The Eucharist in the Orthodox Church

[James H.]

On another Orthodox Discussion board there is debate as to whether it is acceptable in Orthodox thought to believe that the bread and wine still remain in the Eucharist. I am hesitant to use the term Consubstatiation because of all the baggage it carries but I will use it if only for convenience' sake. So please understand that when I use this term (Consubstatiation) I am not saying any more or any less than: The bread and wine still remain in the Eucharist after it is consecrated but the Real Presence of Christ's body and Blood is in no way compromised.

Even though he may have coined the term, anything else Luther has added to that is not what I'm talking about (although I would be interested in what views he had on the Eucharist that would NOT be acceptable in the OC, even though this would be secondary to the thread in question).

What I am looking for is any reliable quotes by Church Fathers and/or local councils that either condemn Consubstatiation as I have defined it above or supports it. Equally I would be interested in any quotes that condemn or support Transubstatiation (that being, without the Catholic Aristotilean baggage, that the bread and wine are no longer present in any way).

As the words Consubstatiation and Transubstation are Western addages, I am not expecting to find these terms in quotes from pre-schism (even pre-reformation?) Fathers and Councils, but rather the concepts.

I am also well aware that we can not simply take Western ideas and apply them to Eastern thought like puzzle piece would fit. So it would be interesting to read anything anyone has to say about why exactly it is difficult to compare our understandings with the West when, although we use similar terms and phrases, the way of understanding these terms is just so different. If this assumption is correct, I would love to hear about this.

I realize this is actually several requests and that this is a huge topic. First and formost, I am curious as to what Fathers and Councils have to say on the matter. Then I would be interested in what respected scholars say (because they can interpret the Fathers better than I can) and then what all of you have to say.

Thanks!

James

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There was a discussion about this at monachos last April which eventually became quite heated. At the time possibly every Holy Father known was quoted to support both positions. By the time this finally cooled off there were two basic positions that seemed irreconcilable. I think that if this discussion began again here we would end up with the same two irreconcilable views.

But the one thing we all did agree with is that the Eucharist is the real Body & Blood of Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[James H.]

Actually, I just stumbled upon the very thread you're referring to. And I was involved in it! I don't even remember the thread! lol

But honestly, I'm not looking much for debate here. I'm not even looking for people's opinions (although they're welcome as long as the thread does not turn into a debate without patristic or scholarly text). All I want is patristic/conciliar texts and other respected, thourough and published Orthodox scholarship that supports or condemns either side.

In the other Orthodox Forum most of what has been posted is post-reformation councils that many feel are products of the Western Captivity. But a good example of supporting Transubstatiation were some quotes by St Cyril of Jerusalem while one quote from St. John of Damascus seemed to point towards a concept similar to consubstatiation (as I defined it above).

Thanks to anyone who can help me http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

John

[Arsenios]

Don't we confess in the service of the Liturgy that the bread and wine ARE the Body and the Blood? That would answer your querie in the afffirmative, yes?

Arsenios

[James H.]

I still have to imagine that there is some reason (apart from Romaphobia) why I have read that a strict interpretation of transubstantiation is not always adhered to in teh East. So I would like to find what fathers, coucils or whatever the idea that, in some form, the bread and wine still remain. I have my own ideas as to where this may be coming from, but this thread has little in interest in what feelings or theories any of us hold, but rather finding straight quotes/texts from Orthodox sources that support or condemn either one of the concepts. THis thread is not meant to convince anyone of anything. It is purely to dig up information, period.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me.

James

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My reading of last year's discussion on this topic is that part of the controversy arose due to the fact that the Holy Fathers never (at least to my knowledge) dealt with this in the way that we are trying to. It is not that it is wrong for us to raise the question in our time. But we must keep in mind that the overwhelming effort of the Holy Frs was to protect the Mystery of the Eucharist. It was not their effort to address the question of "what else is there" mainly because in the context of their times such a question would have implied a challenge that the Eucharist is indeed the True Body & Blood of Christ. I think it is for this reason that it will be a real challenge to find definitive evidence from the Holy Frs that there is also bread & wine after the consecration.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[James H.]

Thank you Father.

I beginning to think myself that (due to my inablity to find anything concrete), despite the insistance of some that this is an Orthodox view (that the bread and wine are still present) there is no real patristic evidence regarding this. This doesn't mean that it is a false idea, but rather that to understand this within the context of Orthodoxy (and therefore the Church Fathers), the questioned cannot be approached with such a black and white western mentality. Either way, if anyone does find early texts regarding this, I'm still interested. Thank you!

JOhn

PS: I know this isn't early, but someone mentioned that they THOUGHT that St. John of Kronstadt held an idea more closley related to Consubstantiation, that in some way the elements were still present. This could totally be wrong but if anyone has anything to support or shoot down this supposition, I would be very interested in that.

[Petros L.]

St. Nephon once gave an account of what he saw during the Liturgy. When the time came for the Eucharist he saw an angel come down from heaven with a baby. When the priest was saying the prayers for the Holy Spirit to come down and turn the wine and bread into the Precious Blood of Jesus, the Angel cut the baby and poured the blood into the chalice, and also cut pieces of the baby up and put them into the chalice. (I know it sounds kind of morbid).

Now when the people approached for communion there was the angel standing next to the priest, and the people who were unworthy to receive communion he would take the blood and body off the spoon. He also said the faces of the unworthy were black. And the worthy faces were glowing white. That also shows how being unworthy to receive communion can harm you.

There is also a monk on Mt. Athos who was once a Buddhist Monk, who had powers and could use demons at his will, who saw this in a church before he became orthodox. He was still a Buddhist when he saw it, I believe he was just walking by the church at the time and saw it. So there is two accounts of what happens during the Liturgy.

[Max]

"The question was, how can that one Body of Christ vivify the whole of mankind, all, that is, in whomsoever there is Faith, and yet, though divided amongst all, be itself not diminished? Perhaps, then, we are now not far from the probable explanation. If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man's nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man's physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread, just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, "is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer"; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, "This is My Body." Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance 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 transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing."
(The Great Catechism, ch. XXXVII St. Gregory of Nyssa)

This is the best quote I've ever seen that helps me understand the Eucharist.

Yes, it's truly bread and wine. Yes, it's truly the Body and Blood.

No, it is not the Body and Blood WITH bread and wine.

The bread and wine ARE the Body and Blood. IS means IS.

Jesus didn't say "This looks like bread but is not, it's My Body"
Jesus didn't say "This symbolizes my body."
Jesus didn't say "This is bread with my Body in, with, underneath."

Rather, referring to the bread itself He said, "This is my body."

What is your body and blood composed of besides food and drink? To deny Christ's was composed of the elements of food and drink is to deny the incarnation.

Also, isn't the physical Church the Body of Christ? Of course, since she will be physically resurrected and glorified. To deny this is to deny the resurrection and Christianity.

So, how can one deny that the bread we physically share is part of the physical Body of Christ? No offense to the Mystery, but it's so painfully obvious that the food and drink belong to the Body of Christ and ARE physically Christ's my 4-year-old can understand it.

[Max]

>Now when the people approached for communion there was the angel standing next to the priest, and the people who were unworthy to receive communion he would take the blood and body off the spoon. <

That's just wrong. The worthy and unworthy partake of the same bread. To separate the body from the bread is simply wrong. The bread IS the body.

The unworthy partake to their own damnation. If they did not, they would be guilty of nothing.

[Antonios]

Onwave,

Welcome to the Monachos community!

One of the best modern Orthodox books written about the Eucharist is called "For the Life of the World" by Father Alexander Schmemann. I highly recommend this book.

[Father David Moser]

So, how can one deny that the bread we physically share is part of the physical Body of Christ? No offense to the Mystery, but it's so painfully obvious that the food and drink belong to the Body of Christ and ARE physically Christ's my 4-year-old can understand it.

One has to be careful in approaching this topic first and foremost because it is a mystery. The nature of how and in what manner the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is beyond our understanding. It is certainly without question that the bread and wine do in fact become the Most Holy Body and Most Precious Blood of Christ, however anything beyond that is speculation. The Roman tradition, imo, delves too deeply into the mystery and errs trying to define the process in philosophical terms. This attempt to demystify the mystery often leads to later erroneous conclusions or practices (such as the adoration of the reserve sacrament). Thus it is best left undefined.

There is one discussion of this mystery which I think is both helpful and yet still leaves a mystery. Professor Osipov of Moscow opines that it is more patristically correct to say that our Lord Jesus Christ hypostatically unites with the bread and the wine in the same manner that He took on human flesh without futher attempts at defining the details of that process. This links the Mystery of the Holy Gifts with the Mystery of the Incarnation which provides a means by which we can approach both of these Mysteries in the light of our own deification. But even then, focusing too much on the how and why can be detrimental to the real work of our salvation.

Fr David Moser

[Max]

>Professor Osipov of Moscow opines that it is more patristically correct to say that our Lord Jesus Christ hypostatically unites with the bread and the wine in the same manner that He took on human flesh without futher attempts at defining the details of that process. <

You've just described the traditional Lutheran view.

I do enjoy the way St. Gregory of Nyssa explained it above because when I encounter someone who denies the real physical presence simply because "it's not logical" I think this way of looking at it makes it "logical" yet does not demystify it.

How can anyone explain how the Church is the Body of Christ? Even St. Paul says it is a great mystery. Eph 5:32 "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

Those who deny the Real Presence but accept this mystery by faith are being inconsistent when they reject that the bread and wine becomes one with His Body - that is, the bread and wine ARE His Body and Blood.

[Max]

James,

Here are some links that may be of interest to you as far as finding quotes:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm

I'm not advocating that site, it just has some quotes that seem to be what you're looking for.

From what I read, the quotes seem to indicate that the bread and wine are changed FROM bread and wine INTO the body and blood of Christ. It seems to be the view of the Orthodox Church, which is actually not what I expected. I've always thought the Orthodox Church believed that the bread and wine remain bread and wine even after they become body and blood. I guess I was wrong.

To say the bread and wine become the body and blood and are no longer bread and wine is a rejection of Christ's own words, for Christ said, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." Here Christ is not speaking symbolically, but clearly says we eat bread.

St. Paul says, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." St. Paul clearly says we are eating bread, just as Christ stated.

So, just as the human flesh of Christ is simultaneously Divine, we can truthfully say that the bread and wine is simultaneously Body and Blood.

When you eat a piece of bread, doesn't it become your body? When you drink wine, doesn't it become your blood? When does this happen? When it enters your mouth? When it enters your stomach? When it enters your hand and you've accepted it as part of yourself? Even such simple questions are a mystery.

It is pointless to take anything beyond what Christ and the Apostle Paul said. The one substance is simultaneously bread and Body. The one substance is simultaneously wine and Blood. We all share in these and are thus physically and spiritually one with each other and Jesus Christ. To disregard this reality or diminish it through an imbalanced view is harmful to our body and spirit.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Max,

I very much like reading your posts about the Eucharist. To me at least it seems this recovered focus on the Eucharist is one of the most wonderful blessings within the Church of the past few decades (more if one sees this as the culmination of the efforts of Sts Nikodemos Agioretes and Paisy Velichkovsky). Of course we see this in a Patristic way with the Liturgy at the centre of a cosmic worship and obedience towards Christ. We also are coming to a greater understanding of how this worship must be ascetic for it to be worship at all otherwise the danger is of falling into self-indulgence.

However I want to point out a question raised by what you write:


So, just as the human flesh of Christ is simultaneously Divine, we can truthfully say that the bread and wine is simultaneously Body and Blood.

If as we all acknowledge the transformed bread & wine is the Body and Blood of the Incarnate Christ how can we then describe it as if it actually refers only to His Divine nature? In other words if we conceptually divide the Eucharist so that the bread & wine represents Christ's humanity- then we end up with the Body & Blood of the Eucharist representing His divinity or worse a kind of second Christ- a problem just with the words let alone the reality!

I bring this up because this important subject has been discussed before at Monachos. Not that we came to any consensus on the above question (we certainly didn't then and possibly still won't) but at least the length of time spent on the discussion allowed for the discovery of some very important things.

First the Patristic way of describing the Eucharist is not to split it conceptually into bread & wine AND Body & Blood. The usual words used almost as a formula is simply, 'the bread and wine which IS the Body & Blood of Christ.' Of course this in itself doesn't mean that the way we tend to describe the Eucharist in modern times is wrong. But we do need to recognise that our way of looking at the Eucharist is different and then go on to see whether it is correct or not. One thing if I can recall corectly from when the discussion last occurred- one could see a critical difference in how we were interpreting that little word IS. Or in the words the Liturgy of St Basil uses, 'the bread and wine are SYMBOLS of the Body & Blood'. Do we mean the bread & wine represent the Body & Blood of Christ or do we mean something quite beyond this?

The second point is that the Patristic vision of the Eucharist is always unified; ie the Eucharist is the Body & Blood of the Incarnate Logos. Somehow this Patristic way of seeing the Eucharist is tied in with the way in which Christ Himself is always seen as one subject.

Again I'm not trying to say this new way we have of seeing the Eucharist is necessarily wrong. Maybe if it isn't theologically rigourous in its manner of expression perhaps it still expresses some other important point (sometimes these become important steps towards a more clear vision).

I do strongly believe however that the questions raised by seeing the Eucharist in this divided way need to be answered.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

I think we should all just accept that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and conclude that Christ words are sufficient. We can't even understand how infinity or the universe works.


Irenaeus on the Eucharist
"Exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist" (Book V, Chap. II)



But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins." And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills ). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?

[Father David Moser]

You've just described the traditional Lutheran view.

...
Those who deny the Real Presence but accept this mystery by faith are being inconsistent when they reject that the bread and wine becomes one with His Body - that is, the bread and wine ARE His Body and Blood.


Well, just because the Lutherans got something "right" - or at least sounding right - doesn't make it any less true.

If I understand the Lutheran belief correctly they do not actually believe that the bread and wine actually change into the Body and Blood but that the Body and Blood somehow coexist with the Bread and Wine and that after the service, the Body and Blood are no longer present in the bread and wine. This is not what I described, but rather that the bread and wine *become* the Body and Blood of Christ in the same manner that the flesh offered by the Holy Virgin became the Body and Blood of Christ in her womb and was born the Body and Blood of Christ and remains the Body and Blood of Christ. The incarnation wasn't in any way a "false" or "seeming" union of God with human flesh - but it was a true, real and eternal union. Neither is the transformation of the Bread and Wine in Holy Communion a false or seeming union, but it is a true, real and eternal union.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

One of the best modern Orthodox books written about the Eucharist is called "For the Life of the World" by Father Alexander Schmemann. I highly recommend this book.

AN EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE LETTER

With regard to the particular book that you mention, Of Water and the Spirit (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), like Schmemann's other works, it must be approached with caution. All of the strictures that I urge vis—vis his book on the Eucharist apply to this and other books by Father Alexander. His works can only be recommended as an example of how not to write Orthodox theology. Nonetheless, aside from my caution, there are, as I noted above, some good elements in Schemann's theological works. (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/schmem_men.aspx) For example, Father Alexander was deeply opposed to the minimalism and secularism that he so clearly saw in contemporary Orthodoxy.

In one place in his study of Orthodox liturgical theology, he recounts a shocking example of the in-roads made by secularism into the life of the Church. One Lent, he tells us, he was visiting a parish to hear confessions. To his amazement, a man walked up to him holding some sort of ticket, asking for "absolution." Apparently the man thought that because he had paid the annual fees for membership in his parish (a widespread system in America), he was "entitled" to receive "absolution" without making a genuine confession of his sins! Of course, we traditionalists are just as upset by such an empty, ritualistic approach to Orthodoxy. For this reason we can read the works of Father Schmemann with some degree of sympathy.

However, this sympathy is constantly at odds with Father Schmemann's disrespect for the spiritual content of the Church's Mystery and his rejection of the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit in her liturgical development. Thus, in his book, Of Water and Spirit, rather than acknowledge the integrity of extant Baptismal practices, Father Alexander suggests—albeit circumspectly—that various changes and innovations be adopted in the Church's prevailing customs. Once more, we see that spirit of liturgical renovationism that smacks so much of contemporary Roman Catholicism, and this in the context of some very Orthodox thoughts!

[Ken McRae]

First the Patristic way of describing the Eucharist is not to split it conceptually into bread & wine AND Body & Blood. The usual words used almost as a formula is simply, 'the bread and wine which IS the Body & Blood of Christ.' Of course this in itself doesn't mean that the way we tend to describe the Eucharist in modern times is wrong. But we do need to recognise that our way of looking at the Eucharist is different and then go on to see whether it is correct or not. One thing if I can recall corectly from when the discussion last occurred- one could see a critical difference in how we were interpreting that little word IS. Or in the words the Liturgy of St Basil uses, 'the bread and wine are SYMBOLS of the Body & Blood'. Do we mean the bread & wine represent the Body & Blood of Christ or do we mean something quite beyond this?

I've read (in the past) that John Scotus Eriugena (of the West) was the first to ever challenge the doctrine of the Real Presence, around the year 855. In reaction to this, I believe I read that the Church passed a canon forbiding the Bread and Wine from being called types or symbols, after the words of consecration were spoken and the transformation had taken place. However, I'm having some difficulty, at present, trying to remember where I read that.

With regard to the early Patristic use of the term "represent", I've also read (in the past) that the ancients used it differently than we moderns tend to use and understand it. We tend to think of it as almost synonymous with a term like 'type' or 'symbol", but for the fathers it meant merely to "present again", or "re" present the one sacrifice for sins; as opposed to it meaning either a type or symbol of the Body and Blood.

[Max]

If I understand the Lutheran belief correctly they do not actually believe that the bread and wine actually change into the Body and Blood but that the Body and Blood somehow coexist with the Bread and Wine and that after the service, the Body and Blood are no longer present in the bread and wine. This is not what I described, but rather that the bread and wine *become* the Body and Blood of Christ in the same manner that the flesh offered by the Holy Virgin became the Body and Blood of Christ in her womb and was born the Body and Blood of Christ and remains the Body and Blood of Christ. The incarnation wasn't in any way a "false" or "seeming" union of God with human flesh - but it was a true, real and eternal union. Neither is the transformation of the Bread and Wine in Holy Communion a false or seeming union, but it is a true, real and eternal union.

Yes, the Lutheran confessions say that we receive the Body by our mouth, but then reject the idea that we actually chew the flesh with our physical teeth. Is this correct doctrine? It seems to me, if we are not eating and chewing and digesting it's merely a spiritual thing, not physical. Lutherans call this cannabalism and that the eating of Christ's flesh happens physically, but not in a natural physical way, but in a supernatural physical way. Saying it's a "supernatural physical way" seems to me to be saying it's just spiritual, not physical.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

With regard to the early Patristic use of the term "represent", I've also read (in the past) that the ancients used it differently than we moderns tend to use and understand it. We tend to think of it as almost synonymous with a term like 'type' or 'symbol", but for the fathers it meant merely to "present again", or "re" present the one sacrifice for sins; as opposed to it meaning either a type or symbol of the Body and Blood.


Sorry I realise I made a mistake about this word as it is used in the Liturgy of St Basil. The Liturgy says the following about the unyet consecrated gifts, not the Body & Blood, "and presenting unto Thee the holy emblems [one sees different translations of this word like 'symbol'] of the sacred Body & Blood of Thy Christ, we pray Thee and implore Thee, O Holy of Holies, by the favour of Thy goodness, that Thy Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts here spread forth before Thee, and bless them, and sanctify and manifest them."

I was trying to use the word 'represent' in a negative way to express the relation of the bread & wine to the Body & Blood if we indeed see the former as representing Christ's humanity or Incarnation while the latter represents His divinity.

It seems from what I have read that west & east began to give different meanings to words like symbol and type. In the west if I'm reading it correctly it seems the meaning is close to 'represent' while in the east these words like the word icon mean something has a substantial relationship with that which it is an image of.

Thanks Theophilus for the research you put into this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Yes, the Lutheran confessions say ... Is this correct doctrine?

Well, I can't speak for Lutherans, but for Orthodoxy what you have written is pretty much nonsense.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

If I understand the Lutheran belief correctly ... after the service, the Body and Blood are no longer present in the bread and wine.

Pope St. Leo I

"When the Lord says: 'Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,' you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, 'Amen,' who argue against that which is received." ( Sermons 91,3 ante 461 A.D. )

St. Ephrem the Syrian

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats it in Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." ( from 'Faith of the Early Fathers', Vol. 1 )

Question:- Pope St. Leo says, "that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith," and St. Ephrem says that "if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread." Does the consecrated eucharist revert back to mere common bread and wine if the communicant lacks faith or doubts the transformation of the holy gifts?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Theophilus asked:


Question:- Pope St. Leo says, "that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith," and St. Ephrem says that "if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread." Does the consecrated eucharist revert back to mere common bread and wine if the communicant lacks faith or doubts the transformation of the holy gifts?

I don't think the Eucharist could revert back to being bread and wine just as the Incarnation cannot be reverted back from. We however can turn away from belief or a correct, pious attitude towards the Eucharist, just as we can turn away from the Incarnate Christ.

The effect of this turning away then would be as if the Eucharist were just bread and wine just as the effect of turning away from Christ would be 'receiving' Him as if He were just a man.

However I think it's also very important to say that along with what results from this turning away is also certainly a condemnation of ourselves, a condemnation which comes from rejecting Christ. So if we receive the Eucharist as if it is mere bread & wine due to our own inattention then this is definitely a judgement on us.

By the way I also think this helps clarify the point I was trying to make previously about splitting the Eucharist too much into bread/Body & wine/Blood. As the quotes you provide show, without rigorously defining this, the Holy Fathers describe the bread and wine as the Body & Blood of Christ. They aren't saying the former disappears or that all that remains is the Body and Blood. What they say is exactly what they mean- the bread & wine at the Liturgy are the Body & Blood. I'm having a hard time finding an analogy for what this means since there is nothing as immediate as the Eucharist in the Church. But if we accept that the word symbol for us means more than just to represent and that it refers more to conveying the actual essence of something, then the Eucharist is the Symbol of symbols of Christ.

And again we can see that it is very problematic to describe the Eucharist in a divided way as if the bread & wine refer to Christ's human nature while His Body & Blood refer to His divinity. Instead I think it is more correct and in accord with the Patristic vision to say with them that at the Eucharist the bread and wine are indeed the Body & Blood of the One undivided & Incarnate Christ. In other words the Body & Blood is not created material with Christ added to it; it is rather created material that literally becomes the Incarnate Christ. The bread & wine don't represent Christ (then we'd back to the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist); they become Christ.

As appealing as the image is there is thus a danger in describing the bread & wine as if they represent the created aspect of the Incarnation for this separates Christ into two subjects instead of one. Instead we say that in the Liturgy the bread & wine are the Body & Blood as an indication of how the One Incarnate Christ sums up the whole creation. Thus the Eucharist is not an analogy of Christ taking on human and created nature. Rather the Eucharist is the Incarnate Christ present and active within the Body of His Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

So if we receive the Eucharist as if it is mere bread & wine due to our own inattention then this is definitely a judgement on us.

Thank you Fr. Raphael for your very helpful reply. What you've written here is very sound, I feel. I'm reminded of the words of St. John of Kronstadt that, unworthy communicating opens the door for satan to enter into a person, as in the dreadful case of Judas the Devil, as St. John the Theologian has called him. A fearful judgement indeed!

humbly yours,
Theophilus

[Alec Lowly]

AN EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE LETTERHowever, this sympathy is constantly at odds with Father Schmemann's disrespect for the spiritual content of the Church's Mystery and his rejection of the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit in her liturgical development. Thus, in his book, Of Water and Spirit, rather than acknowledge the integrity of extant Baptismal practices, Father Alexander suggests—albeit circumspectly—that various changes and innovations be adopted in the Church's prevailing customs. Once more, we see that spirit of liturgical renovationism that smacks so much of contemporary Roman Catholicism, and this in the context of some very Orthodox thoughts!

This is tendentious. Father Alexander ~never~ rejected "the constant guidance of the Holy Spirit in (the Church's) liturgical development." What he questioned was whether every change and development in the Church's liturgical life -- and, historically, there have been many -- was ipso facto the Holy Spirit's guidance. To insist that they were is effectually to deny any role for human agency, good or ill, in the life of the Church.

[Max]

St. Ephrem the Syrian

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats it in Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." ( from 'Faith of the Early Fathers', Vol. 1 )

Hmmm...Jesus never said these things. It pained me to read that, honestly, since some believe He did say these things when He did not.

I think where some go off track is assuming that the Body and Blood of Christ is divine only. We shouldn't forget that His flesh was composed of dirt just like ours. I can hear some Christians gasp at this, but it is true. This is the extent of His humble Incarnation, that He would take on our lowly human nature taken from dirt. To deny the lowliness to which He came to us is to deny the Incarnation. He had the power to descend and He did not stop there, He went even lower, taking upon Himself the sins of the world.

Now, I think some tend to over-emphasize that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ as if it dropped straight out of heaven and was never taken from our lowly human race - as if it was never composed of lowly bread and common drink for 33 years before it was nailed to the Cross for the sins of the world.

This emphasizing the Eucharist as the Body and Blood while disregarding its nature as lowly bread and wine is unfortunate. This is like emphasizing Christ's divine nature over against his human nature.

It is both, yet one. It is lowly bread and wine, yet this lowly bread and wine is Christ's body and blood. To deny it is lowly bread and wine is like denying that Jesus had our lowly human nature. By "lowly" I don't mean sinful, I mean "simple" and taken from the ground through Adam.

Jesus had our lowly human nature, but through His mystical union with the Father through the Spirit, His human Body was truly Divine. Isn't this the amazing and glorious Mystery of the Faith? Many don't want God so near humanity, though. Who can bear that God loved us so much that He descended to our level? Can we believe that God has the ability to descend to any level He wishes, even to the level of common bread and wine?

[Ken McRae]

... This emphasizing the Eucharist as the Body and Blood while disregarding its nature as lowly bread and wine is unfortunate. This is like emphasizing Christ's divine nature over against his human nature.

It is both, yet one. It is lowly bread and wine, yet this lowly bread and wine is Christ's body and blood. To deny it is lowly bread and wine is like denying that Jesus had our lowly human nature ... etc.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem c. 350 A.D.

"These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ." (Mystagogic Catechesis 4:9)

Macarius the Magnesian c. 400 A.D. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09483a.htm)

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth." (Apocriticus, 3:23)

St. Cyril of Alexandria c. 444 A.D.

"He states demonstratively: 'This is My Body,' and 'This is My Blood,' lest you might suppose the things that are seen are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful God the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ." (On Matt. 26:27, in Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1)

[Antonios]

Excerpt from Father Alexander Schmemann, "For the Life of the World", chapter 2:13, page 41. Up until this excerpt, he has gone through the Divine Liturgy up until the communicant partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ (italics are the author's)


Up to this point the Eucharist was our ascension in Christ, our entrance in Him into the "world to come". And now, in this eucharistic offering in Christ of all things to the One to whom they belong and in whom alone they really exist, this movement of ascension has reached its end. We are at the paschal table of the Kingdom. What we have offered- our food, our life, ourselves, and the whole world- we offered in Christ and as Christ because He Himself has assumed our life and is our life. And now all this is given back to us as the gift of new life, and therefore- necessarily- as food.

"This is my body, this is my blood. Take, eat, drink..." And generations upon generations of theologians ask the same question. How is this possible? How does this happen? And what exactly does happens in the transformation? And when exactly? And what is the cause? No answer seems to be satisfactory. Symbol? But what is a symbol? Substance, accidents? Yet one immediately feels that something is lacking in all these theories, in which the Sacrament is reduced to the categories of time, substance, and causality, the very categories of "this world".

Something is lacking because the theologian thinks of the sacrament and forgets the liturgy. As a good scientist he first isolates the object of his study, reduces it to one moment, to one "phenomenon"- and then, proceeding from the general to the particular, from the known to the unknown, he gives a definition, which in fact raises more questions than it answers. But throughout our study the main point has been that the whole liturgy is sacramental, that is, one transforming act and one ascending movement. And the very goal of this movement of ascension is to take us out of "this world" and to make us partakers of the world to come. In this world- the one that condemned Christ and by doing so has condemned itself- no bread, no wine can become the body and blood of Christ. Nothing which is a part of it can be "sacralized". But the liturgy of the Church is always an anaphora, a lifting up, an ascension. The Church fulfills itself in heaven in that new eon which Christ has inaugurated in His death, resurrection and ascension, and which was given to the Church on the day of Pentecost as its life, as the "end" toward which it moves. In this world Christ is crucified, His body broken, and His blood shed. And we must go out of this world, we must ascend to heaven in Christ in order to become partakers of the world to come.

But this is not an "other" world, different from the one God has created and given to us. It is our same world, already perfected in Christ, but not yet in us. It is our same world, redeemed and restored, in which Christ "fills all things with Himself." And since God has created the world as food for us and has given us food as means of communion with Him, the new food of the new life which we recieve form God in His Kingdom is Christ Himself. He is our bread- because from the very beginning all our hunger was a hunger for Him and all our bread was but a symbol of Him, a symbol that had to become reality.

He became man and lived in this world. He ate and drank, and this means that the world of which He partook, the very food of our world became His body, His life. But His life was totally, absolutely eucharistic- all of it was transformed into communion with God and all of it ascended into heaven. And now He shares this glorified life with us. "What I have done alone- I give it now to you: take, eat..."

We offered the bread in remembrance of Christ because we know that Christ is Life, and all food, therefore, must lead us to Him. And now when we recieve this bread from His hands, we know that He has taken up all life, filled it with Himself, made it what it was meant to be: communion with God, sacrament of His presence and love. Only in the Kingdom can we confess with St. Basil that "this bread is in very truth the precious body of our Lord, this wine the precious blood of Christ." What is "supernatural" here, in this world, is revealed as "natural" there. And it is always in order to lead us "there" and to make us what we are that the Church fulfills hereself in liturgy.

[Ken McRae]

Something is lacking because the theologian thinks of the sacrament and forgets the liturgy. As a good scientist he first isolates the object of his study, reduces it to one moment, to one "phenomenon"- and then, proceeding from the general to the particular, from the known to the unknown, he gives a definition, which in fact raises more questions than it answers. But throughout our study the main point has been that the whole liturgy is sacramental, that is, one transforming act and one ascending movement.

Thanks very much, Antonios, for taking the time to post a lengthy extract! It's very good, to be sure. The above statement, though, gives me pause to ponder and question. He lost me (a little bit) at this point. I can quite agree with him that the whole liturgy is sacramental and transforming, for sure, but I personally disagree with his opinion concerning the Anaphora proper.

[EDIT: It seems to me like he's saying the Anaphora is not really a part of the Liturgy, and least of all the most important part, and that the Liturgy from start to finish is one complete "Anaphora". I think I understand him, and in one way I agree, and in another I do not. I'm able to certainly sympathize with the desire to avoid "rationalizing" the mystery, but it seems to me that a change occurs at a certain or definite point in the time continum, and probably when the precise words of Christ are spoken, in the Anaphora proper, and I cannot see how thinking or believing this detracts anything from its Mystery and Power; nor can I see how the precise point of change or transformation is so important an issue that it should become all consuming and divisive. But then again, I'm no "theologian", but since I have no spiritual director, I can not really delve into prayer the way I wish to, I keep my thoughts occupied the best I can with pious and "theological" reflection, until that time when I can truly learn to cutivate the Spirit and Life of prayer.]

The Anaphora (proper), (and especially the precise words of consecration,) is the very heart and highpoint of the Liturgy! I would think most everyone believes this, except some Protestants. The holy gifts are just holy types before the consecration; but real Flesh and Blood after the consecration; the change occurs before the end of the Liturgy, but it does not follow from this that the part of the Liturgy following after their transformation is somehow less sacramental. Nor does it follow that those who believe the Anaphora is the most important part of the Liturgy have somehow lost sight of the sacramental nature of the rest of the Liturgy!

[Antonios]

Well said Theophilus. I agree with you that the entire liturgy is sacramental. The excerpt I posted is but one part of the larger text regarding the eucharist, the rest of it nicely complementing this particular portion.

I'm not well studied in liturgical theology, especially when compared to other rites, such as Roman Catholic. From my reading of the book, there does appear to be a difference when the transformation happens, that is the during the words of institution versus the epiclesis. From the book:

"It is the Holy Spirit who manifests the bread as the body and the wine as the blood of Christ. The Orthodox Church has always insisted that the transformation of the eucharistic elements is performed by the epiclesis- the invocation of the Holy Spirit- and not by the words of institution. This doctrine, however, was often misunderstood by the Orthodox themselves. Its point is not to replace one "causality"- the words of institution- by another, a different "formula". It is to reveal the eschatological character of the sacrament. The Holy Spirit comes on the "last and great day of Pentecost". He manifests the world to come. He inaugriates the Kingdom. He always takes us beyond. To be in the Spirit means to be in heaven, for the Kingdom of God is "joy and peace in the Holy Spirit." And thus in the Eucharist it is He who seals and confirms our ascencion into heaven, who transforms the Church in to the Body of Christ and- therefore- manifests the elements of our offering as communion in the Holy Spirit. This is the consecration." (ibid, page 43-44)

Apparently, this controversy of when the transformation happens has lasted for many centuries between the East and the West, not unlike the controversies of how this tranformation happens. From my understanding, Father Schmemann, (writing for the lay reader), is trying to make the point that so much time and energy has been expended by theologians during the centuries trying to 'dissect' the sacrament and trying to reduce it to "the categories of time, substance, and causality, the very categories of 'this world'", that many have lost sight that the entire liturgy is the anaphora.

"Let us lift up our hearts," says the celebrant, and the people answer, "We have lifted them up to the Lord." The Eucharist is the anaphora, the "lifting up" of our offering, and of ourselves. It is the ascension of the Church to heaven. "But what do I care about heaven," says St. John Chrystostom, "when I myself have become heaven...?" The Eucharist has so often been explained with reference to the gifts alone: what "happens" to bread and wine, and why, and when it happens! But we must understand that what "happens" to bread and wine happens because something has, first of all, happened to us, to the Church. It is because we have "constituted" the Church, and this means we followed Christ in His ascension; because He has accepeted us at His table in His Kingdom; because, in terms of theology, we have entered the Eschaton, and are now standing beyond time and space; it is because all this has first happened to us that something will happen to bread and wine. (ibid. page 37)

[Ken McRae]

Excerpt from Father Alexander Schmemann, "For the Life of the World", chapter 2:13, page 41. ... etc.

... Something is lacking because the theologian thinks of the sacrament and forgets the liturgy. As a good scientist he first isolates the object of his study, reduces it to one moment, to one "phenomenon"- and then, proceeding from the general to the particular, from the known to the unknown, he gives a definition, which in fact raises more questions than it answers.

I'm still reflecting on this image, and it seems it just does'nt sit well with me, somehow! While I agree this is the wrong way to approach or engage in the theological act, I cannot agree that everyone is a carnal rationalist who is of the opinion that the change/transformation occurs when the words of Christ are spoken by the priest (or somewhere at least very close to this moment in "Liurgical" time). And I do believe that many a "theologian" accepts this as much by faith (if almost not entirely by faith) in holy Tradition and Scripture.

[Ken McRae]

From my reading of the book, there does appear to be a difference when the transformation happens, that is the during the words of institution versus the epiclesis. From the book:

"It is the Holy Spirit who manifests the bread as the body and the wine as the blood of Christ. The Orthodox Church has always insisted that the transformation of the eucharistic elements is performed by the epiclesis- the invocation of the Holy Spirit - and not by the words of institution ... etc.(ibid, page 43-44)

Sorry, but I was in the middle of preparing my last post while you posted this, and I did not see it in time. It seems (to me at least) that both sides agree the change only occurs when the Word (by His Spirit) enters the holy gifts. This is the critical "theological" point, surely, that what is touched by the Spirit, in this manner, is truly changed and life-giving. When that precise moment in time occurs is mysterious, indeed, and I agree too much time has been lost on fruitless debate about it. Scholasticism has done much harm in this regard, and thus compelled the Catholic Thomas A'Kempis to compose the following words:-

That a Man Should Not be a Curious Searcher of the Sacrament, but a Humble Imitator of Christ, Submitting his Sense to Holy Faith (http://www2.bartleby.com/7/2/418.html)

"THOU must take heed of curious and useless searching into this most profound Sacrament, if thou wilt not be plunged into the abyss of doubt. He that is a searcher of Majesty shall be oppressed by the glory thereof. 1 God is able to do more than man can understand. A pious and humble search after truth is to be allowed, when it is always ready to be taught, and striving to walk after the wholesome opinions of the fathers. 1 2. Blessed is the simplicity which leaveth alone the difficult paths of questionings, and followeth the plain and firm steps of God’s commandments. Many have lost devotion whilst they sought to search into deeper things. Faith is required of thee, and a sincere life, not loftiness of intellect, nor deepness in the mysteries of God. If thou understandest not nor comprehendest the things which are beneath thee, how shalt thou comprehend those which are above thee? Submit thyself unto God, and humble thy sense to faith, and the light of knowledge shall be given thee, as shall be profitable and necessary unto thee. 2 3. There are some who are grievously tempted concerning faith and the Sacrament; but this is not to be imputed to themselves but rather to the enemy. Care not then for this, dispute not with thine own thoughts, nor make answer to the doubts which are cast into thee by the devil; but believe the words of God believe His Saints and Prophets ... etc."



Apparently, this controversy of when the transformation happens has lasted for many centuries between the East and the West, not unlike the controversies of how this tranformation happens. From my understanding, Father Schmemann, (writing for the lay reader), is trying to make the point that so much time and energy has been expended by theologians during the centuries trying to 'dissect' the sacrament and trying to reduce it to "the categories of time, substance, and causality, the very categories of 'this world'", that many have lost sight that the entire liturgy is the anaphora.

There is no question but that Fr. Schmemann is right on target here; but I wish to exercise caution against swinging like a pendulum, and assuming it is unenlightened at best to accept or believe either position. He appears entirely right, though, as I see it, to draw our attention to and emphasize the heavenly nature and mystery of the entire Liturgy, without question! Surely, though, it is a divine ascent toward the most glorious miracle of all miracles, and it is not a carnal design to sanctify that moment in time as exceptionally holy and divinely remarkable in the Liturgical event. To do so only enhances the utter sanctity of the entire Liturgy, and is what makes it a true Anaphora, in the most complete sense of the term, "from Alpha to Omega," or from start to finish.



"Let us lift up our hearts," says the celebrant, and the people answer, "We have lifted them up to the Lord." The Eucharist is the anaphora, the "lifting up" of our offering, and of ourselves. It is the ascension of the Church to heaven. "But what do I care about heaven," says St. John Chrystostom, "when I myself have become heaven...?" The Eucharist has so often been explained with reference to the gifts alone: what "happens" to bread and wine, and why, and when it happens! But we must understand that what "happens" to bread and wine happens because something has, first of all, happened to us, to the Church. It is because we have "constituted" the Church, and this means we followed Christ in His ascension; because He has accepeted us at His table in His Kingdom; because, in terms of theology, we have entered the Eschaton, and are now standing beyond time and space; it is because all this has first happened to us that something will happen to bread and wine. (ibid. page 37)

Again, thanks for the large extracts. You're depiction of them is accurate, as they do shed considerable light on the original extract. Of course he is totally right, in my eyes, to empasize the therapuetic or medicinal nature of the holy Eucharist; and that the Eucharistic mystery is essentially the mystery of the Body of Christ itself. But I personally question whether it is appropriate to say that the epiclesis is somehow no more important to the miracle of the holy Eucharist than our entering the Eschaton. Maybe it is, but I'm inclined to disagree. There is something very special and ineffable, in my eyes, about both the epiclesis and the words of institution, which demarcate them as the divine pinnacle or threshold of the miracle of all miracles! The Divine Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of the God-Man!

[Max]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem c. 350 A.D.

"These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ." (Mystagogic Catechesis 4:9)

Macarius the Magnesian c. 400 A.D. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09483a.htm)

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth." (Apocriticus, 3:23)

St. Cyril of Alexandria c. 444 A.D.

"He states demonstratively: 'This is My Body,' and 'This is My Blood,' lest you might suppose the things that are seen are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful God the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ." (On Matt. 26:27, in Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1)

Sorry, but your last two quotes are dead ends. You may have misread my post. I made no reference to the bread and wine being figures in any way.

As for the first quote, Jesus Christ Himself said, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Mat 26:29 )

Was Christ speaking figuratively when He said "fruit of the vine"?

Also, the Apostle Paul wrote, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." (1Cr 11:26 )

Now, you have to interpret Paul's words as figurative if "let him eat of that bread" did not really mean literal bread. Isn't this the exact same error as when Christ says "This is my blood" and people interpret it figuratively?

To claim it is no longer bread or wine is a denial of both Christ's plain words and the Apostle Paul's clear writings. To clarify my position, I do not claim it to be a figure, but that the bread and wine remain bread and wine while truly and directly becoming the physical Body and Blood of Christ. Both realities, yet one substance.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

Thank you for conveying Thomas A'Kempis good words to us. I can't help but to think of some of the past threads here of Saint Irenaeus and his comments Against Heresies.

He speaks out strongly against "those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth" and "not eat with an uplifted mind". It seems to me that there is a reason that he takes such a strong position, namely his concern for souls. Hence we can see his call for us to be humble.

Both Saint Irenaeus and Thomas A'Kempis lead us to conclude that there is great danger in over defining things without knowledge from above. Saint Gregory Nazianzen also strongly warned Christians not to be prying into the mystery of God. So far from what I've read of the Fathers this seems to be a very common theme which should lead us to prayer, almsgiving which Saint John Chrysostom considered a divine responsibility for all Christians. It's better to write nothing and to pray without distractions, give to the poor than to write volumes of books is what I've been reading.

Theophilus you had been very correct to mentioned this before when you said something like (those Fathers wrote as they had been compelled to pen things). I'm sure they kept Holy Writ in mind.

Matthew 12:36
But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.


I think this really is the root of why some of the western fathers like Aquinas that are foundational there are looked upon differently within Orthodoxy, when some comments seem much more speculative. I have read that for Aquinas the use of the mind which seems to me has many limitations compelled his investigations via reasoning etc.

"And by "expanding his own mind," Aquinas meant rational enquiry, empirical investigation of reality, the pursuit of science. Thus to Aquinas the pursuit of empirical knowledge was the way of mystical union with God, empirical knowledge was the way of mystical union with God"

I'm not so sure a mystical union with God can be the result of intellectual inquiry, since we are more than minds. But again it seems to me to be a question of balance and limitations. Even Albert Einstein's mind came to that conclusion. "I don't pretend to understand the universe — it's much bigger than I am."

"Yet Aquinas himself late in his life underwent some kind of "second thoughts" on his works--for reasons he never fully explained. He was recorded as saying on the morning of December 6, 1273, as he was saying mass in Naples: "I can do no more. Such things have been revealed to me that all I have written seems as straw--and now I await the end of my life." He died three months later."

I wonder why Aquinas used the term straw instead of something like a few gains of sand on sea shore, it seems like a very humble statement.



Saint Irenaeus comments:

BOOK V.

CHAP. XX.--THOSE PASTORS ARE TO BE HEARD TO WHOM THE APOSTLES COMMITTED THE CHURCHES, POSSESSING ONE AND THE SAME DOCTRINE OF SALVATION; THE HERETICS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE TO BE AVOIDED. WE MUST THINK SOBERLY WITH REGARD TO THE MYSTERIES OF THE FAITH.

2. Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist.(4) Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth.(5) It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, "Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden,"(6) that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord. For these men do profess that they have themselves the knowledge of good and evil; and they set their own impious minds above the God who made them. They therefore form opinions on what is beyond the limits of the understanding. For this cause also the apostle says, "Be not wise beyond what it is fitting to be wise, but be wise prudently,"(7) that we be not cast forth by eating of the "knowledge" of these men (that knowledge which knows more than it should do) from the paradise of life. Into this paradise the Lord has introduced those who obey His call, "summing up in Himself all things which are in heaven, and which are on earth;"(8) but the things in heaven are spiritual, while those on earth constitute the dispensation in human nature (secundum hominem est dispositio). These things, therefore, He recapitulated in Himself: by uniting man to the Spirit, and causing the Spirit to dwell in man, He is Himself made the head of the Spirit, and gives the Spirit to be the head of man: for through Him (the Spirit) we see, and hear, and speak.

[Max]

Don't we call the Bible the Word of God? Yet it is composed of simple paper taken from the Earth along with common ink...

Bread and wine are simple elements taken from the earth, yet when the Church accepts them as such, they becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. The bread and wine do not lose their properties as bread and wine, as is obvious to all. The bread and wine gain a new reality just as the seed of Mary gained a new reality when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. The seed of Mary became the Word of God. By the same Spirit, the bread and wine become the very Body and Blood which was given at the cross. Mary's seed did not lose any degree of being human when it became the Word and the bread and wine do not lose any degree of being bread and wine when it becomes Christ's Body and Blood.

[Owen Jones]

Is it possible that the Eucharist has levels of meaning and understanding, based on our own spiritual development? And that for most of us a literal understanding is useful but perhaps does not exhaust the meaning? But that with an illumined intellect we can know and understand more? That some "secrets" are more or less revealed to those who are chosen to understand?

[Father David Moser]

You had me agreeing with you right up to here:


That some "secrets" are more or less revealed to those who are chosen to understand?

There is no "secret knowledge" revealed only to some select group. All is revealed to all - however we don't always appreciate the fullness of that revelation because of our own spiritual blindness and infirmity.

Fr David Moser

[Max]

Some have been chosen for certain gifts and some other gifts. Not all are chosen for the same gifts. We can safely assume that God does not choose all to understand the deep mysteries of the Sacraments equally. This does not mean God favors some children over others, but each is given gifts as the Spirit wills.

1Cr 12:4 "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will."

[Antonios]

Some have been chosen for certain gifts and some other gifts. Not all are chosen for the same gifts. We can safely assume that God does not choose all to understand the deep mysteries of the Sacraments equally. This does not mean God favors some children over others, but each is given gifts as the Spirit wills.

While it is true that some people have been chosen for certain gifts while others other gifts, this is through God's Good Wisdom and according to our particular abilities and spiritual state so as to heal our particular infirmities and lead us to Him.

The point I think Father David is making is that the inner principle or logoi of all realities is the same and accessible to all who apply themselves to the aquisition of spiritual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge, which is distinct from reason, is inspired through and granted by God in His Good Grace through prayer, contemplation, the practice of virtues, and the transfiguring of the passions so that we may grow more in the 'likeness' of God. Thus, by being 'purified', one can gain understanding of divine truth (the Logos of God) by means of immediate experience, intuition, or 'simple cognition' (as opposed to deductive reasoning). The Fathers of the Church are examples of saints who have reached, albiet in varying degrees, this level of spiritual knowledge.

Such degrees of spiritual knowledge and divine revelation are accessible to all of God's children, however, as Father David pointed out, "we don't always appreciate the fullness of that revelation because of our own spiritual blindness and infirmity." There is no 'secret knowledge' for a few chosen. Rather, there are merely a few who have chosen the narrow and straight path and have followed the Lord's commandments, and in their great love and intense longing for God have, by the Grace of God, shed the scales over their eyes, and been afforded the spiritual vision, understanding, and knowledge of the Logos of God, which is the Intellect, Wisdom and Providence of God, which is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[Max]

While it is true that some people have been chosen for certain gifts while others other gifts, this is through God's Good Wisdom and according to our particular abilities and spiritual state so as to heal our particular infirmities and lead us to Him.

It would be good to add that, not only is this to "heal our particular infirmities and lead us to Him" but that God gives His children spiritual gifts and such gifts are meant to build up the Body of Christ - not merely be used for our own personal salvation. We must not fall into the mindset that our only focus in life is laboring hard to save our own soul rather than using our spiritual gifts to build up the Body of Christ. Freely we have received, freely we should give, not to merely save ourselves (how selfish) but to help others to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

We also ought to remember that, although some gifts may be attained or "honed" through seeking and practice, spiritual gifts are given by God freely by faith. For example, a person who speaks in tongues did not need to work hard to receive such a gift. It comes spontaneously by the will of God through the Spirit by means of His Word. So the same is true of these other gifts, including the gifts that pertain to understanding God's Word, His Holy Wisdom. For example, how hard does a child labor for such things? ...yet by the mouth of babes God's Wisdom brightly shines forth and puts to shame even those who consider themselves wise and worthy. Certainly, seeking God's face is good and proper, but even greater is acknowledging that God has the right to give to each person those gifts that He chooses. Or, are we now suddenly the ones to decide how to best build up the Body of Christ?

[Antonios]

Excellent post, onwave. I agree with everything you have written. The two previous posts are not mutually exclusive, but rather, closer to the fullness of truth. Thank you.

[Father David Moser]

I would just like to confirm that Antonios seems to be expounding on my words in the way that I intended them - thank you.

The reason I made my comment in the first place is that the idea of some "secret" truth, only revealed to the "chosen" is a gnostic heresy and so we have to be careful not to fall into that trap. Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God - everything was revealed in Him, there is nothing new or kept back. It is only when we see Him with eyes and minds purified that we can begin to grasp the fullness of the revelation

Fr David

[Max]

That some "secrets" are more or less revealed to those who are chosen to understand?

I'd like to also confirm that what Owen says is true. Not all are given the gift to understand the deeper things. St. Paul was given certain grace, for example, not because St. Paul was "more chosen" but because God had a predestined use for St. Paul and therefore St. Paul was given (as a gift to further God's ministry) more insight into certain topics. St. Paul was not given special revelation into the deep things of the Gospel in order to save his soul or because he'd successfully advanced to higher levels of holiness through great feats of aesceticism, but these revelations were given to him freely in order to build up the Bride of Christ. Simply put, Paul was chosen by God to do a job and God gave him the spiritual insight to do it.

1Cr 2:7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Eph 3:1 "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"

Not all have been given the same insight into the mysteries of God. Those who do have "deeper insight" are no better than those who are more simple in their knowledge of the Mystery of God, Jesus Christ. God chooses some to know Christ deeper because they've been chosen to have more responsibility. So yes, God chooses some to know things that others would do better to never know at all. What else can we do but thank God for this?