Re: the following: I'm not talking about the bread and wine becoming Christ's body and blood in general or at every Eucharist. I know what the Church and what some of the Early Church Fathers teach about that.
I'm specifically asking what the Church teaches about what did or did not happen to the bread and wine at the Last Supper when Jesus gave the bread and the wine to his disciples. I.e., did they at some point during the Supper become his body and blood?
(Note: When and where I initially posed this question, by "the Church" I meant the Orthodox Church, but my question could perhaps apply to other Eucharistic churches, e.g., Roman Catholic, Anglican.)
Responses I got on another Forum seemed to say that the Church teaches that what happens at the Eucharist is what happened at the Lord's Supper, and that the power of the Holy Spirit brought this change about at the Last Supper just as He does at every Eucharist.
(I'm not seeking an explanation of how this might have happened; I'm simply asking: What does the Church teach about the bread and the wine at the Last Supper in terms of whether or not they became Christ's body and blood when/after he gave them to his disciples?)
(Side note: Someone at that Forum suggested to me that Christ's words at the Last Supper have a structure parallel to the Genesis creation statements, thus supporting the idea that they were changed into his body and blood just as God created ex nihilo and/or commanded the land and seas to bring forth living creatures. In Genesis, the Greek (LXX) uses imperatives, and each statement/command is followed by a statement(s) that what was commanded then occurred or became. In the Last Supper accounts, however, the simple equative/copulative verb is used, and there is NO following statement(s) that the bread and wine BECAME anything following Christ's "This IS ..." utterances. The only imperatives in the Last Supper accounts are "Take ... Eat ... Drink." There are no commands/imperatives for the bread and wine to BECOME his body and blood. Since Greek has a third-person imperative form, Jesus could have grammatically said: "Let this bread be(come) my body" and "Let this cup/wine be(come) my blood." But he didn't. Thus, I disagreed with this suggestion that the Last Supper accounts are parallel to the creation accounts.)
Getting no answer, I reposed my questions as follows:
1. When Christ said, "This is my body ... This is my blood," did he and/or the Holy Spirit change the bread and wine into his body and blood the same way as happens at the Eucharist - and thus he gave the disciples his actual body and blood (via the bread and wine) to eat and drink at the Last Supper, and not simply bread and wine?
2. Does the Church teach that what happens at the Eucharist is what happened at the Last Supper? (And vice-versa - i.e., that what happens at the Eucharist is what also happened at the Last Supper.)
The response I received was "Yes" to both questions, with the further statement: "Every other possible answer leads to nonsense."
HOWEVER, this response/answer can also, I think, lead to nonsense or at least some incongruities. If when Jesus gave his disciples bread and wine at the Last Supper, the bread and wine were changed into his body and blood, it means that before he was crucified, Jesus was able to - and in fact did - give his body and blood via bread and wine to his disciples. I.e., he gave his body before he gave his body, and he gave his blood before he gave his blood. And if they became his body and blood, then what need was there for him to be crucified if he was able to give them his body and blood before his crucifixion? True, his death might have been necessary for other things (e.g., to pay death its ransom; to atone for sins and/or to be a propitiatory sacrifice; etc.), but if the bread and wine became his body and blood before he was crucified, that seems to separate the Eucharistic transformation from the crucifixion and make it no longer dependent on the crucifixion having already taken place. Thus, the Eucharist is no longer a re-presentation of the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross, as he was able to give his body and blood to his followers apart from having died. If the Church teaches that the Eucharist is the same thing that happened at the Last Supper and that Christ at the Last Supper gave his disciples his body and blood in the transformed bread and wine, then the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the Last Supper when Jesus indeed gave his disciples his body and blood in the form of bread and wine ... but it is not a re-presentation of his death on the cross.
Also, there is no indication by Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul that Jesus called upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into his body and blood at the Last Supper. Why, then, if the Eucharist is the same thing that happened at the Last Supper, is the epiclÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªsis (the "calling upon" the Holy Spirit) necessary during the Eucharist to change the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, since Christ can give his disciples his body and blood just by giving them bread and wine - as he did at the Last Supper? This fact actually seems to support the Roman Catholic Church teaching that it's the words of institution by the priest (representing Jesus Christ), and not the coming/invocation of the Holy Spirit, that effect the transformation/change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood.