The mystery of the Eucharist

[Alex Haig]

God cannot be diluted or strengthened, He is 'intensely' present everywhere, but in some way he is more present in the Holy Mysteries.

How do we understand this paradox? Do we simply say it is a Mystery beyond our understanding or is there a [tentative] explanation? What do the Fathers say?

With love in Christ

Alex

PS, In this question I am thinking more about the Body and Blood of Christ but this could be extended to all Mysteries.

[Kris]

God cannot be diluted or strengthened, He is 'intensely' present everywhere, but in some way he is more present in the Holy Mysteries.

How do we understand this paradox?

Hi,

I don't see the paradox here. God is everywhere present through His divine energies. But Christ is not everywhere present in bodily form.

In the holy Eucharist, we receive the Body and Blood that our Lord assumed when He was born of the Virgin and became man. And so something different from simply His energies.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

In the eucharist we receive God Himself, the Word incarnate, both spiritually and physically.

I am not clear in my mind what you mean by 'simply his energies' being present in His creation, can you explain a bit?

For myself I think one of the qualitative differences in the eucharist is that the Person of the Word meets with us as human persons, and there is a personal contact, not only a reception of the Body of the Lord apart from Himself. Indeed if we do not receive the Word Himself in His Body and Blood then it is surely not lifegiving.

What do you think?

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

One very good book on the eucharist I can recommend is by Ezra Gebremedhin. It is rooted in patristic studies, especially St Cyril. He is in a fact an Ethiopian Lutheran who lives in Sweden, I met him at the Inter-Orthodox Conference on Christology in 2004.

The book details are:

Life-Giving Blessing : An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria

It's a really substantial read and others who have bought it have found it a useful description of St Cyril's thinking on the subject.

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

I am not clear in my mind what you mean by 'simply his energies' being present in His creation, can you explain a bit?


Hi Peter,

As I'm sure you know, many of the Fathers make a distinction between the divine essence and energies of God (I will leave the defining of these terms to someone smarter than myself).

Whilst God is present everywhere and in everything with respect to His divine energies, the human nature that was assumed by God the Word is not everywhere present.

As such, there is a clear difference between how we encounter Christ in everything around us, and the way we encounter Him in the Eucharist, where His lifegiving Body and Blood are present.



Indeed if we do not receive the Word Himself in His Body and Blood then it is surely not lifegiving.


I would agree with that statement, although perhaps one has to be careful as to how one defines receiving the Word. We do not, as far as I'm aware, partake of the essence of God the Word when we receive the Eucharist - someone told me this is what got the late Fr. Matta alMeskeen in trouble with Pope Shenouda III - but rather His energies; as well as, of course, His lifegiving Body and Blood.

But I will plead ignorance on this particular point.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

Surely we partake of Christ, the incarnate Word, not only his flesh, because His flesh, if it is apart from Him who makes it life giving, is only flesh. But I am sure you do not mean that.

I do fimd myself slightly confused by the popular distinction in EOxy of essence and energies, but sometimes it seems to me that what is being described by the energies is some thing that is not God at all.

Without wanting to go through the whole essence - energies thing, the energies must be God or they are not God. If we receive the energies - as a substitute for God - then we do not receive God. And I am finding it hard to conceive of a place where God's essence is not. If He is not here or there then He is not God - surely? This is another one of those mysteries like freewill and determinism.

I'm not saying I disagree with the whole idea of essence and energies but I sometimes sense some other people - not you - mean to set up a division between God and His energy so that what we actually relate to is not God at all.

So I want to stress that it is God Himself, the incarnate Word, inseparable in His Divinity from His humanity, whom we receive in the eucharist. I don't mind whether we talk of essence or energies but I am convinced we must confess that we receive God the Word in the eucharist.

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

Dear brother,

Whether or not the distinction between the energies and essence of God was made by writers in the first five centuries is not really important. There are numerous terms which did not have a specific definition in the early years of the Church, but which later became associated with a particular concept. Take, for examples, the terms "latreia" and "proskynisis" which now have a very definite meaning, but did not prior to the iconoclast controversies.

I find the quotations you made a bit obscure. Are the quotes simply from Nestorius' works, or are they quotes which the Orthodox Fathers specifically cited as heretical (in which case I shall withdraw everything I said)?

Whilst I agree that one cannot separate the divine and human natures of Christ, and that the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive in the Eucharist is not mere flesh and blood, but that of the Logos Incarnate; I'm still not sure this means we eat and drink the essence of God.

For, as the Fathers teach us, theosis means partaking of the divine energies of God - through which we become godlike by grace. But they explicitly deny the idea that we partake of the divine essence in theosis, since this would make us God.

Were we united with the essence of God in this way, we should be no different from the Incarnate Word.

For that reason, I cannot see how we can consume the divine essence of God in the Eucharist.

But please correct me if what I am saying is wrong.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Kris

It is late now so I am just posting briefly since I see now the concern that you have.

I do not think the Divine essence is consumable at all in any physical sense, you are quite right to deny that. But we DO receive the person of the incarnate Word of God in the eucharist. The essence/energies distinction works for me here, as it obviously was doing for you, as long as we still both mean that the energies ARE God and not something else, otherwise we do not receive God in the eucharist.

I guess I would want to say that His flesh is glorified and transformed by being filled with His life and light, while remaining flesh, and that we receive this divine life in the body and blood through the medium of physical things, but it is a spiritual life. We don't just receive empty body and blood apart from the life giving person of the Word.

I think that Pope Shenouda was also making the same distinction that you make, that we do not consume the Divine essence which cannot be consumed in any case. But we do receive the Word of God in the eucharist and the body and blood we receive is united to the Divinity. There are miracles even today of the eucharistic elements being transfigured with a divine glory. I saw a photo of just such a very recent miracle a few weeks ago.

I don't think we are disagreeing?

Best wishes

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

I've enjoyed reading some of the comments in this thread. And I agree with the specific comment made, that the essence-energies distinction that is, largely through Palamas' development of themes long before present (in e.g. the Cappadocian fathers), right at the heart of the Orthodox understanding of God's presence in the cosmos and humanity's interaction and relation to him, is often misunderstood -- and precisely in the manner that Peter has articulated. Namely, it is too often taken to imply that God in his essence is 'God', while the energies of God are his actions, or his 'works in the cosmos', or the signs of his presence, etc. This is emphatically not what Palamas wished to say (or for that matter the Cappadocians, though their use of the essence/energies distinction was rather different in any case, dealing primarily with knowledge and description).

The basic reality behind the essence-energies distinction is that God's essence is, as the very reality of what and who God is in himself, utterly unknowable and un-experiencable by the created order; but this same God is, through the energies of his being, present directly in the created realm. This God is only ever known and encountered 'energetically', that is, in his energies -- but when one encounters God's energies, one thereby encounters directly him who is God by nature (essence). So the experience of God's energies is the direct experience of the essential God, but the essential God known in his energies.

The incarnation is a prime example of this distinction. The one born of Mary is the Son by nature, God in essence. He is 'the One Who Is', the essential, natural reality of the divine Son; and thus when one encounters the incarnate Christ, one encounters the divine nature (essence) of God. And yet, one encounters the divine nature energetically; for even in God's incarnation, one cannot know the nature of God qua essence. In Christ one experiences in energy the divine essence in the fullest degree.

This is true also of the eucharistic mystery. One receives into one's body the full reality of the essentially and ever-existing God; but it is precisely in God's energy that one thus receives him fully and truly. The experience of God 'in his energies' is not an experience 'less than' an experience of his essence. There is no such thing as a created experience of an uncreated essence qua essence; it should not be considered a 'higher category' of experience.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Matthew

I am glad that what I believe intuitively on the essence/energies distinction is not so far off your clear explanation.

Do you have a recommendation for a serious book that covers the topic?

Best wishes

Peter

[Tanya Hoadley]

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for what I believe to be clarity in this discussion. Fullness is a concept that rings true to me.

In Christ,
Tanya

[M.C. Steenberg]

I am glad that what I believe intuitively on the essence/energies distinction is not so far off your clear explanation.

Do you have a recommendation for a serious book that covers the topic?


I'm afraid I don't at the moment: nothing secondary is cropping to mind (though I admit I'm in a fleeting rush). I'll ponder this a bit more and write up any recommendations that come to mind in due course. But in the meantime, there's really no substitute for a good careful reading of Palamas himself. He is actually quite clear on what he is and is not trying to do.

Sorry I cannot be more precise at present; but as I say, I'll come back to the reading request if things come to mind once the current busyness passes.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

No problem...I'll try and find some Palamas direct and check out a few theological journals I usually turn to.

Best wishes over your current business.

Peter

[Marie-Duquette]

Not being sure where to post this question/observation I am placing it in the Thread of the Eucharistic Mysteries.

Lately I have observed that the Priest after distributing Holy Communion, raises the Chalice and says:

"This is the Fire that has touched your lips. It will burn away all of your sins."

Until now the priest always made this a silent gesture. So I am wondering if this be a usually "silent prayer" on the part of the Priest; and, now it is made audible to those who hear the Word of God and keep it, as did Mary, the Holy Theotokos, as stated in the Gospels.

I would appreciate some clarification on this seemingly simple and ordinary sentence spoken by the Priest.

thank you. and may Christ our Savior bring His Holy Peace at His Nativity.

marie_duquette

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Not being sure where to post this question/observation I am placing it in the Thread of the Eucharistic Mysteries.

Lately I have observed that the Priest after distributing Holy Communion, raises the Chalice and says:

"This is the Fire that has touched your lips. It will burn away all of your sins."

Until now the priest always made this a silent gesture. So I am wondering if this be a usually "silent prayer" on the part of the Priest; and, now it is made audible to those who hear the Word of God and keep it, as did Mary, the Holy Theotokos, as stated in the Gospels.

I would appreciate some clarification on this seemingly simple and ordinary sentence spoken by the Priest.

thank you. and may Christ our Savior bring His Holy Peace at His Nativity.

marie_duquette


This sentence comes from what the priest says immediately after partaking of the Holy Chalice (which is partaken of after he partakes of the Body. The clergy in the Altar receive in the ancient way- first the Body, then the Blood.).

The words he says are; "Behold, this hath touched my lips, and taketh away mine iniquities, and purgeth away ( or- cleanseth) my sins." If a deacon has received then the priest says these same words but this time changing all "my" references to "your".

With allowance made for exactly what words one would use in English for translating from the original, this English version is exactly what the original Slavonic says. In turn the Slavonic, except in very rare circumstances, most often is very faithful to the Greek original. This is so especially in the Liturgy where the translations tend to be exact even to the point of making the Slavonic difficult to understand; eg esp. the syntax of the Cherubic Hymn.

This verse actually comes from Isaiah 6:7 which are the seraphim's words to Isaiah when the burning coal from the Altar of the Temple is touched to his lips.

In the Patriarchal Russian Bible this verse says: "behold, this has touched your lips, and your transgressions have been removed from you, and your sins cleansed." This version is based on the Septuagint from which come our liturgical quotations of the Old Testament.

Versions more often seen in English such as the KJV and which are based on the Hebrew say, "lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged." This is very close to the Sept version.

(Interestingly the modern RSV has a more Protestant legalistic twist to it: "behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sins forgiven.")

In the service books that I have seen, these verses are only said by the clergy. Nevertheless in some parishes, in some jurisdictions, I have heard the priest says these words out loud on the ambon while holding the Cup & immediately after the people have received.

The particular way this verse has been rendered however by the priest you saw is interesting. It's almost become a commentary on the verse rather than a direct quote of it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Marie-Duquette]

Rev. Father Raphael,

Thank you for your clarifying thoughts on the question I posed the other day.

Yesterday, as I participated in the Divine Liturgy and in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, I suddenly realized how intense this "Fire" can be, or become. Something untouchable, yet which touches with intensity the vulnerable, dark, blind spots in the depth of the heart; those spots which sorely need to be purified, illumined and transformed by the Living Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When approaching the All-Holy One, that which is still un-holy in me pushes me down again into the depths of hell without despairing, as St. Silouane spoke. ... How great the Love of the All-Holy One who enlightens, to purify more deeply, to transform more completely the one willing to say with Mary, the Handmaid of the Lord, "Let it be done unto me according to Thy Word." Lk.

Holy, Holy art Thou Oh Lord my God! Heaven and Earth are full of Thy Glory! In You and in your ways I trust, even though I do not understand!

Blessed Father Anthony pray to God for us!

marie_duquette

[Mourad Mankarios]

I've enjoyed reading some of the comments in this thread. And I agree with the specific comment made, that the essence-energies distinction that is, largely through Palamas' development of themes long before present (in e.g. the Cappadocian fathers), right at the heart of the Orthodox understanding of God's presence in the cosmos and humanity's interaction and relation to him, is often misunderstood -- and precisely in the manner that Peter has articulated. Namely, it is too often taken to imply that God in his essence is 'God', while the energies of God are his actions, or his 'works in the cosmos', or the signs of his presence, etc. This is emphatically not what Palamas wished to say (or for that matter the Cappadocians, though their use of the essence/energies distinction was rather different in any case, dealing primarily with knowledge and description).

The basic reality behind the essence-energies distinction is that God's essence is, as the very reality of what and who God is in himself, utterly unknowable and un-experiencable by the created order; but this same God is, through the energies of his being, present directly in the created realm. This God is only ever known and encountered 'energetically', that is, in his energies -- but when one encounters God's energies, one thereby encounters directly him who is God by nature (essence). So the experience of God's energies is the direct experience of the essential God, but the essential God known in his energies.

The incarnation is a prime example of this distinction. The one born of Mary is the Son by nature, God in essence. He is 'the One Who Is', the essential, natural reality of the divine Son; and thus when one encounters the incarnate Christ, one encounters the divine nature (essence) of God. And yet, one encounters the divine nature energetically; for even in God's incarnation, one cannot know the nature of God qua essence. In Christ one experiences in energy the divine essence in the fullest degree.

This is true also of the eucharistic mystery. One receives into one's body the full reality of the essentially and ever-existing God; but it is precisely in God's energy that one thus receives him fully and truly. The experience of God 'in his energies' is not an experience 'less than' an experience of his essence. There is no such thing as a created experience of an uncreated essence qua essence; it should not be considered a 'higher category' of experience.

INXC, Matthew


I think this describes the mechanism of God's interaction with the cosmos with regards to His essence and energies, however how would one define energy or essence with reference to God and how does one partake of the energy which is fully God without partaking of the essence, and wouldn't a full experience of the energies of God indicate a full experience of the essence of God...It almost seems as though reference to the energies is a reference to a veiled experience of the essence of God...

[Antony Solomon]

I've enjoyed reading some of the comments in this thread. And I agree with the specific comment made, that the essence-energies distinction that is, largely through Palamas' development of themes long before present (in e.g. the Cappadocian fathers), right at the heart of the Orthodox understanding of God's presence in the cosmos and humanity's interaction and relation to him, is often misunderstood -- and precisely in the manner that Peter has articulated. Namely, it is too often taken to imply that God in his essence is 'God', while the energies of God are his actions, or his 'works in the cosmos', or the signs of his presence, etc. This is emphatically not what Palamas wished to say (or for that matter the Cappadocians, though their use of the essence/energies distinction was rather different in any case, dealing primarily with knowledge and description).

The basic reality behind the essence-energies distinction is that God's essence is, as the very reality of what and who God is in himself, utterly unknowable and un-experiencable by the created order; but this same God is, through the energies of his being, present directly in the created realm. This God is only ever known and encountered 'energetically', that is, in his energies -- but when one encounters God's energies, one thereby encounters directly him who is God by nature (essence). So the experience of God's energies is the direct experience of the essential God, but the essential God known in his energies.

The incarnation is a prime example of this distinction. The one born of Mary is the Son by nature, God in essence. He is 'the One Who Is', the essential, natural reality of the divine Son; and thus when one encounters the incarnate Christ, one encounters the divine nature (essence) of God. And yet, one encounters the divine nature energetically; for even in God's incarnation, one cannot know the nature of God qua essence. In Christ one experiences in energy the divine essence in the fullest degree.

This is true also of the eucharistic mystery. One receives into one's body the full reality of the essentially and ever-existing God; but it is precisely in God's energy that one thus receives him fully and truly. The experience of God 'in his energies' is not an experience 'less than' an experience of his essence. There is no such thing as a created experience of an uncreated essence qua essence; it should not be considered a 'higher category' of experience.

INXC, Matthew

I hae just been reading Evdokimov, The Struggle with God. He mentions that we should not distinguish between the spiritual experience of God, and God himself, as if there is subject and object, but that God is the Spiritual experience. Does this apply here, in relaiton to essense/energies, and thus the eucharist? As a newbie to EO, I am trying, OTOH to get my head around things like this, while OTOH to navigate around what I have been told RCC teaching is, since I don't know if the two are the same thing

[Herman Blaydoe]

He and I also spoke of taking communion. When it came to the elements of communion, I told him I drink the actual blood and eat the actual body of Christ. I think I freaked him out. It seems hard to explain our faith to people who are accustomed to bread, wafers, water or grape juice.

One of the charges against the early Christians in the persecution of the Church was that we practiced cannibalism, all that talk about eating flesh and blood...which of course knocks the Protestant theory that the Eucharist has ALWAYS been considered a "memorial" on its keister.

And wide-spread availability of non-alchoholic grape juice for communion was not really practical until Dr. Thomas Welch started pasturizing grape juice in 1869. People tend to forget that the soil that the Incarnated Christ walked on was not America, the society He preached to was not American. And yet we try so hard to make our Lord a good American citizen and fit into our ideas of what society "ought" to be, rather than fitting our lifestyles and society into what He says it ought to be. It definitely produces some major conundrums for modern man.

[Michael Stickles]

One of the charges against the early Christians in the persecution of the Church was that we practiced cannibalism, all that talk about eating flesh and blood...which of course knocks the Protestant theory that the Eucharist has ALWAYS been considered a "memorial" on its keister.

Actually, it does no such thing. All it shows is that those making the charges of cannibalism believed that the Eucharist was actual flesh and blood -- or, more likely, found the "body and blood" stuff, whether symbolic or not, perfect for inventing a believable smear. For that matter, at least one of the tales used to support the charge did not even reference the Eucharistic service:


Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily—O horror!—they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence.
- The Octavius of Menucius Felix, ninth argument (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iv.iii.ix.html)

Besides, in the Protestant circles I've been in, no one really cared whether or not the communion service (the term Eucharist wasn't used) had always been considered a memorial; they only cared if that was what Christ intended and the Apostles taught. And since in general Protestantism "threw out the baby with the bathwater" (i.e., discarded the Fathers along with the papacy), all they had available for figuring that out was the New Testament. And it seemed a reasonable inference from the whole idea of "remembrance" in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:


23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Obviously, that doesn't prove their conception right, just show that it's reasonable at first glance. More information than what's above is required to prove it right or wrong. For that matter, if you asked me to prove the Orthodox conception of the Eucharist was true, I couldn't do that either; I'm not familiar enough with the relevant writings of the Fathers for that (since that wasn't as big of a "sticking point" for me as some other things have been, I haven't researched it as deeply).

[Herman Blaydoe]

at least one of the tales used to support the charge did not even reference the Eucharistic service

Definitely an interesting document. Not to nitpick, but when we follow the reference link to the Octavius, the following footnote is found:


This calumny seems to have originated from the sacrament of the Eucharist.

That looks like a reference to me.

Again, I don't mean to be contentious, but the Scripture cited is certainly interesting in its own right, in that certain people would take "...in remembrance of me..." literally and yet totally disregard the "This is my body..." part. Perhaps a second or third glance is necessary? If we can consume mere bread and wine "in remembrance", we can also consume the literal Body and Blood "in remembrance" just as well. You are right, this neither proves nor disproves anything in isolation, and it is only in the greater context of the accumulated knowledge and wisdom found in the Church that a final and authoritative determination can be made, at least for this simple mind. At least it points to the value of the unchanging guardianship of the Apostolic Witness that the Church embodies. Without it, see what errors are possible!

[Father David Moser]

This little exchange is quite interesting in that I think it points up a certain "Western" mindset that is a part of the convert community in Orthodoxy. We tend to dwell on specific definitions and learning who depth of theology and assume that this is a necessary part of our Christian life. In many of the "ethnic" families that I know, this craving for knowledge is not so intense, but simply the "doing" is important rather than the "knowing".

In this case I think that a hypothetical conversation with a simple pious Orthodox person might run so:

Q: Do you believe the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ

A: Oh yes.

Q: How is this the case?

A: I don't know, but I just know that it's true.

Q: Well do you believe that the bread and wine are really the Body and Blood of Christ or are they just a remembrance.

A: Well yes.

Q: But which is it? Does the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood?

A: Yes

Q: (continuing) or are the elements a remembrance?

A: Yes

Q: But it can't be both!

A: Why not?

Q: Well, moving on - What effect does it have on you when you receive Communion

A: It strengthens me and helps me feel close to God.

Q: How does it do that?

A: I don't know, it just does.

________

This could go on forever with the questioner always wanting to know why and how and the answerer simply saying "I don't know, but it does".

Sometimes I think we would benefit from thinking about these things less, stop trying to define them and fathom the depth of the Mystery and simply do them more - accepting what God gives without having to dissect it. Now that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't embark on such intellectual endeavors - simply that such endeavors don't have the urgency and necessity sometimes ascribed to them.

"Become as little children"

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

Well, not to nitpick either, but I was referring to the tale not referencing the Eucharist, not the footnote. But moving on:


Again, I don't mean to be contentious, but the Scripture cited is certainly interesting in its own right, in that certain people would take "...in remembrance of me..." literally and yet totally disregard the "This is my body..." part.

Speaking again from my own Protestant background, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" are understood from within the Passover tradition. I don't have my Messianic Passover Haggadah handy, but I do remember that the bread which He broke was traditionally left unbroken (and was part of a set of three matza -- Trinity, anyone?), and so his statement is understood as again prophesying about His upcoming death; the "cup after supper" was known as the "Cup of Redemption," and His words are seen as identifying Israel's hoped-for redemption with the redemption He was bringing about through His blood (there's much more in the Haggadah booklet). Anyway, He is seen as speaking in metaphors, a style which wouldn't fit the "...in remembrance of me..." bit (what would a metaphorical remembrance be?).

As we mentioned, though, that doesn't mean the Protestant doctrine is true, only that it's internally self-consistent. Of course, internal self-consistency is a characteristic not only of truth, but also of well-written fiction (sometimes more true of fiction!).


You are right, this neither proves nor disproves anything in isolation, and it is only in the greater context of the accumulated knowledge and wisdom found in the Church that a final and authoritative determination can be made, at least for this simple mind. At least it points to the value of the unchanging guardianship of the Apostolic Witness that the Church embodies.

That really is where the major weakness in Protestant theology shows up. Sola scriptura in my mind is less a belief that "the Scripture is all we need" than a statement that "we threw everything else away; the Scriptures are all we kept." And there is no concept that some interpretive framework is needed; they act as if Scripture can interpret itself for us. Now, I can kind of understand the Protestant reluctance (because of their belief that the simple faith of the New Testament church could have easily gotten corrupted by accretions of dogma and superstition within a short time) to give much authority to even the early Fathers; but I've never grasped the idea that we can now expect to do better at understanding what Scripture means than they did, despite being almost two millennia further removed from the actual events and culture than they were.

Speaking of which, now that our little dialogue has got my curiosity moving on this topic, I'll have to take the advice of Peter's post from last year and read some St. Cyril. I have yet to read any of the Fathers' writings on the Eucharist which have clearly slanted one way or the other (i.e., literal body/blood or symbol only), and that looks like a good place to start.

On the personal level, I don't know if I really believe yet that the Eucharist is, in fact and not merely symbol, the body and blood of Christ. But I definitely believe there is something real there that is not present in the same way in Protestant communion services I've participated in. I attended Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox Church recently, and somewhere around the Great Entrance a Presence descended on the place that could not be ignored, it was so powerful. And I was just experiencing this as a spectator! I can't imagine what actual participation would be like.

Final note - was getting ready to hit "Submit" when I saw Father David's post. I don't think I could have related very well to what he said before attending the Divine Liturgy service, but now it makes perfect sense.

[Father David Moser]

Final note - was getting ready to hit "Submit" when I saw Father David's post. I don't think I could have related very well to what he said before attending the Divine Liturgy service, but now it makes perfect sense.

Which is why sometimes the best "witness" is "Come and See".

Relating to your response to me elsewhere (concerning the nature of the Church) about how the Orthodox approach just doesn't make sense to Protestants - here is another facet of that observation. When one truly investigates the Orthodox experience, then the deficiencies of substance in the Protestant experience (not that there is no substance, but simply that what is there is not on the same level) stand out. It is that sense of deficiency that drives many of us former Protestants into Orthodoxy (OK, at least it was for me). I knew that as fulfilling as my Protestant upbringing and spiritual experience was - that there was something missing. It was that search to find the missing elements that led me finally to the Orthodox Church where my expectations were not only fulfilled, but were surpassed beyond my wildest imagination (and believe me, my imagination at times could be pretty wild).

So that's the key - whether it is the incarnational nature of the Church or whether the reality of the Sacraments, it is the search for something "more" that opens the Protestant mind to the truth of the Orthodox experience.

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. David,


it is the search for something "more" that opens the Protestant mind to the truth of the Orthodox experience.
How profoundly true that is.

This does, indeed, relate to the conversation we are having about the Church and other Christians. Elsewhere a friend has written this, which I think relates to what you are saying, and which I want to share:

I guess I am saying that I can believe that many of those in the other Christian communions are Christian, to the extent that they are being transformed by God and experience His life, but that I do believe He has more for them, and does will that they move to a greater experience of His life and love. Just as a cradle Orthodox must also make steps in their pilgrimage and must embrace as their own what is at first just an external spiritual environment which they may well fail to interiorise.

I am grateful to my former Church because it enabled me to get as far as realising what was missing; just as Orthodoxy enabled me to find it. Of course, the journey continues, and it is the constant endeavour to walk in His way that is the daily challenge; but at least I know that much now - as well as how much I don't know.

In Christ


John

[Kusanagi]

A simple monk out of simplicity didn't believe the bread and wine is actually the Body and Blood of Christ.
So the other fathers prayed for his enlightenment.
During the service the simple monk noticed an angel standing next to the priest with a baby and when the priest was dividing the bread the angel was dividing the baby and draining the blood into the chalice afterwards the monk cried out I BELIEVE!!!
and the other monks said it is for our weakness that we eat the bread and wine because we cannot handle Real Body and Blood.
This happened on Mt Athos.

this i found of St Pachomius Library.
A muslim entering the church noticed the priest cutting up a baby and draining the blood and putting the pieces of the body into the chalice and distributing it to the faithful. At the end of the service he went up to the priest to protest his disgust at seeing such a barbaric thing. But the priest just said to him beacuse i am a sinner i cannot see such a thing but what you just seen not even the 3 Holy Hierarchs witness and the priest explained to him what he should be and in the end he was baptised and became a martyr of the Orthodox faith.