored), but it doesn't imply some kind of immunity to other natural processes. As HandmaidenofGod pointed out, there is ample Scriptural evidence that the Lord's risen body was fully capable of interaction with 'normal' (fallen) matter (eating with the disciples at Emmaus, physical touch by the Apostles).

Corruption and Death entered the world due to the Fall/Sin. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden were not subject to corruption either. Yet we know that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of eating the incorruptible fruit of the garden.

[Cleopas]

Corruption and Death entered the world due to the Fall/Sin. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden were not subject to corruption either. Yet we know that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of eating the incorruptible fruit of the garden.

The trees may have been incorruptible, I don't know and it doesn't really matter to me, man was. But the fruit obviously wasn't, else it could not have been eaten. The fact that it can be eaten proves it was corruptible and temporal, and so is anything else we can eat or drink. As Our Lord has said, whatever enter's a man's mouth is "purged" going "out by the draught" (Mark 7:19).

[Benjamin the Red]

Corruption and Death entered the world due to the Fall/Sin. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden were not subject to corruption either. Yet we know that Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of eating the incorruptible fruit of the garden.

The trees may have been incorruptible, I don't know and it doesn't really matter to me, man was. But the fruit obviously wasn't, else it could not have been eaten. The fact that it can be eaten proves it was corruptible and temporal, and so is anything else we can eat or drink. As Our Lord has said, whatever enter's a man's mouth is "purged" going "out by the draught" (Mark 7:19).

Equivocation.

What you mean by "incorruptible" is not what we mean, but you're using your own definition to argue against ours.

[witega]

But the fruit obviously wasn't, else it could not have been eaten. The fact that it can be eaten proves it was corruptible and temporal, and so is anything else we can eat or drink.

You keep asserting this ("what is incorruptible can't be eaten") as if it is self-evident fact, but it's not. It's your personal proposition, and one that is at odds with almost 2000 years of theological usage of 'incorruptible' as defined term. It's as if you were saying 'red things are inedible, so either watermelons aren't edible or the fact that they can be eaten means they are not red." But the normal definition of 'red' or of 'incorruptible' does not inherently include the meaning 'inedible'.

[Ortho_cat]

Glad to see David and Cleopas are still active around here...

[jckstraw72]

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Homily on Man

The earth, created, adorned, blessed by God, did not have any deficiencies. It was overflowing with refinement. “God saw,” after the completion of the whole creation of the world, “everything that He had made: and, behold, it was very good.” (Gen. 1:31). Now the earth is presented to our eyes in a completely different look. We do not know her condition in holy virginity; we know her in the condition of corruption and accursedness, we know her already sentenced to burning; she was created for eternity. . . . Plants were not subjected either to decay or to diseases; both decay and diseases and the weeds themselves, appeared after the alteration of the earth following the fall of man . . . According to its creation, there was on it only the splendid, only the wholesome, there was only that which was suitable for the immortal and blessed life of its inhabitants . . . The beasts and other animals lived in perfect harmony among themselves, nourishing themselves on plant life.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1

Notice that it is nowhere written, “God created paradise,” or that he said “let it be and it was,” but instead that He “planted” it, and “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” [Gen. 2:8-9], bearing every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh and ripe, full of sweetness, and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For their immortal bodies had to be supplied with incorruptible food.

1.4

This is the reason why, when God saw from before the creation of the world that Adam would be saved through re-birth, He subjected creation to him, and put it under a curse so that, having been created for the sake of man who had fallen into corruption, it should itself become corrupt and provide him annually with corrupted food. . . . Which is to say that creation was not of itself subjected to humanity, nor was it willingly changed over to corruption and made to bear perishable fruits and to sprout thorns and thistles, but as obedient to God’s command Who ordered these things, and with the hope of a restoration.


Fr. Nikita Grigoriev, Faith and Delusion, p. 9-10

Here it is absolutely and vitally important to understand that everything which God created in the beginning was perfectly good. Everything was indescribably magnificent and good without even the slightest hint of evil, harm, grief or insufficiency, and certainly not death. God created everything in brilliant perfection. In that primordial world there was no illness, no fear, no danger. The animals did not fear or devour one another for they were given grass for forage, and man was given grain and fruits. God created man for life, not for death. God did not create death and in the primordial world there was no death. Even fruits did not perish and upon falling from a tree immediately metabolized into fragrant earth. Not only was man not threatened by death or illness, but even did not burn him and water did not drown him; all the animals and nature recognized him as their king and master and served and submitted to him in love and harmony.

All that man had to do was to grow and develop spiritually. Man, created in the image of God faced an unimaginably joyous future, infinitely perfecting himself in his God-likeness.

[jckstraw72]

But the fruit obviously wasn't, else it could not have been eaten. The fact that it can be eaten proves it was corruptible and temporal, and so is anything else we can eat or drink.

You keep asserting this ("what is incorruptible can't be eaten") as if it is self-evident fact, but it's not. It's your personal proposition, and one that is at odds with almost 2000 years of theological usage of 'incorruptible' as defined term. It's as if you were saying 'red things are inedible, so either watermelons aren't edible or the fact that they can be eaten means they are not red." But the normal definition of 'red' or of 'incorruptible' does not inherently include the meaning 'inedible'.

the problem is in looking to the fallen world to try to understand the unfallen world, to which the Eucharist belongs.

[ialmisry]

Ah, well, now I see the point of divergence is in the intended use of the word consume. I did not mean it in the sense of consuming to the point of non-existence, or to do away with completely. Rather I meant it in the sense of to consume as in to ingest and digest, to eat or drink. Bot valid definitions of the term. Apologies for not being clearer before. ;-)

I would have to see on what basis by definition something incorruptible cannot be ingested and digested.  In Paradise, man was not forbidden to eat of the Tree of Life, the type of the Cross, and "therefore live forever."

Digestion involves the chemical breakdown of something.  But it continues to exist, the atoms and elements of it go on.  If the incorruption precluded that, it/He would not have born the wounds after the Resurrection.

[David Young]

Glad to see David and Cleopas are still active around here

And to be here. I've been away a lot with meetings round England and Wales, and in Kosova.

[rakovsky]

Hey, I thought of something while playing the game "You Testament."

In the gospel, Mary asks Jesus about getting wine for the wedding at Cana, and Jesus responds that it is not yet His time. Nonetheless, He makes the transformation.

This seems to me a precursor of the Transformation of the Eucharist.

You see, the idea that it is not yet His time comes up later when He healed a sick person, and asked the sick person to avoid announcing the healing. Here "His time" seems to refer to the time when He will be announced as the Messiah, or will fill that role as savior.

So when Jesus tells Mary it is not yet His time, it seems to mean it is too early to make the transformation into wine, because the time for this is later. And later in fact, at the Last Supper, He does make a transformation involving wine.

Furthermore, He compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a wedding banquet. And this also suggests to me that the wedding at Cana is a precursor of the heavenly wedding banquet, and that as a precursor, it makes sense Jesus would refer to the wedding at Cana as too early for the time of the Heavenly wedding banquet. This again points to the transformation of water into wine at the prefiguring wedding at Cana as a precursor to the transformation at the Last Supper.

It also suggests that just as Jesus had the power to literally transform water into wine at Cana, He would also have the power to transform the wine in the Eucharist.

What do you think?

[Severian]

--Subscribed--

[David Young]

at the Last Supper, He does make a transformation involving wine.

What do you think?

We don't think he did transform the wine at the Last Supper into anything other than wine; we think he was speaking in a figure.

Here is another thought (not mine - I read it in a book): in The Lord of the Rings, is Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic, using the lembas, or waybread, as a symbol of the holy housel?  If taken spiritually, I find it a wholesome thought.

[PeterTheAleut]

at the Last Supper, He does make a transformation involving wine.

What do you think?

We don't think he did transform the wine at the Last Supper into anything other than wine; we think he was speaking in a figure.

Here is another thought (not mine - I read it in a book): in The Lord of the Rings, is Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic, using the lembas, or waybread, as a symbol of the holy housel?  If taken spiritually, I find it a wholesome thought.

Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic; therefore, he also believed in the Real Presence as Orthodox do.

[Schultz]

I don't have my books on me to look it up, but I am 98.75685% sure that Tolkien specifically denied that lembas was a symbol for the Eucharist.  Indeed, any non-author claim of direct allegory is suspect.

[JamesR]

For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones? For it is written "..."

Because He simply did not see it fit to have to tell St. Thomas that He was also composed of blood? This argument is very odd and based off of inadequate evidence. While Jesus never specifically says that His resurrected body was composed of Blood, He also never explicitly said that it was not composed of Blood, therefore, the Calvinists' argument is weak and breaks down.

Further, we note that because Christ is no longer corruptible it would be impossible for the bread and wine to turn into the corruptible flesh and blood that our Lord bore while He was on the cross

He is falsely assuming that all flesh and blood is corruptible. However, we do not assert that Jesus Christ took on a new body or became different after His resurrection, but rather His same body which consists of flesh and blood was glorified and blessed. The Flesh and Blood present in the Eucharist is in fact Jesus Christ's flesh and blood, but it is His glorified, non-corruptible flesh and blood. One day we will all become glorified and non-corruptible as well after the Second Coming when we rise from the grave.

“...misinterpreted Pauline epistle..."

Thus, the heresy of transubstantiation is shown to be false in this way, for it purports to know of what nature the resurrected body of Christ is made apart from the Scriptures.

Falsely assuming that Sola Scriptura is true

Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then Christ’s resurrected body must be different than these, for He inherited the kingdom of God and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

This comes from a misunderstood understanding of what St. Paul meant. Flesh and Blood alone without grace, faith in Jesus Christ and God's help cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But now because Jesus Christ took on flesh and blood, it has become redeemed and now can inherit the kingdom of God provided that we truly accept, obey and live out the life that our Lord commanded. In fact, if flesh and blood could never inherit the kingdom of God in any situation, then we would still be screwed because humans are both physical (flesh and blood) as well as spiritual (transcendant, Godly etc.). You cannot condemn the physical because humans themselves are physical and if God hadn't redeemed the physical then we would still be screwed and salvation would be inattainable to us. In fact, the author self refutes himself on a deeper scale because if the physical world has not been redeemed and cannot inherit the kingdom of God, why should I believe anything he writes? Since it is only the product of his physical, non-redeemed brain? Jesus Christ's body was still flesh and blood, only it was glorified, redeemed flesh and blood; and hopefully we will all undergo the same thing someday.

And if different, then it cannot be that the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus our Savior.

As I just showed above, we do not believe that it is different.

Are the wafer and wine the body and blood of the resurrected Christ? If they are, then they were not given for you for Christ suffered in His corruptible flesh, i.e. non-glorified flesh.

Jesus Christ only has one flesh; don't divide our Lord. Jesus is eternally incorruptible, but He willingly chose to die and for the moment, allowed His flesh to become corruptible. I'm new to Christology, so anyone correct me if I am wrong.

However, if the wafer and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ in His humiliation, on the cross for the sins of His people, then how is it that He has both an eternally incorruptible and glorified body and flesh and blood corruptible body.

He doesn't; He is one.

[NicholasMyra]

Christ never had a corruptible body though. He voluntarily laid down His life, but that was not "natural" for His fully deified Humanity which was actually above nature (hyper physis)

Dude.

Christ says: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?"

He does not say: "Do you think that if I didn't alter the incorruptible flesh of my hands to be temporarily mutable, your puny created nails would go through?"