History of the real presence

[Jonathan Michael]

Hello, all.

This is just a quick question regarding belief about the Eucharist.

I think it is an uncontraversial statement to say that the Orthodox believe that the bread and wine used in the Divine Liturgy becomes the body and blood of Christ; I believe it could be termed a dogma of the Orthodox Church.

My question is, has this belief ever been affirmed in an Ecumenical Council?

The reason for my asking is that the Ecumenical Councils were called to combat heresy and face contraversies; in some ways the history of the Councils can be seen as a history of heresy, rather than a history of doctrine, because teachings are only "affirmed" by the Councils, not formulated by scratch. Therefore, I ask just to know more about the history of the heretical belief that the bread and wine aren't Christ's flesh and blood. Does the belief really only develop in the Reformation, confined to Western Europe? Or did the false-teaching crop up earlier?

It seems to me that if the Orthodox belief hasn't been affirmed in an Ecumenical Council, that it just strengthens the position because such a belief was uncontraversial and widely accepted until only 500 years ago.

Many Thanks in advance.

[Paul Cowan]

We don't need an ecumenical council to confirm what Jesus himself said.


Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[b] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[c] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Many of His disciples (not the 11) left Him because they thought He was talking about canabalism. The reformation is only man's poor attempt to allow his brain to attempt to understand any Holy Mystery. We cannot. Some things are just based on faith and of course the spoken Word of God.

Paul

[Jonathan Michael]

Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned, the fact that it hasn't been confirmed in an Ecumenical Council strengthens the teaching, because it means it was never contraversial or seriously disputed. I just wanted to make sure that is indeed the case, regarding the Councils.

[M.C. Steenberg]

As far as I know, the first conciliar considerations of this came in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as local councils debating views that had crept in from Protestant discourse.

But those were precisely addressing novelties. The basic teaching has never been discussed conciliarly; it has always been assumed and acknowledged.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Ken McRae]

As I mentioned, the fact that it hasn't been confirmed in an Ecumenical Council strengthens the teaching, because it means it was never contraversial or seriously disputed. I just wanted to make sure that is indeed the case, regarding the Councils.

Many centuries before the Council of Trent, there was another council that created a canon forbidding anyone from ever referring again to the holy eucharist as either as a "figure" or "symbol," after the consecration. I remember reading this ten years ago, though, at which time I neglected to make a hard note of it, in writing, and so today I cannot recall the precise details. I seem to recall, however, that at the time, I had the impression it was an ecumenical council, though I may be mistaken on that.

It may have been a conciliar act, however, specific to addressing the wide-spread confusion and controversy stemming from the eucharistic teaching of John Scotus Eriugena. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives note of the following (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05519a.htm), for example: "Eriugena's influence on the theological thought of his own and immediately subsequent generations was doubtless checked by the condemnations to which his doctrines of predestination and of the Eucharist were subjected in the Councils of Valencia (855), Langres (859), and Vercelli (1050)." In that vein, the CE also notes the following:-


Theological works: "Liber de Praedestinatione", and very probably a work on the Eucharist, though it is certain that the tract "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini", at one time believed to be Eriugena's, is the work of Paschasius Radbertus. While the "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini" is not Eriugena's, though ascribed to him, there can be no doubt that in some work, now lost, on that subject he maintained doctrines at variance with the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. From the fragment which has come down to us of his commentary on St. John we infer that he held the Eucharist to be merely a type or figure. At least he insists on the spiritual, to the exclusion, apparently, of the physical, "eating of the Flesh of the Son of Man".

I'm afraid that I do'nt know much about the three councils named above, or their canons. Does anyone know if the Rudder contains any canons from those councils? Or where, by some miracle, to find those canons posted online? And specifically the canons referring to Eriugena's condemnation, concerning his eucharistic teaching?

In all honesty, I have never read Eriugena, nor any of the existing fragments of his theological text on the Holy Sacrament. However, I find it difficult to believe his eucharistic doctrine was entirely original and unique to himself; or that he made no attempt whatever to solidify his base by enlisting the writings of the Holy Fathers in his defense. If I were a betting man, though, I would bet that he did. Many of the ancient and Patristic writings appear to contain expressions that could easily lend themselves to such an impression, when taken out of proper context.

Historical sources clearly indicate that he numbered among the most learned men of the age. It is entirely unthinkable to me that he would marshal a host of patristic citations to that very end. The CE entry on him notes that among Western fathers, Blessed Augustine was his favourite (and Boethis, I would imagine). Among the Eastern fathers, the Greek fathers were his primary source of inspiration. He was the first to translate the Dionysian corpus into Latin.

While the surviving Patristic documentation may not necessarily support me on this, it seems highly unlikely, to me at least, that no confusion in this regard, existed in the minds of people, prior to Eriugena, concerning the application of such terms as "figure" and "symbol" to the confected body of Christ. I can think of a few sources off-hand where such language is applied, almost indiscriminately, to the consecrated host.

That such a controversy may have never been specifically addressed at any of the Ecuemenical Councils cannot prove beyond any shadow of doubt that no such controversy never existed prior to Eriugena's time, but only that it had not become a large enough problem to warrant inclusion in their main order(s) of business.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Ken McRae wrote:


I'm afraid that I do'nt know much about the three councils named above, or their canons. Does anyone know if the Rudder contains any canons from those councils? Or where, by some miracle, to find those canons posted online? And specifically the canons referring to Eriugena's condemnation, concerning his eucharistic teaching?

The Rudder has no reference to these councils (nor to any western councils except those of Carthage) and also has nothing direct that I am aware of on the subject of the reality of the Eucharist.

You might though want to have a look at Vol 3 of Jaroslav Pelikan's series The Christian Tradition which is called The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). If you can find this book look through the section which begins at p 184 and which is called The Real Presence.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jonathan Michael]

Thank you for the replies so far. The councils mentioned by Ken are interesting, but until we can find more detail on those, we can't really speculate further.



In all honesty, I have never read Eriugena, nor any of the existing fragments of his theological text on the Holy Sacrament. However, I find it difficult to believe his eucharistic doctrine was entirely original and unique to himself; or that he made no attempt whatever to solidify his base by enlisting the writings of the Holy Fathers in his defense. If I were a betting man, though, I would bet that he did. Many of the ancient and Patristic writings appear to contain expressions that could easily lend themselves to such an impression, when taken out of proper context.

Yes, and I think "taken out of the proper context" can simply be a case of quoting symbolic interpretations and then presuming that a literal interpretation is not also believed. I have myself read Patristic citations used, today, to claim that some of the Church Fathers held a view more similar to the Protestant view on the Eucharist. What is overlooked, either deliberately or by accident, is that just because a Church Father teaches that something is a symbol, doesn't mean it isn't belived to be a literal, tangible, reality too. The Cross is real, and indeed I also believe it was truly the Cross that was found by St. Helena, but that doesn't mean that someone who writes that the Cross is a "symbol of victory" for Christians doesn't beleive the Cross was a real object.

That is why it strikes me that the canon "many centuries before the Council of Trent" mentioned by Ken was a mistake. To proclaim a symbolic meaning to the Eucharist is not to deny the literal fact that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I'm sticking my neck out, but I am presuming the council that proclaimed the canon was post-Schism, and in the West. If not, I would be surprised and also offer my apologies.



That such a controversy may have never been specifically addressed at any of the Ecuemenical Councils cannot prove beyond any shadow of doubt that no such controversy never existed prior to Eriugena's time, but only that it had not become a large enough problem to warrant inclusion in their main order(s) of business.

I don't think we can argue the issue is important, and that a "symbolic only" interpretation of the Eucharist could be dangerous and leads on the road to extreme forms of Puritism or Gnostcism, where the Incarnation is all but denied. So, if by "large problem" you mean that not enough people, high-ranking bishops, or theologians supported the "symbol only" view, then you may be right. I would argue that the numbers of people who believed it were not enough to even warrant the name "minority." (a slightly rhetorical statement, not meant for reading by the pedantic among us)

[Kris]

St Ignatius of Antioch mentions those who deny the Eucharist in one of his epistles (to the Romans, I think). But I think these groups rejected the Eucharist all together - probably for the same reasons many of Christ's disciples left when He spoke of it - rather than holding a symbolic interpretation of it.

[Ken McRae]

Many centuries before the Council of Trent, there was another council that created a canon forbidding anyone from ever referring again to the holy eucharist as either as a "figure" or "symbol," after the consecration. I remember reading this ten years ago, though, at which time I neglected to make a hard note of it, in writing, and so today I cannot recall the precise details. I seem to recall, however, that at the time, I had the impression it was an ecumenical council, though I may be mistaken on that.

It may have been a conciliar act, however, specific to addressing the wide-spread confusion and controversy stemming from the eucharistic teaching of John Scotus Eriugena. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives note of the following (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05519a.htm), for example: "Eriugena's influence on the theological thought of his own and immediately subsequent generations was doubtless checked by the condemnations to which his doctrines of predestination and of the Eucharist were subjected in the Councils of Valencia (855), Langres (859), and Vercelli (1050)." In that vein, the CE also notes the following:-

"Theological works: "Liber de Praedestinatione", and very probably a work on the Eucharist, though it is certain that the tract "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini", at one time believed to be Eriugena's, is the work of Paschasius Radbertus. While the "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini" is not Eriugena's, though ascribed to him, there can be no doubt that in some work, now lost, on that subject he maintained doctrines at variance with the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. From the fragment which has come down to us of his commentary on St. John we infer that he held the Eucharist to be merely a type or figure. At least he insists on the spiritual, to the exclusion, apparently, of the physical, "eating of the Flesh of the Son of Man".

I'm afraid that I do'nt know much about the three councils named above, or their canons. Does anyone know if the Rudder contains any canons from those councils? Or where, by some miracle, to find those canons posted online? And specifically the canons referring to Eriugena's condemnation, concerning his eucharistic teaching?

In all honesty, I have never read Eriugena, nor any of the existing fragments of his theological text on the Holy Sacrament. However, I find it difficult to believe his eucharistic doctrine was entirely original and unique to himself; or that he made no attempt whatever to solidify his base by enlisting the writings of the Holy Fathers in his defense. If I were a betting man, though, I would bet that he did. Many of the ancient and Patristic writings appear to contain expressions that could easily lend themselves to such an impression, when taken out of proper context.

Historical sources clearly indicate that he numbered among the most learned men of the age. It is entirely unthinkable to me that he would marshal a host of patristic citations to that very end. The CE entry on him notes that among Western fathers, Blessed Augustine was his favourite (and Boethis, I would imagine). Among the Eastern fathers, the Greek fathers were his primary source of inspiration. He was the first to translate the Dionysian corpus into Latin.

While the surviving Patristic documentation may not necessarily support me on this, it seems highly unlikely, to me at least, that no confusion in this regard, existed in the minds of people, prior to Eriugena, concerning the application of such terms as "figure" and "symbol" to the confected body of Christ. I can think of a few sources off-hand where such language is applied, almost indiscriminately, to the consecrated host.

That such a controversy may have never been specifically addressed at any of the Ecuemenical Councils cannot prove beyond any shadow of doubt that no such controversy never existed prior to Eriugena's time, but only that it had not become a large enough problem to warrant inclusion in their main order(s) of business.

After re-reading my previous post (No. 5 in this thread) the morning after it was posted, I happened to notice several glaring mistakes or errors which previously escaped my attention. However, due to my having been placed on "permanent" moderated status, I do not have the priviledge of editing my own posts, like all regular "unmoderated" Monachos members. IOW, I cannot edit any of my posts without the direct assistance of a moderator. So, before deciding to post the following, I made 3 such requests of a moderator, (all within the time frame alotted for message edits,) for assistance with this matter, but was not accommodated, regretfully.

Consequently, I am re-posting here the "edited" and cleaned up version of Post No. 5, above. I wish everyone to know it was not my first choice to do it this way; but I would have done this earlier except for the fact that I have been away from my home since Tuesday evening, and only arrived home this morning. Seeing as we (the members) do not have the option of taking down our posts, in the future, and that they are somewhat of a "permanent" mark on the web, (unless the website is taken down,) I feel an 'absolute' necessity of correcting serious errors. Hence the following corrections:-

Many centuries before the Council of Trent, there was another council that created a canon forbidding anyone from referring to the consecrated eucharist as either a "figure," "symbol," or "type" of the body of Christ. I remember reading something about this ten years ago, at which time I neglected to make a hard note of it, in writing; and so today I cannot recall the precise details. At that time, though, I had the impression it was an ecumenical council, though I may have been mistaken at the time.

It may have been a regional council intended to address the wide-spread confusion and controversy arising from the eucharistic teaching of John Scotus Eriugena. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes the following: "Eriugena's influence on the theological thought of his own and immediately subsequent generations was doubtless checked by the condemnations to which his doctrines of predestination and of the Eucharist were subjected in the Councils of Valencia (855), Langres (859), and Vercelli (1050)." In that regard, the CE also observes the following:-


Theological works: "Liber de Praedestinatione", and very probably a work on the Eucharist, though it is certain that the tract "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini", at one time believed to be Eriugena's, is the work of Paschasius Radbertus. And that ...


While the "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini" is not Eriugena's, though ascribed to him, there can be no doubt that in some work, now lost, on that subject he maintained doctrines at variance with the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. From the fragment which has come down to us of his commentary on St. John we infer that he held the Eucharist to be merely a type or figure. At least he insists on the spiritual, to the exclusion, apparently, of the physical, "eating of the Flesh of the Son of Man".

Unfortunately, I do'nt know much about the three councils named above, or their canons. Does anyone here know, off hand, if the Rudder contains any canons from those councils? Or where, (by some miracle) to find them posted online? That is, those canons which refer specifically to the condemnation of Eriugena's eucharistic teaching?

In all honesty, I have never read anything by Eriugena, but the historical record clearly indicates that Eriugena is numbered among the most learned men of his age. Thus, I find it a little difficult to believe his eucharistic doctrine was entirely original and unique to himself; or that it was not influenced by the earlier writings of others. In other words, I find it difficult to believe he would have made no serious attempt to support his theology with many citations from the holy fathers.

It is entirely unthinkable to me that he would not attempt to do so, especially in light of his high view of holy tradition; a point observed in the CE article. The CE entry also observes that the Greek fathers were his primary theological inspiration in the East; and that he favoured Blessed Augustine among the Western fathers (and perhaps Boethius, I'm inclined to think). Eriugena introduced Dionysius the Areopagite to the West, and to translate the Dionysion corpus into Latin.

While the surviving Patristic record may not clearly support me on this, it seems likely to me that some form and degree of "minor" confusion must have existed prior to Eriugena, concerning the application of such terms as "figure," "symbol," or "type" to the consecrated body of Christ. I can think of a few Patristic sources off-hand where this is the case. That such a controversy may not have come to the attention of any Ecumenical Councils cannot prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that none existed prior to Eriugena's time; but only that it had not become a large enough problem to warrant their attention, and its inclusion in their order(s) of business.

[Ken McRae]

To proclaim a symbolic meaning to the Eucharist is not to deny the literal fact that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. I'm sticking my neck out, but I am presuming the council that proclaimed the canon was post-Schism, and in the West. If not, I would be surprised and also offer my apologies.

I don't think we can argue the issue is important, and that a "symbolic only" interpretation of the Eucharist could be dangerous and leads on the road to extreme forms of Puritism or Gnostcism, where the Incarnation is all but denied. So, if by "large problem" you mean that not enough people, high-ranking bishops, or theologians supported the "symbol only" view, then you may be right. I would argue that the numbers of people who believed it were not enough to even warrant the name "minority." (a slightly rhetorical statement, not meant for reading by the pedantic among us)

Pages 202-204 of Fr. John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology provides some critical information in this connection or regard. Here's a link to page 203 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Patriarch+Nicephorus+and+the+symbolism+of+the+e ucharist&source=web&ots=tW8Kzmgikb&sig=FaHMBELnN1ZE1BM-LIppGTivDjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result), which states the following:

"Dionysius' symbolism only superficially affected the Eucharistic rites themselves, but it became quite popular among commentators on the liturgy. Thus, the great Maximus the Confessor, whose use of the concept of 'symbol' is probably more realistic than Dionysius', nevertheless systematically applies the terms 'symbol' or 'image' to the Eucharistic liturgy in general and to the elements of bread and wine in particular.

"In the eighth century, this symbolism led to a serious theological debate concerning the Eucharist - the only one Byzantium ever knew. The iconoclastic council of 754, in condemning the use of religious images, proclaimed that the only admissable 'image' of Christ is the one established by Christ Himself, the Eucharistic Body and Blood. This radical and clear contention, based upon a long-standing tradition, was a real challenge to the Orthodox party; the ambiguity of the Areopagite was evidenced once more, and a clarification of symbolism made necessary.

"Thus, the defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it. For Theodore, the Eucharist is not 'type,' but the very 'truth'; it is the 'mystery which recapitulates the whole of the [divine] dispensation.' According to Nicephorus, it is the 'flesh of God,' 'one and the same thing' with the Body and Blood of Christ, who came to save the very reality of human flesh by becoming and remaining 'flesh,' even after His glorification; thus, in the Eucharist, 'what is the matter of the sacrament, if the flesh is not real, so that we see it being perfected by the Spirit?'

"As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine 'Eucharistic realism,' clearly departing from Dionysian terminology, was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines" ... etc. ( Byzantine Theology, p. 203 )

In addition to Fr. John's book, I would also recommend the book by John Travis, entitled In Defense of The Faith (http://www.stspress.com/detail.aspx?ID=451): "This monograph is a sensitive and sympathetic, yet not unreflectingly eulogistic presentation of the theological thinking of the Patriarch Nicephorus, champion of the iconophile cause in the early ninth century. The historical aspects of Nicephorus' career are fully discussed in contract dialogue with the classical work of Paul Alexander, and some needed correctives are introduced. The iconoclactic argumentation, when necessary, is accurately and impartially presented."

As I indicated earlier, my memory of what I read some ten years ago is a little foggy. However, after a little reflection, and some reading, it is becoming a little clearer to me now. What I was initially referring to I now believe was directly related to the 8th century eucharistic controversy referred to by Fr. John Meyendorff in the above paragraph, or it directly arose from that. Fr. John says that, "In the eighth century, this symbolism led to a serious theological debate concerning the Eucharist - the only one Byzantium ever knew." And that "it became quite popular," in the East, "among commentators on the liturgy," to apply "the terms 'symbol' or 'image' to the Eucharistic liturgy in general and to the elements of bread and wine in particular." In addition to that, Fr. John notes that "the iconoclastic council of 754, in condemning the use of religious images, proclaimed that the only admissable 'image' of Christ is the one established by Christ Himself, the Eucharistic Body and Blood." Thus, it was absolutely necessary for this "eucharistic" controversy to be clearly and decisively addressed at the 7th Ecumenical Council.

If the mystery canon, which I've referred to above, does in fact exist, then I am relatively certain it emerged at that time and within that specific theological and ecumenical context. However, until I locate that canon again, I cannot be absolutely certain it was a canon that I read. However, I am relatively certain that what I did read (back then) was an official ecclesiastical ruling by the Church against the application of such theological terms as type, symbol, image, and figure, to the consecrated gifts. And I am now certain that it was a ruling made in the East, as opposed to the West; but this is not to say that a similar ruling was not made in the West, subsequent to that. Now, Fr. Alvin Kimel, (an Anglican priest, who once posted (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1645) on this forum, some 5 years ago,) has written and posted (online) the following (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/transubstantiation/), regarding the 7th Ecumenical Council's resolution of this controversy:

Fr. Alvin Kimel on the 8th Century Eucharistic Controversy in the East

In the Eastern Church the mystery of real identification came to dogmatic expression at the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The council was convened to address the heresy of iconoclasm—the denial that images of Jesus and the saints may be properly venerated and reverenced. The iconoclasts argued that a true icon is identical (homoousios) with its prototype. In Scripture and the theological tradition, Jesus Christ is named the image of the Father. Jesus is able to serve as the perfect image of the Father because he is consubstantial with the Father. Only thus may he be given the worship, adoration, and devotion that is properly given to the Almighty Creator. A painting of Jesus, on the other hand, does not and cannot enjoy a oneness of being with the object it depicts. It will always be inadequate. The iconoclasts did recognize one proper image of the incarnate Son, however—the image instituted by the Son himself, his eucharistic body and blood. The Eucharist perfectly images Christ because it is identical in essence with Christ and is therefore worthy of worship and reverence.

The iconodules did not take issue with the iconoclastic claim that the Holy Gifts are homoousios with the body and blood of the risen Christ. The iconodules and iconoclasts shared a common liturgy and a common understanding of the eucharistic presence. But clearly the iconodules could not allow the iconoclasts to appropriate the Eucharist as an icon, the one legitimate icon, of Christ. At Nicaea II the deacon Epiphanius read a document that was gladly received by the orthodox bishops:

Thus, it has been clearly demonstrated that nowhere did either the Lord, or the Apostles, or the Fathers call the bloodless sacrifice, offered through the priest, “an icon,” but rather “this very body” and “this very blood.”… These noble ones, however, in their desire to abolish the sight of the venerable icons, have introduced indirectly another icon-which is not an icon but body and blood…. Afterwards, leaving aside falsehood, they touch for a moment upon the truth, saying that the bread does become the divine body. But, if the bread is an icon of the body, it is impossible for it to be the divine body itself.

To speak of the Eucharist as icon implies a distinction between the sacramental forms and Christ’s glorified body, a distinction between image and prototype. But the two are not distinct. The Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. “These we do not understand [as being] two,” St Nicephorus explained, “but we believe that they become one and the same [body of Christ].” With the dogmatic assertion that the consecrated elements simply are the body and blood, the use of symbol, figure, and image to characterize the Holy Gifts virtually disappears in Byzantine Christianity. [End of Passage, by Fr. Alvin Kimel]

Please note specifically the paragraph above from the document which was read by Deacon Epiphanius at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. (Incidentally, does anyone happen to know if that specific document is online?) Nothing could be clearer from that particular address than that there was massive widespread confusion in the East regarding the question of whether or not it was appropriate to speak of the consecrated "host" as a figure, image, symbol, or type of the Body of Christ. St. John Damascene affirms that "the bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, This is My body, not, this is a figure of My body: and My blood, not, a figure of My blood." (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13, Concerning the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm)) Now, why would St. John feel the need to affirm as much if there was never any confusion in the Eastern Church concerning that reality?

[Ken McRae]

To speak of the Eucharist as icon implies a distinction between the sacramental forms and Christ’s glorified body, a distinction between image and prototype. But the two are not distinct. The Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. “These we do not understand [as being] two,” St Nicephorus explained, “but we believe that they become one and the same [body of Christ].” With the dogmatic assertion that the consecrated elements simply are the body and blood, the use of symbol, figure, and image to characterize the Holy Gifts virtually disappears in Byzantine Christianity.

In the above quoted passage, Fr. Alvin states that "the use of symbol, figure, and image to characterize the Holy Gifts virtually disappears in Byzantine Christianity." The mystery canon, (or Church ruling, which I've refered to above,) allowed for the continued application of such terms to the "unconsecrated" gifts; so I presume Fr. Alvin is referring to the "conscecrated" Gifts, when he asserts that the use of such theological terms virtually disappeared "in Byzantine Christianity."

[Adrian]

What Bible say:
55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
What history say:James called by Bible the Brother of Jesus at year 60 had the Liturgy of Saint James with central point offering the Holy Eucharist as the literal blood and flesh of Jesus.
Virtually every christian writing in the first 800 years of Early Church speaks about Holy Eucharist as blood and flesh of Jesus and these writtings are called tradition.
What miracles say at the time of Early Church:The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
8th Century A.D.
A Basilian monk, wise in the ways of the world, but not in the ways of faith, was having a trying time with his belief in the real presence of Our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist. He prayed constantly for relief from his doubts, and from the fear that he was losing his vocation. He suffered through the routine of his priesthood day after day, with these doubts gnawing at him.

The situation in the world did not help strengthen his faith. There were many heresies cropping up all the time, which kept chipping away at his faith. They were not all from outside the church either. Brother priests and bishops were victims of these heresies, and they were being spread throughout the church. This priest couldn't seem to help being more and more convinced by the logic of these heresies, especially the one concerning his particular problem, the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

One morning, while he was having a strong attack of doubt, he began the Consecration of the Mass for the people of the town. He used the same size host which is used in the Latin Rite masses today. What he beheld as he consecrated the bread and wine caused his hands to shake, indeed his whole body. He stood for a long time with his back to the people, and then slowly turned around to them.

He said: "0 fortunate witnesses to whom the Blessed God, to confound my disbelief, has wished to reveal Himself in this Most Blessed Sacrament and to render Himself visible to our eves. Come, brethren, and marvel at our God so close to us. Behold the Flesh and Blood of our most beloved Christ."

The host had turned into Flesh. The wine had turned into Blood.

The people, having witnessed the miracle for themselves, began to wail, asking for forgiveness, crying for mercy. Others began beating their breasts, confessing their sins, declaring themselves unworthy to witness such a miracle. Still others went down on their knees in respect, and thanksgiving for the gift the Lord had bestowed on them. All spread the story throughout the town and surrounding villages.

Jesus even allowed Himself to be crucified again. After the miracle, the Host was pinned down to a wooden board, so that when it dried, it would not curl up, as scabbed flesh does. So here He was again, with nails in His Body, nailed to a piece of wood.

The miracle that occurred in 700 was just the beginning. That was 1250 years ago. Had that miracle taken place, and then the flesh and blood disintegrated, as would have been normal, the miracle would have been none the less a miracle. The priest's faith had been renewed. The entire town, the whole country for that matter, became aware of the miracle. Pilgrims flocked to Lanciano to venerate the Host turned flesh. Belief in the Eucharist had been reborn. The gift from the Lord was complete.

But that's not all. The miracle is ongoing. The Host-turned-Flesh, and the Wine-turned-Blood, without the use of any form of preservative, is still present in the reliquary. In 1574 testing was done on the Flesh and Blood and an unexplainable phenomenon was discovered. The five pellets of coagulated Blood are different sizes and shapes. But any combination weighs the same as the total. In other words, 1 weighs the same as 2, 2 weigh the same as 3, and 3 weigh the same as 5.

From the very beginning, the local church accepted this miracle as a true sign from heaven, and venerated the Eucharistic Flesh and Blood in processions on its feast day, the last Sunday of October. The fame of the shrine spread throughout the region quickly, and soon all of Italy came to the Church in Pilgrimage.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Still Existing Evidence
A pilgrim, born and baptised Catholic, shared with his convert wife, after venerating the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, "I never believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. To me, it was strictly `in memory of Him'. Now, I truly believe that my Jesus comes alive to me personally in the Consecrated Host that I consume at Holy Mass."

On one occasion, after the priest had shown all our pilgrims the Eucharistic Miracle, he came down to the foot of the altar, and made the following observation:

"Remember, this miracle that you are witnessing now, and that you have traveled so far to witness, happens every day in every church in the world, at the consecration of the Mass."

How many tests have been made over the years, how many times Our Dear Lord Jesus allows Himself to be prodded and cut, examined under microscopes, and photographed. The most recent, an extensive scientific research done in 1970, used the most modern scientific tools available. The results of the tests are as follows:

The flesh is real flesh. The blood is real blood.
The flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart (myocardium)
The flesh and blood belong to the human species.
The flesh and blood have the same blood type (AB).
In the blood, there were found proteins in the same normal proportions as are found in the scro-proteic make up of fresh, normal blood.
In the blood, there were also found these minerals: Chlorides, phosphorous, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The preservation of the flesh and of the blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries (without any chemical preservatives) and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
As part of this most recent investigation, the following comment was made: "Though it is alien to my task strictly speaking, I feel I should insert the following reflection into the study just completed: the clarification, which comes through in these studies, of the nature of the flesh gives little support to the hypothesis of a `fraud' perpetrated centuries ago. As a matter of fact supposing that the heart may have been taken from a cadaver, I maintain that only a hand experienced in anatomic dissection would have been able to obtain from a hollow internal organ such a uniform cut (as can still be glimpsed in the flesh)."

What the doctor, a scientist and not a theologian, is saying in simple language is that although it's not his task to speculate, it would have been difficult, next to impossible, for anyone to have cut a slice of the heart in the way that it was done. He also states that it's highly doubtful that there was any fraud involved.

Another unusual characteristic of the blood is that when liquified, it has retained the chemical properties of freshly shed blood. When we cut ourselves and stain our clothes, the chemical properties of the blood are gone within 20 minutes to a half hour. If blood is not refrigerated within an hour maximum, the composition rapidly breaks down. If blood were taken from a dead body, it would lose its qualities quickly through decay. This blood is over 1250 years old and still contains all its properties, chemicals and protein of freshly shed blood. And yet in the testing, it was determined that no preservatives of any kind were found in the blood.




This is copy paste from another place:

I did look into Luther reformation a little more. Looks like Luther come to Sola Scriptura theory but he Believed that Holy Communion is the blood and flesh of Jesus and had harsh words againbst other people, Calvin I think that modify the modification and come with another theory about Holy Communion. Anybody can research this too.
So there are many modifications of modifications of of course modifications because as I said there are many understandings that don't contradict the logic. So Luther discarded the tradition but looks like he made his own tradition the book of Concord and this is a man made tradition that governs the Lutheran Church. So you go to castle say castle is huge and logic say there should have been diesel cranes and trucks to do it. Then if you take all the historical that say diesel cranes didn't existsat that time and name them tradition and discard them and put other new that say the castle was built with diesel cranes this is bad . You cannot and should not do that.


James called by Bible the Brother of Jesus at year 60 had the Liturgy of Saint James with central point offering the Holy Eucharist as the literal blood and flesh of Jesus and virtually every christian writing in the first 800 years of Early Church speaks about Holy Eucharist as blood and flesh of Jesus and these writtings are called tradition.

Orthodox Church celebrates every Sunday a Holy Liturgy similar with the Holy Liturgy of Saint James and at this Holy Liturgy Heavenly Powers are present in the space after the doors.

"Lutheran: Martin Luther's understanding of the Holy Communion went through several phases. As his teaching developed, Luther taught that the Holy Communion was not a sacrifice but the last will and testament of Jesus, a promise, in which he bequeathed to believers the forgiveness of sins secured by his death on the cross. For Luther, this trustworthy promise could be met by either faith or unbelief. Although repudiating transubstantiation as a philosophical invention unworthy of Christian theology, Luther laid great weight on the real presence of Christ in the Holy Communion, claiming that Christ's body and blood were eaten and drunk by believers and unbelievers alike. Believers, he taught, ate and drank at the Lord's Supper to their blessing, while unbelievers ate and drank to their own condemnation.

Reformed: Huldrych Zwingli advanced the first Reformed doctrine of the Holy Communion. Unlike Luther, Zwingli thought of the elements or signs in the Lord's Supper not as means by which God communicates grace to the faithful, but as signs by which the faithful declare that they have received grace and belong to the body of the faithful. For Zwingli the Holy Communion was essentially a communal profession of faith, a celebrative thanksgiving in which the church declared its gratitude and faithfulness to God. Later Reformed theologians, including Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin, sought a middle way between Luther's position and that of Zwingli. Against Zwingli they argued that Christ was certainly present in the signs of bread and wine, but against Luther they argued that Christians could not rightly comprehend the mode of Christ's presence. Like Luther, they considered the Holy Communion to be constituted by Christ's promise and like Zwingli they thought that it rightly included an element of eucharistic thanksgiving.

Radical: Some theologians of the radical Reformation, including Sebastian Franck and Kaspar von Schwenkfeld, abandoned altogether or suspended the use of the Holy Communion. Others dramatically reinterpreted it. Some radical theologians associated the elements of the Holy Communion in various ways with Christ's heavenly body. More often, however, they saw the Lord's Supper as an occasion to hold Christ's death in grateful remembrance. The ideas of an egalitarian fellowship in the sight of God and preparation for martyrdom often dominated the piety of this faction of the Reformation.

English: The teaching of Thomas Cranmer, architect of the English Book of Common Prayer, regarding the Holy Communion is a matter of considerable dispute as is the proper interpretation of the doctrinal statements issued during the English reformation. These standards of the English reformation seem clearly to reject both the sacrifice of the mass and transubstantiation. In the matter of Christ's presence, the Thirty-Nine Articles appear to align the English reformation most closely to the position of Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin. They affirm a heavenly and spiritual presence of Christ in the Holy Communion and consider it to be a means rather than merely a sign of grace.

"

This is a picture of major christianity braches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...tyBranches.svg

[Adrian]

So you go to castle say castle is huge and logic say there should have been diesel cranes and trucks to do it. Then if you take all the historical that say diesel cranes didn't existsat that time and name them tradition and discard them and put other new that say the castle was built with diesel cranes this is bad . You cannot and should not do that.

THIS IS HOW PROTESTANTS BUILT THE NEW DOCTRINES, THEY DISCARDED VALID HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS and replaced them with their understanding every denomination with different ones and holy communion is an example of this.

[Ken McRae]

On page 10 of the How to defend against 'sola sciptura' apologetics? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6086) thread, Jonathan states the following, Jonathan Hayward posted the following:-


Do you mean "A piece of mere bread" in ridicule, or "a piece of bread", period? Because the Catholic doctrine is forbidden to Orthodox.

We may use the term "transsubstantiation" on condition that it does not mean the doctrine, deemed helpful but not absolutely endorsed by Rome, that in Thomas Aquinas's teaching the substance of bread is changed to the substance of the body of Christ, and thereafter ceases to be bread even if the accidents of bread remain.

Orthodox complain--I think of Hymn of Entry--of a local Western council where a man said that the Eucharist is a symbol and not literal, and the council condemned him but reached no farther than the mirror image of his position, claiming that the Eucharist is literal and not a symbol. And the mirror image of deficient theology is rarely whole theology.

The Eucharist is bread and wine that are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and are symbols in the fullest possible sense: they are literally the body and blood of Christ. And to understand this is not just to understand the Eucharist, but Christ and the Incarnation; the veneration of icons is impossible without this nature of symbol, and the Iconoclasts of the Reformation understood the Western doctrine of the symbol in a more consistent way than people who slipped into a Western understanding of symbol but did not get rid of icons, or (worse) allowed them on condition that they were understood as "just" symbols.

A piece of bread, Ken? Yes and amen! A piece of bread that is the symbol of the body of Christ, that is the body of Christ! (Let us not drop any of this.)

See Post 198 of the thread. However, in accord with the Fr Dcn Matthews' request, I have elected to post my reply in this thread, seeing as the issues or questions raised by Jonathan were previously addressed, to some extent, in this particular thread, and specifically in Post 10 of it.

Fr. Alvin Kimel On the 8th Century Eucharistic Controversy in the East (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/transubstantiation/):-


In the Eastern Church the mystery of real identification came to dogmatic expression at the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The council was convened to address the heresy of iconoclasm—the denial that images of Jesus and the saints may be properly venerated and reverenced. The iconoclasts argued that a true icon is identical (homoousios) with its prototype. In Scripture and the theological tradition, Jesus Christ is named the image of the Father. Jesus is able to serve as the perfect image of the Father because he is consubstantial with the Father. Only thus may he be given the worship, adoration, and devotion that is properly given to the Almighty Creator. A painting of Jesus, on the other hand, does not and cannot enjoy a oneness of being with the object it depicts. It will always be inadequate. The iconoclasts did recognize one proper image of the incarnate Son, however—the image instituted by the Son himself, his eucharistic body and blood. The Eucharist perfectly images Christ because it is identical in essence with Christ and is therefore worthy of worship and reverence.

The iconodules did not take issue with the iconoclastic claim that the Holy Gifts are homoousios with the body and blood of the risen Christ. The iconodules and iconoclasts shared a common liturgy and a common understanding of the eucharistic presence. But clearly the iconodules could not allow the iconoclasts to appropriate the Eucharist as an icon, the one legitimate icon, of Christ. At Nicaea II the deacon Epiphanius read a document that was gladly received by the orthodox bishops:

Thus, it has been clearly demonstrated that nowhere did either the Lord, or the Apostles, or the Fathers call the bloodless sacrifice, offered through the priest, “an icon,” but rather “this very body” and “this very blood.”… These noble ones, however, in their desire to abolish the sight of the venerable icons, have introduced indirectly another icon-which is not an icon but body and blood…. Afterwards, leaving aside falsehood, they touch for a moment upon the truth, saying that the bread does become the divine body. But, if the bread is an icon of the body, it is impossible for it to be the divine body itself.

To speak of the Eucharist as icon implies a distinction between the sacramental forms and Christ’s glorified body, a distinction between image and prototype. But the two are not distinct. The Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. “These we do not understand [as being] two,” St Nicephorus explained, “but we believe that they become one and the same [body of Christ].” With the dogmatic assertion that the consecrated elements simply are the body and blood, the use of symbol, figure, and image to characterize the Holy Gifts virtually disappears in Byzantine Christianity.

Jonathan, please note carefully the judgment of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in the following words, concerning the doctrinal impropriety of referring to the consecrated gifts as "symbols" or "icons":-


Thus, it has been clearly demonstrated that nowhere did either the Lord, or the Apostles, or the Fathers call the bloodless sacrifice, offered through the priest, “an icon,” but rather “this very body” and “this very blood.”… These noble ones, however, in their desire to abolish the sight of the venerable icons, have introduced indirectly another icon-which is not an icon but body and blood…. Afterwards, leaving aside falsehood, they touch for a moment upon the truth, saying that the bread does become the divine body. But, if the bread is an icon of the body, it is impossible for it to be the divine body itself.

I wish I knew where to find the full document online, but alas, that has (so far) evaded me. Nevertheless, please observe very carefully that the holy fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council say that "if the bread is an icon," or symbol "of the body, it is impossible for it to be the divine body itself." End of discussion. Now, as I attempted to articulate earlier, I believe the holy Fathers are referring there only to the consecrated and not the unconscerated gifts. It should go without saying that the symbolic nature of the unconsecrated gifts has never been a matter of controversy in the Orthodox Church.

Now, though I do not have the full document in front of me, it would not surprise me at all to discover within the body of it an explicit prohibition by the holy Fathers from any further reference to the conscrated gifts as "symbols" or "icons" of the Body and Blood of Christ. For the historical context of this controversy, I refer you to the following passage by Fr. John Meyendorff:-


Pages 202-204 of Fr. John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology provides some critical information in this connection or regard. Here's a link to page 203 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Patriarch+Nicephorus+and+the+symbolism+of+the+e ucharist&source=web&ots=tW8Kzmgikb&sig=FaHMBELnN1ZE1BM-LIppGTivDjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result), which states the following:

"Dionysius' symbolism only superficially affected the Eucharistic rites themselves, but it became quite popular among commentators on the liturgy. Thus, the great Maximus the Confessor, whose use of the concept of 'symbol' is probably more realistic than Dionysius', nevertheless systematically applies the terms 'symbol' or 'image' to the Eucharistic liturgy in general and to the elements of bread and wine in particular.

"In the eighth century, this symbolism led to a serious theological debate concerning the Eucharist - the only one Byzantium ever knew. The iconoclastic council of 754, in condemning the use of religious images, proclaimed that the only admissable 'image' of Christ is the one established by Christ Himself, the Eucharistic Body and Blood. This radical and clear contention, based upon a long-standing tradition, was a real challenge to the Orthodox party; the ambiguity of the Areopagite was evidenced once more, and a clarification of symbolism made necessary.

"Thus, the defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it. For Theodore, the Eucharist is not 'type,' but the very 'truth'; it is the 'mystery which recapitulates the whole of the [divine] dispensation.' According to Nicephorus, it is the 'flesh of God,' 'one and the same thing' with the Body and Blood of Christ, who came to save the very reality of human flesh by becoming and remaining 'flesh,' even after His glorification; thus, in the Eucharist, 'what is the matter of the sacrament, if the flesh is not real, so that we see it being perfected by the Spirit?'

"As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine 'Eucharistic realism,' clearly departing from Dionysian terminology, was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines" ... etc. ( Byzantine Theology, p. 203 )

Jonathan, I call your attention to the words of Fr. John concerning the judgment of Patriarch Nicephorus on the practice of referring to the consecrated gifts as symbols: "The defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it." And concerning the judgment of St. Theodore the Studite, Fr. John says this: "For Theodore, the Eucharist is not 'type,' but the very 'truth'." What does he mean, Jonathan, that "the Eucharist is not 'type'"? Is he referring there, in your opinion, to the unconsecrated or conscecrated gifts?


In addition to Fr. John's book, I would also recommend the book by John Travis, entitled In Defense of The Faith (http://www.stspress.com/detail.aspx?ID=451): "This monograph is a sensitive and sympathetic, yet not unreflectingly eulogistic presentation of the theological thinking of the Patriarch Nicephorus, champion of the iconophile cause in the early ninth century. The historical aspects of Nicephorus' career are fully discussed in contract(ed) dialogue with the classical work of Paul Alexander, and some needed correctives are introduced. The iconoclactic argumentation, when necessary, is accurately and impartially presented."

As intimated earlier in this thread, however poorly or obscurely, I suspect that it may have been in the above monograph that I originally read, well over ten years ago now, that as a direct result of iconoclasm, and the eucharistic controversy in the East, as outlined above by Fr. John Meyendorff, the Orthodox Church formally prohibited any further reference to the conscecrated gifts as icons or symbols. Since I no longer possess the book, I cannot confirm that, unfortunately.

[Rick H.]

There are some top shelf contributions[!] in this thread for any interested:

Are the body and blood still bread and wine? - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3466&highlight=body+blood)

[Ken McRae]

There are some top shelf contributions[!] in this thread for any interested:

Are the body and blood still bread and wine? - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3466&highlight=body+blood)

Well, I just read through the first 40 posts in that thread (which comprise its first two pages) and I was with Andreas all the way. I wonder, though, if he has since changed or revised his view of the matter. At any rate, I was a little surprised to see that in those first 40 posts, no one referred to the Eucharistic controversy in the East which Fr. John Meyendorff outlined in his introduction to Byzantine Theology; nor to the proclamation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council cited above. Something else that struck me about the first two pages of that thread is that all the Patristic citiations pre-dated the Seventh Ecumenical Council. I should like to see a fair selection of citations from the holy fathers which came after the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

[Andreas Moran]

Well, I just read through the first 40 posts in that thread (which comprise its first two pages) and I was with Andreas all the way. I wonder, though, if he has since changed or revised his view of the matter.

Most definitely I have not changed my mind or revised my view.

[Ken McRae]

Well, I just read through the first 40 posts in that thread (which comprise its first two pages) and I was with Andreas all the way. I wonder, though, if he has since changed or revised his view of the matter.


Most definitely I have not changed my mind or revised my view.

Well, I actually finished readng the entire thread and I must say that my head feels a little bit sore now because of it. I was surprised by the diversity of opinion expressed throughout it, and I came away with many thoughts worthy of deeper consideration. Still, like Andreas, I remained basically unchanged by the end of it, concerning the "total" transformation of the bread and wine into the deified Body and Blood of Christ. If the bread and wine retain the essential nature of bread and wine after consecration, it would then appear merely as a partial transformation.

According to St. Theodore the Studite, that is, if I understand him, the pre-sanctified gifts are "types" of the Body and Blood of Christ. Upon consecration, they becomes "anti-types," or as he says, the very real and "true" flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Now, if the bread is a 'type' and the 'type' becomes 'anti-type', then the bread becomes 'anti-bread' and the wine 'anti-wine'. How is 'anti-bread' still bread, and anti-wine still wine after their holy transmutation? I don't see it. What appears after transmutation is merely a miraculous veiling of reality by virtue of the miracle performed.

The anti-types merely appear as bread and wine by virtue of a miracle, just as the transfiguration light of Christ was miraculously veiled and concealed from the disciples, except for that brief moment on the Transfiguration Mount. What appears as bread and wine to us, after their holy transfiguration, are merely those veils which are miraculously wrought for our sakes, on account of our natural weakness and general inability to look upon them as they really are.

Just as the most of us cannot bare to look upon the uncreated light with our physical eyes, due to our natural weakness, nor are we capable of looking upon the "true" flesh and blood of the Spotless Lamb of God as they appear in reality, behind the veils of bread and wine. It is not only an act of Divine Mercy to conceal them under such convenient cloaks, but also a divine test of faith. Blessed are they who believe without seeing!

It does not appear to me how anti-types can retain anything of the substantial nature of the original types prior to their glorious transfiguration. What looks like bread and wine after transmutation is not "really" bread and wine. They are no more true bread and wine after their transmutation than they are Christ's true flesh and blood before transmutation. They are 'real' bread and wine before, and 'real' flesh and blood after; never at the same time, I do believe!

In all humility,
Innocent

[Ken McRae]

On page 10 of the How to defend against 'sola sciptura' apologetics? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6086) thread, Jonathan Hayward posted the following:-


Do you mean "A piece of mere bread" in ridicule, or "a piece of bread", period? Because the Catholic doctrine is forbidden to Orthodox.

We may use the term "transsubstantiation" on condition that it does not mean the doctrine, deemed helpful but not absolutely endorsed by Rome, that in Thomas Aquinas's teaching the substance of bread is changed to the substance of the body of Christ, and thereafter ceases to be bread even if the accidents of bread remain.

Orthodox complain--I think of Hymn of Entry--of a local Western council where a man said that the Eucharist is a symbol and not literal, and the council condemned him but reached no farther than the mirror image of his position, claiming that the Eucharist is literal and not a symbol. And the mirror image of deficient theology is rarely whole theology.

The Eucharist is bread and wine that are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and are symbols in the fullest possible sense: they are literally the body and blood of Christ. And to understand this is not just to understand the Eucharist, but Christ and the Incarnation; the veneration of icons is impossible without this nature of symbol, and the Iconoclasts of the Reformation understood the Western doctrine of the symbol in a more consistent way than people who slipped into a Western understanding of symbol but did not get rid of icons, or (worse) allowed them on condition that they were understood as "just" symbols.

A piece of bread, Ken? Yes and amen! A piece of bread that is the symbol of the body of Christ, that is the body of Christ! (Let us not drop any of this.)

See Post 198 of that thread.

The above post by Jonathan Hayward has been relocated to The Western Rite in Orthodoxy Today (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=81898#post81898) thread; and is now Post 193 of this 'other' thread; or on page 10 of it.

[Ken McRae]

According to St. Theodore the Studite, that is, if I understand him, the pre-sanctified gifts are "types" of the Body and Blood of Christ.

"The pre-sanctified gifts are "types" of the Body and Blood of Christ." Please forgive me, but it occurred to me earlier today that I've misappropriated the term "pre-sanctified" in these context. It should appear from the context in which I used it that I was merely applying it to the unconsecrated bread and wine. Being relatively new to Orthodoxy myself, it did not occur to me at the time I appropriated this phrase that it had another well established meaning within Orthodoxy. I just wish to be clear about this, in order to avoid causing any further confusion by my words.


Upon consecration, they become "anti-types," or as he says, the very real and "true" flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Now, if the bread is a 'type' and the 'type' becomes 'anti-type', then the bread becomes 'anti-bread' and the wine 'anti-wine'.

In regard to my use of the terms "type" and "antitype", I would like to quote a couple passages from the treatise by St. Hippolytus of Rome on The Apostolic Tradition:


01) And then let the oblation at once be brought by the deacons to the bishop, and he shall eucharistize first the bread into the representation, [which the Greek calls the antitype] of the Flesh of Christ; and the cup mixed with wine for the antitype, [which the Greek calls the likeness] of the Blood which was shed for all who have believed in Him. (The 1992 Corrected Edition, p. 40)

02) For having blessed the Cup in the Name of God thou didst receive it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. (ibid, p. 59)

The Introduction dates The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus to 215 A.D., which is very significant, as it shows the great antiquity of those two terms, type and antitype, as applied to the Holy Eucharist. And as we have witnessed above, Fr. John Meyendorff intimates that these terms were still current at the time of St. Theodore the Studite.

Note here, as well, the strict parallel drawn by St. Hippolytus between the terms representation and antitype. The equation between the two terms denotes that the former as well as the latter indicates the present reality of the deified flesh and blood of God, immediately following the consecration, or blessed transfiguration of the types.

[Aidan Kimel]

I wish I knew where to find the full document online, but alas, that has (so far) evaded me. Nevertheless, please observe very carefully that the holy fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council say that "if the bread is an icon," or symbol "of the body, it is impossible for it to be the divine body itself."

The cited text from the discussions of II Nicaea can be found in Icon and Logos, ed. Daniel Sahas (University of Toronto Press, 1986). I refer to this controversy in my essay "Eating Christ (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2199922/Eating-Christ)."

[Ken McRae]

The cited text from the discussions of II Nicaea can be found in Icon and Logos, ed. Daniel Sahas (University of Toronto Press, 1986). I refer to this controversy in my essay "Eating Christ (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2199922/Eating-Christ)."

Many thanks, Fr. Alvin, for this information and link. I enjoyed the essay very much, and was greatly delighted to learn of the early 20th century debate among Greek Orthodox theologians; especially between Chrestos Androutsos and Constantine Dyobouniotes, referred to on pages 5 and 6 of "Eating Christ (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2199922/Eating-Christ)."