The Body and Blood of Jesus [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

View Full Version : The Body and Blood of Jesus

James F.

07-07-2006, 06:56 PM

alexei

07-07-2006, 07:20 PM

M. Markewich

07-07-2006, 11:18 PM

Hello James.

The simplest answer I can think of is that Christ's commandment was an exception to the commandment to not partake of blood. A similar exception can be found when we look at Romans. Paul tells us in the first half of Rom 13 to obey the government, and disobeying the law is like disobeying God (anyone here do the speed limit? ;-)). However, in Act 4:19-20, Peter implies that it is better to obey God rather than men (speaking of the Sanhedrin, a government in Judea). So how do we resolve this contention, God telling us to obey the government and then God telling us to disobey the government? We resolve it by saying that God is making an exception - if an earthly law goes against God's law, then we must disobey the law, and we don't sin when we do it. The same is with communion - if the commandment to not consume blood violates God's law to drink His blood, then we must disobey the first commandment, and we don't sin when we do it. (Of course I don't mean to imply that you're free to drink blood. That is just really creepy. I just mean that Jesus' commandment is an acceptable exception.)

There are many other examples where God gives us a command but has room for exceptions. Think of the sin of Rahab; she lied to the authorities, but since it was for a greater cause, she was saved by God. (Heb 11:31)

So don't feel like the Orthodox believe in a contradiction; whatever is happening is just consistent with other cases in the Bible when exceptions are honored by God, and no sin is done (in fact, righteousness is done).

Ken McRae

08-07-2006, 12:53 AM

Also, you won't find much in the way of transubstantiation or the like in Orthodox Theology.

The Orthodox St. John of Kronstadt did not hesitate to employ the term "transubstantiation", as will appear by the following quotes from his own grace-filled book, entitled My Life in Christ :-

01 - Strengthen yourself by the undoubting invocation of the Holy Ghost the Comforter. He is well known to you. You so often invoke Him upon the Holy Gifts, and He, at your prayer, unfailingly and continually transubstantiates them, and you yourself partake again and again of the fruits of His divine acts. ( p. 75 )

02 - What a wonderful creation of God is man! God has wonderfully placed in the dust His image, the immortal spirit. But marvel, Christian, still more at the wisdom, omnipotence and mercy of the Creator: He changes and transforms the bread and wine into His most-pure Body and into His most-pure Blood, and takes up His abode in them Himself, by His most-pure and Life-giving Spirit, so that His Body and Blood are together Spirit and Life. And wherefore is this? In order to cleanse you, a sinner, from your sins, to sanctify you and to unite you, thus sanctified to Himself, and thus united to give you blessedness and immortality. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom. 11:33)!" ( p. ??? )

03 - To Thee, Lord, everything is possible ... etc. Canst Thou not, therefore, create flesh for Thyself out of bread and wine, which are so near to our flesh, being used for our food and drink, and thus being converted into our own flesh and blood? Thou dost not test our faith more than it can bear, for Thou dost not transubstantiate a lump of earth into Thy most-pure Body, but white bread, soft, clean, pleasant to the taste ... etc. Thou knowest our infirmity, the weakness of our faith, and therefore Thou condescendest to employ in the Sacrament of Thy Body and Blood the substances most suitable to them. Let us, therefore, firmly believe that under the form of bread and wine we communicate of the true Body and of the true Blood of our Lord; that in the mystery of the Holy Communion, Jesus Christ Himself will dwell with us "alway, even unto the end of the world." ( p. 22 )

04 - Why should it be wonderful if God Himself, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, transforms, transubstantiates bread and wine into His own most pure Body and His own most pure Blood? In these - in the bread and wine - the Son of God does not become again incarnate, for He was already once incarnate, and this is sufficient unto endless ages; but He is incarnate in the very same flesh in which He was before incarnate, in the same manner as He multiplied the five loaves and fed with these five loaves several thousands of people. There are a great many mysteries in nature which my mind cannot grasp ... etc. So also, in this Sacrament of the life-giving Body and Blood, it is a mystery for me, how the bread and wine are made into the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself - but the mystery of the Body and Blood really exists, although it is incomprehensible to me ... etc. For my soul there is the Spirit of the Lord, and for my soul and body there are His Body and Blood. ( p. 13 )

05 - If the bodiless angels can take upon themselves a body, not a visionary, but a real one, having received the capability of doing this from God, then with what ease can the Lord Himself create a body for Himself ? It may even be said that the creative power is natural to every animate being, by the gift of God the Spirit, the Creator of everything. Shall not, therefore, the Lord Himself who has given such laws to nature, with instantaneous facility, at a single sign, transform at His will, any substance into a body? Do not all bodies consist of formless inanimate matter? What unbelieving person will, after this, doubt the possibility of the transformation, for instance, of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, during the Divine liturgy? This is but an ordinary act of the God of wonders, after the fact of His having created flesh for Himself from the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. ( p. 132 )

06 - In the perpetual miracle of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ united with His Divinity and soul, I see the miracle of the perpetual quickening of man by the divine breathing, and of his creation into a living soul. It is written: "And man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7)," but upon the Holy Altar the bread and wine, after their transubstantiation become not only a living soul, but a quickening spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). And this is all accomplished before my eyes; and I experience it both with my soul and body, feeling it vividly. My God! How terrible are the Mysteries which Thou createst! Of what unspeakable Mysteries hast Thou made me the witness and partaker! Glory to Thee, my Creator! Glory to Thee, Creator of the Body and Blood of Christ! ( p. 114 )

07 - Value by its properties that greatest miracle of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, as manifested in the communion, with faith, of His divine mysteries. What is the miracle? The peace-giving and life-giving effect upon your heart, slain by sin, which is so apparent after the uneasiness of heart and the spiritual deadness that often precedes communion. Never consider it from habit as anything ordinary or unimportant: by such thoughts and such a disposition of heart you will incur the wrath of God, and you will not enjoy peace nor feel renewed life after communion ... etc. ( p. 16-17 )

Matthew Panchisin

08-07-2006, 05:43 AM

Dear Alexei,

Also, you won't find much in the way of transubstantiation or the like in Orthodox Theology.

You are correct, we have had a few discussions on this matter in the past.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-07-2006, 04:38 PM

Theophilus wrote:

The Orthodox St. John of Kronstadt did not hesitate to employ the term "transubstantiation", as will appear by the following quotes from his own grace-filled book, entitled My Life in Christ :-

Whatever word he used St John certainly did not intend the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.

Orthodoxy is beyond word choices. It is about speaking from within the Body of the Orthodox Church & it is this which gives what is being spoken its meaning. Otherwise I suppose every possible belief on earth (and lack thereof) could be supported by certain words of the Holy Fathers.

Context then is everything which in this case means the Orthodox Church of which St John obviously was a member in the most traditional way possible.

To understand these things we must be commited sacramentally to the Orthodox Church & accept Her understanding of what the Church is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

08-07-2006, 07:49 PM

Whatever word he used St John certainly did not intend the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.

There is currently a seminary professor in Mosow (Mr Osipov I believe his name is) who gives a very interesting perspective on this topic. He explains that the bread and the wine do not become the actual crucified body and blood of Christ, but rather that the bread and the wine are hypostatically joined to Christ in the same manner as He was initially hypostatically joined to the body in the womb of the Holy Virgin. In this manner when we partake of the Holy Mysteries, we do indeed partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, but at the same time it is not as if we cut off a finger or a piece of thigh muscle and eat it. If you read all of St John's quotes with this in mind, you will see that there is no confict at all with suh an understanding.

AS to the prohibition to eat blood (and now I am no longer speaking of the views of Mr Osipov, but rather my own opinion), one must understand the meaning of that prohibition, rather than the "letter of the law". Blood is closely identified with the soul - and if one were to eat the blood of an animal, one would also "commune" with its soul, taking in its nature. (this also relates to the reason that we do not eat of meat and animal products during the fast) However our salvation is not to become like the beasts, but like Christ and so to partake of His Most Precious Blood is also to unite oneself with His soul and so become more like Him. So the prohibition against eating the blood of animals was to protect the people of God from becoming imbued with the soul of the animals - that is the earthly nature - so that they might be less weighed down by this world at the coming of their salvation. I'm sure that this is at best an incomplete nd rather cursory take on the topic, and I apologize, however, for such a forum this is all that is really possible.

Fr David Moser

Scott Pierson

27-07-2006, 12:11 AM

There is currently a seminary professor in Mosow (Mr Osipov I believe his name is) who gives a very interesting perspective on this topic. He explains that the bread and the wine do not become the actual crucified body and blood of Christ, but rather that the bread and the wine are hypostatically joined to Christ in the same manner as He was initially hypostatically joined to the body in the womb of the Holy Virgin. In this manner when we partake of the Holy Mysteries, we do indeed partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, but at the same time it is not as if we cut off a finger or a piece of thigh muscle and eat it. If you read all of St John's quotes with this in mind, you will see that there is no confict at all with such an understanding.

Father Bless

Is that simmilar to what Fr Bulgakov describes in "Holy Grail and the Eucharist" ? Its been a while since I've read the book . I came across this quote from another one of his writtings on a web page and thought it was interesting :

"The body of Christ, being manifested in the bread and wine, does not cease being a spiritual body, abiding above this world. And in becoming Christ’s body and blood, which now belong to His supramundane, glorified corporeality, the bread and wine do not lose their being in this world….

Thus, the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies not the tabernacling of the heavenly Christ substantialiter into these accidents, which are then viewed as a kind of unchanging shell, but their direct conversion without any limitation and remainder into the body and blood of Christ–a true transmutation. The fact that the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were has no significance here. As such, they have become other than themselves; they no longer have independent existence as things of this world but belong to the body of Jesus, in the same way that the bread and fish that He ate in the presence of his disciples belonged to his body. The Lord, who in His spiritual and glorified body abides at the right hand of God the Father, creates, in the transmutation, a body for Himself from the bread, matter of this world, and animates it with His blood….

As a result of this transmutation, the bread and wine with all their properties stop being matter of this world, stop belonging to the world, but become the true body and blood of Christ. This transmutation is accomplished through their unification with the Lord’s spiritual and glorified body that ascended from the world but now appears in them on earth. In the capacity of earthly matter, the eucharistic elements remain bread and wine for the world, whereas, in being transmuted, they already belong to the body of Christ, which is found outside and above the world. And the elements are thereby raised to the metacosmic being of this body and manifest in themselves the corporeality of Christ on earth."

What do you think of that ? I'm not the biggest fan of some aspects of Fr Bulgakovs theology but this seems ok to my (admittedly sinful) mind? His book "The Bride of the Lamb" was one of the first Orthodox Books I had ever read.. talk about a head ache .. I had to read it very slow to understand it . I was really impressed at first but as I learned more about the faith I found some of his views to be a little off base imo.

Yesterday I read something by him that I found rather insulting though... in speaking of the hesychast he calls them dreamy navel gazers and that their view of perceiving the Uncreated Light of God was "outrageous"...

Father David Moser

27-07-2006, 06:34 AM

Father Bless

Is that simmilar to what Fr Bulgakov describes ..

Well, his language is a bit dense for me - but as best as I can make out, I think Prof Osipov and Fr S Bulgakov are on the same track.

Fr David Moser

Ken McRae

27-07-2006, 07:42 AM

... Fr Bulgakov ... I came across this quote from another one of his writtings ... " ... the bread and wine do not lose their being in this world …. Thus, the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies not the tabernacling of the heavenly Christ substantialiter into these accidents, which are then viewed as a kind of unchanging shell ... The fact that the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were has no significance here ... In the capacity of earthly matter, the eucharistic elements remain bread and wine for the world ... "

"Tabernacling of the heavenly Christ substantialiter into these accidents?" I have to agree with Fr. David about his terminology and manner of expression. Secondly, he appears to go further than the holy Fathers in their explanation of the Mystery. Thirdly, his view almost sounds 'Lutheran', or at least under a Western influence of some kind. Did the holy Fathers distinguish between the heavenly and earthly natures of the bread and wine, the way he does?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem says they are not bread and wine after the transformation, but flesh and blood. I'm sorry, but I can't see the so-called earthly matter of the eucharistic elements, as Fr. Bulgakov describes it, being eliminated from the body as physical waste! God forbid! St. Cyril says that when the elements are miraculously changed into the glorified and life-givng Flesh and Blood of Christ, then they are no longer bread and wine, no matter what our physical senses may tell us!!

Scott Pierson

27-07-2006, 01:27 PM

I can't see the so-called earthly matter of the eucharistic elements, as Fr. Bulgakov describes it, being eliminated from the body as physical waste!

Did Fr Bulgakov actually say that or is that just the implication you get from reading his book on the Eucharist (or the quote I posted) ?

Thus, the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies not the tabernacling of the heavenly Christ substantialiter into these accidents,

This is the latin view that he was disagreeing with... It would make sense that he would use the latin terminology.

Ken McRae

27-07-2006, 05:54 PM

Did Fr Bulgakov actually say that or is that just the implication you get from reading his book on the Eucharist (or the quote I posted)?

I have not read his book, but if it reads like the passage you posted, I doubt I'll ever get around to reading it. The writings of the saints will keep me very busy for a long, long time to come, and the way I look at it, for the most part, is that if I'm going to take away time from reading them, it will be rarely to read the "controversial" writings of contemporary writers. I will say this, though, about Fr. Bulgakov: That Blessed Archimandrite Sophrony was influenced by his writing has done much to rehabilitate my meagre view of him (Fr. Bulgakov). Secondly, to be very honest about it, I am partial to Fr. Bulgakov's view of universal salvation.

A while back, I underwent a severe crisis in my life, where I began to feel that there was a very high probability that I'd end up in Gehenna, if I could'nt resolve some situations in my life; so I began to reflect deeply upon the doctrine of eternal punishment. I was aware of the doctrine of universal salvation at that time, but had never given it serious thought, nor had I ever read anything on it by someone who defended it. And I found myself, quite apart from any external influences, formulating reasons in my own mind, very similar to Fr. Bulgakov's, for believing in some form of universal salvation. At the time, though, as I say, I had little to no exposure to the doctrine, apart from the fact that I knew it was believed by a few Patristic fathers.

But to return to the question of Fr. Bulgakov's Eucharistic theology, that was a conclusion I drew from what you posted; and perhaps it was based on a logical "fallacy"; but if the holy gifts retain any part of their "corruptible" nature after the change has occured, then this mass of "corruption" will produce waste; an unthinkable thing for me, for the Scriptures clearly state that the Body of Christ is "incorrupt" and can never experience corruption!! The question, then, is this: Does Fr. Bulgakov teach that the holy gifts retain any part of their "corruptible" nature after their miraculous transformation? Perhaps I misunderstood him.

He says: "The transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies ... their direct conversion without any limitation and remainder into the body and blood of Christ–a true transmutation. The fact that the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were has no significance here." It is a little hard for me to understand him here, but when he says "without any limitation and remainder", it seems he like he's saying nothing of the "corruptible" nature of bread and wine remains after their conversion. But what does he mean in the following sentence, when he says that "the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were?"

This is the latin view that he was disagreeing with ... It would make sense that he would use the latin terminology.

Perhaps. As I've indicated in another post, I'm of the opinion that it is wrong for us to attempt to "rationalize" or "demystify" the holy Sacrament, in a "scholastic" manner. We should not be quick to transgress the boundaries established by the holy Fathers. That we have difficulty in this regard is only a sign of weakness in ourselves, I feel. And while I believe that charity thinks good of all, (and so I say good things about many so-called "Western" ideas,) I am not reluctant to criticize the West either, and very harshly at times. Let no one think, though, that I'm guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bath water," according the ol' cliche.

I quoted those words (of Fr. Bulgakov's) for two reasons: first, because they sounded quite loaded, or "dense" and secondly, because he appears to contradict himself in the very next sentence, following it. But as I say, (it was late at night when I read it and posted my reply, so) I might've been guilty of misunderstanding him. That is very possible, I readily admit!

Scott Pierson

27-07-2006, 11:49 PM

He says: "The transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies ... their direct conversion without any limitation and remainder into the body and blood of Christ–a true transmutation. The fact that the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were has no significance here." It is a little hard for me to understand him here, but when he says "without any limitation and remainder", it seems he like he's saying nothing of the "corruptible" nature of bread and wine remains after their conversion. But what does he mean in the following sentence, when he says that "the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were?"

Okay I see what your saying now. Thats a good point I didnt think of that.. I was just refering to the "the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies not the tabernacling of the heavenly Christ substantialiter into these accidents," part... Right there I think he was using scholastic language to describe the Latin view which he disagrees with. basically saying it doesnt properly explain what takes place... It would be hard to explain the latin view using patristic language because the latin view isnt patristic.. your pretty much forced to use scholastic language to explain transubstantation.

in their earthly nature remain what they were?

I assume he is saying that the atomic structure/chemical make up, taste, appearnce, and such of the Eucharist stays the same even after it becomes the Body and Blood. That Christs Eucharistic body is physicaly composed of Bread just as in the Incarnation it was physicaly composed of water , skin cells, etc.. Maybe he takes on bread in a simmilar way that he took on flesh in the incarnation... I hope I didnt just propose some new heresy and put it into Fr Bulgakovs mouth for him... I should probably stick to discussing things I know more about.

he writings of the saints will keep me very busy for a long, long time to come, and the way I look at it, for the most part, is that if I'm going to take away time from reading them, it will be rarely to read the "controversial" writings of contemporary writers

Yeah, I'm sure the writings of the saints are more edifying.

Michael Astley

02-09-2006, 12:04 PM

I was talking to an Orthodox Christian, and he said that when the Orthodox Church has Communion, the bread and the wine are literally turned into the actual body and the actual blood of Jesus. How is this so? I'll have to look it up, but I think the Bible says that the drinking of blood is forbidden, is it not?

Dear James,

I'm pleased that your exploration of Orthodoxy is continuing along such a healthy route, and that you are seeking the Truth of these matters.

I don't know whether you will find this helpful, but I'll share this with you and you can take from it what you like. When I was considering converting to Orthodoxy, I decided to sit down and type my thoughts about why. This eventually came to six sides of A4, and I decided to create a blog. This was a part of my first entry. I share it here in the hope that somebody also considering converting may glean something useful from my inane witterings when I was in the same situation.

God’s entire plan of salvation rests on the basic premise that it was God, who became human, who died on the Cross and rose again, so that when he would again ascend to heaven, he would take our human nature with him.

Jesus had to be both God and human in order for this to work: he had to become human in order to share in and redeem fallen humanity, and he had to be simultaneously God, so that when he returned to the heavenly state, he would take our human nature with him, thus opening to us the gate to eternal life sharing in God's divine life. This is the second half of the mystery of the Incarnation. Yes, God became human, but through Christ’s Ascension, humanity also becomes deified, living eternally in the divine nature. This is our destiny and it begins with the Sacrament of Baptism. Christ has condescended to our level already. We die with him as we drown in the waters of Baptism, we rise with him from the waters of new life, and we gain eternal life by the merits of Christ’s Ascension. Birth, death, resurrection and ascension – the Mystery of the Incarnation.

It is through human flesh that God wrought salvation, and it is through elements of the created order that God gives us Sacramental grace: the waters of baptism, the sacred Chrism, made from the oil of the olive, the laying on of hands, simple bread and wine. Through the use of these simple creatures, which become sacred symbols, dedicated for divine use, the soul receives grace, and all made possible through the Incarnation. Under the Old Covenant, the focus was on the transcendence of God. Physical representation of God was forbidden. Contact with holiness meant sure and certain death at certain times in the Old Testament. However, in the New Covenant, the old order is done away with, God has condescended to become man, to become part of the created order, elements of the created order are used as windows into the spiritual in the holy images. God has opened up the way for our sanctification through that created order. Tertullian writes about this in the 3rd century, in chapter 8 of The Resurrection of the Flesh:

The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed: the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated: the flesh is signed with the cross, that the soul may be defended: the flesh has hands laid upon it, that the soul may be illuminated by the Holy Ghost: the flesh is fed on Christ’s Body and Blood, that the soul may be nourished by God.

St Etherius writes:

We eat his Body and drink his Blood, that as it passeth visibly into our inward parts, so we may be inwardly united to him and transformed. For it is a sacrament and a mystery.

The pinnacle of this is the Divine Liturgy; the holy Eucharist, by which the entire saving work of God is made present.

Jesus, the Christ, called his Apostles, and gave them the solemn charge to preach to the peoples of the earth, to take to them the Good News of salvation, and to baptise them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He gave them the Sacramental power to forgive sin in his name, and to be his Church in the world.

On the night before he died, Jesus performed for the first time, the fourfold action that the Church repeats at every Eucharist. He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and shared it. He did this within the context of the greatest commemoration of God’s saving work for his people: the Passover meal. This fourfold action he performed, and taught us that by repeating it, the saving work of his Incarnation, death, Resurrection and Ascension would be made present, when he gave us the command: ‘Do this in remembrance of me’.

The word that we poorly translate as ‘remembrance/memory’ in English, in the Greek scriptures, is anamnesis. This is not a simple remembering, such as remembering where one has left one’s keys, but actually means a making present in the here and now, events of the past. This was a popular concept in Jewish/Greek culture, and would have been instantly understood to those present. It is this anamnesis that was believed to be taking place at each and every celebration of Passover, which is why every food, every word, every prayer has a symbolic meaning. The Jewish people celebrating Passover believe themselves to be really and truly present with their forefathers as the angel of death passes over them - they truly and really tread with the ancestors as they cross the Red Sea. This is the same word that Christ used in his command to us. It is not a simple "remembering" in the common understanding of the word in the English language today. Sadly, this concept has never really featured in western culture, and so we have never had a word for it in the English language. "Remembrance" is the best that we can manage, but we must understand that it is a linguistic shortcoming and not indicative that the Eucharist is a mere "calling to mind".

Therefore Christ’s command to ‘do this’ (taking, giving thanks, breaking and sharing) in remembrance of him was not a mere request that Christians should gather together for shared food and think of Jesus. It was a command to celebrate and make present the entire incarnational mystery of God's saving acts throughout history, by joining the whole Church in making the events of our Faith truly present, including Christ's sacrifice of himself on Calvary. The redeeming, salvific moment of the Christ’s Sacrifice of himself on the Cross, his Resurrection and Ascension are made truly present at the Altar at each and every Mass: Christ the Victim is made present (anamnesis) in his Body and Blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, and Christ the High Priest, in the person of the bishop, the successor to the Apostles, (or the priest, his sacramental icon and representative).

This is a celebration of the great benefits that we have gained by Christ’s Birth, death and Resurrection, but the Mass is also eschatological – it celebrates the Ascension of Christ and so looks forward to the end time, when we too, shall be raised to eternal life with Christ in glory.

This is what the Mass is about. There are those who would deny this, and again, with little justification. They claim that the Body and Blood of Christ are not truly present, but that the bread and wine merely represent Christ’s Body and Blood. This heresy misses the point of the last Supper and Christ’s crucifixion, and diminishes the entire work of salvation, and is a grave departure from Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, both of which support the Church’s teaching.

The whole of chapter 6 of the Gospel according to St John supports this, especially verses 48ff, where Christ says:

‘I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ (John 6: 48 – 51)

Those who argue that the bread and wine are merely representations of the Body and Blood of Christ claim that Christ was speaking figuratively, and that he did not actually mean that we are to eat his Body.

However, it appears that those present actually took these words literally, as St John tells us that this statement caused the Jews to question how this could be – how could this Jesus give them his flesh to eat? If Jesus had not meant this to be taken literally, and had concerns that they had misunderstood him, surely this would have been the time to correct their misunderstanding, but instead, when he sees their confusion, he goes on to say:

‘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. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them'. (John 6: 53 – 56)

Can we be left in any doubt? In the sixth century, St Caesarius of Arles writes:

When the creatures are set upon our holy altars to be blessed by heavenly words, before they are consecrated by the invocation of the holy name, the substance thereof is bread and wine; but after the words of Christ, they are the Body and Blood of Christ. What wonder is it if he can change by his word the things which, by his word, he was able to create?

We have the words of St Paul in his first letter to the Church at Corinth:

…the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves.
(1 Corinthians 11: 23 -29)

The meaning is clear: although the outward appearance is that of bread, we are exhorted to discern the Body of Christ, and to suggest that God is incapable of bringing this about is blasphemy.