Quote:

---

It just means it really changed, so much so that it is not the same thing it was before.

---

It seems as though we definitely agree that what was physical food becomes both physical AND spiritual food.

My conversations with Catholics regarding the Eucharist tend to go like this:

Me: So you think the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood literally
Them: yes
Me: But that's cannibalism and drinking blood is a sin
Them: well, it's not actual human flesh and blood
Me: so what is it?
Them: it's still bread and wine and is also the flesh and blood of Christ
Me: what does that even mean?
Them: we don't know
Me: but it's not symbolic at all?
Them: nope, it's really changed, just in some entirely imperceptible way
Me: so it's bread and wine physically but flesh and blood in some non-physical way
Them: basically
Me: that's what every church I have ever been to teaches. Why do people argue about this?

I was re-reading this thread and wanted to firmly put these fathers where they belong - in the orthodox camp.

These quotes by St Irenaeus can't be misconstrued and properly frames all of the others, as well as act as a historical witness to the fact that this was a widespread Eucharistic practice (he was from Lyon, France) in the mid-150s. It also shows that core Christian doctrines such as the freedom of our physical creation from corruption and the resurrection of the flesh were already well-founded.

Quote:

---

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies, IV.18.5)

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body...And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bonesthat [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption. (Against Heresies V.2.2-3)

---

Summary:
1. Christ allows for the salvation of created things (our flesh)
2. This is demonstrated by His ability to mix divine things (Himself) with created things (the bread and wine)
3. This has two realities, earthly and heavenly. (Note not a reality and an implication or symbolic meaning).
4. The Eucharist is physical food that has nourishment
5. The Eucharist is "made" at the prayer of invocation
6. The Eucharist conveys eternal life
7. By the physical partaking, we attain to incorruption

Also note that he ties the concept of rejecting the possibility or reality of the Eucharist in with the rejection of the salvation of the flesh. Number 2 also sets the stage for later discussions on His Nature as fully God and fully Man. Again, correctly discerning Eucharist is a witness to a correct Christology.

When you read St Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans in this light, you can understand why the gnostics that denied the Eucharistic "gift" "incur death". Not because they are sinners, but because they cut themselves off from something that saves. In his letter to the Ephesians he says that the Eucharist is "the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

And again, this clarifies St Clement's language here. He says "the blood of the Lord is twofold...the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality" and that those "who by faith partake of [the Eucharist] are sanctified both in body and soul."

So you can also see echoes of 2 Peter 1:4, that "through these you might become partakers of the divine nature." One thing that may be lost in translation here is that the word partakers in all of these passages is koinonos. This is the same word that the word communion is derived from, koinonia. St Peter literally says through the promises you can become communicants of the divine nature, and this is echoed in St Clement's language. What better describes this than the Eucharist?

This is spot-on 100% exactly the continued, unbroken teaching of the Orthodox Church.

So if strong believers can't agree one of their more important shared sacraments, how do those of us who question, struggle with, or don't have any faith stand a chance? From the outside looking in these relatively petty squabbles make me think "Whats the point of even trying?"

That is not what every church teaches. You can gloss over nuance but just from personal experience baptists allow zero mystical or spiritual influence in communion or baptism. They are not salvific, they do not convey grace, they are only symbols or ritual commemorations. What is it they always say about baptism? "An outward symbol of an inward belief" or something? That's no where close. It's not even the same ballpark.

Calvin (I hope I'm explaning this correctly) said it is flesh and blood but not here. The "realness" of the sacrament happens in Heaven, not here on earth. From my post above, you can see why this is rejected. It pushes out God's grace and healing divinity from the realm of the physical to the realm of the immaterial.

Now as to arguments between variations of what exactly happens when and why, I agree. Arguing about it is just speculation into a mystery that we should accept with humility.

k2aggie07 said:

---

That's a far, far cry from "symbol" or "metaphor" though - yes?

---

Not the way I was using it (bread and wine becoming physical flesh and blood), but I was trying to come to a point of agreement.

Hey! "A becoming" is a perfectly (small-O) orthodox way of expressing this (as shown by St Serapion of Thmuis' writing in the fourth century). What is important, I think, is only two things:

• that it does in fact become something else / in addition to bread and wine
• that this something else is somehow divine and contributes to our salvation through consumption

I just read through the whole thread, which is awesome. Thanks to GQ, k2, Sq16, JJmt, and others here for contributing a lot of thoughtful and insightful discourse.

There is one point on which I propose we alter our perspectives a bit. That is to say, we have been looking at the issue, and at the fundamental disagreement, from a particular angle. Specifically, so much of the argument has revolved around the meaning (and the mystery) of the Eucharist being bread or flesh, changing physically or metaphysically, literal or metaphorical. The problem here is that some posters are looking at these questions as boolean (either/or) while other posters are approaching these as non-binary (both/and). There is obviously much confusion.

Instead, I think I can illustrate the fundamental point of contention by creating another question that everyone here should recognize as boolean in nature. I will use a hypothetical scenario:

Suppose a man walks into an empty Catholic or Orthodox Church. He is not a Christian, and is completely unfamiliar with the sacraments or their meaning. He has never heard of the Eucharist or even the concept of communion. He finds the consecrated host, and proceeds to eat some. Now here's the question:

Did this man just consume the Body of Christ, or did the man not just consume the Body of Christ?

Since part of why I enjoy these discussions is an opportunity to teach people the things I've learned in my journey into Orthodoxy, I'll clarify a bit. There is no consecrated host in Orthodox churches, at least not like in Roman churches. We do keep a small amount reserved for emergencies on the altar, but it's not out for adoration or anything, just in the tabernacle. This is to bring to people who are sick or otherwise can't come to communion, and is reserved there every year during Lent, on Holy Thursday. Anything left over is consumed by the priest or deacon, and the new is put in its place.

And, yes, my belief is that if someone were to take this, they would have taken the Body of Christ.

Stasco said:

---

Did this man just consume the Body of Christ, or did the man not just consume the Body of Christ?

---

This is an issue we've already discovered: do you mean physical body of Christ (literal human flesh and blood)?

I believe at least most of us agree on it being both physical and spiritual food.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Stasco said:

---

Did this man just consume the Body of Christ, or did the man not just consume the Body of Christ?

---

This is an issue we've already discovered: do you mean physical body of Christ (literal human flesh and blood)?

I believe at least most of us agree on it being both physical and spiritual food.

---

What I mean is, when we're talking about the thing that the hypothetical man put in his mouth, would you refer to that thing as "the Body of Christ"?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Since part of why I enjoy these discussions is an opportunity to teach people the things I've learned in my journey into Orthodoxy, I'll clarify a bit. There is no consecrated host in Orthodox churches, at least not like in Roman churches. We do keep a small amount reserved for emergencies on the altar, but it's not out for adoration or anything, just in the tabernacle. This is to bring to people who are sick or otherwise can't come to communion, and is reserved there every year during Lent, on Holy Thursday. Anything left over is consumed by the priest or deacon, and the new is put in its place.

And, yes, my belief is that if someone were to take this, they would have taken the Body of Christ.

---

Thanks for the clarification. Your answer at the bottom reveals where Orthodox and Catholic believers agree on the topic, and where some of our Protestant friends may disagree.

Stasco said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Stasco said:

---

Did this man just consume the Body of Christ, or did the man not just consume the Body of Christ?

---

This is an issue we've already discovered: do you mean physical body of Christ (literal human flesh and blood)?

I believe at least most of us agree on it being both physical and spiritual food.

---

What I mean is, when we're talking about the thing that the hypothetical man put in his mouth, would you refer to that thing as "the Body of Christ"?

---

I believe we all would.

Quote:

---

That is not what every church teaches. You can gloss over nuance but just from personal experience baptists allow zero mystical or spiritual influence in communion or baptism. They are not salvific, they do not convey grace, they are only symbols or ritual commemorations. What is it they always say about baptism? "An outward symbol of an inward belief" or something? That's no where close. It's not even the same ballpark.

---

I can't speak for every Baptist church, and every church is very autonomous. I am also not Baptist, and it's not my job to stick up for them. But I have been in several Baptist churches. I think the symbol/metaphor talk is just thumbing their nose at the Catholics.

My pastor used to be Baptist and on the board of the SBC. He uses the phrase "physical representation of a spiritual reality".

Also, every Baptist church I've been too has also quoted the verses in 1 Cor 11:29 about harming yourself with improperly taking the Communion. Kind of hard to harm yourself with a meaningless ceremony.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Stasco said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Stasco said:

---

Did this man just consume the Body of Christ, or did the man not just consume the Body of Christ?

---

This is an issue we've already discovered: do you mean physical body of Christ (literal human flesh and blood)?

I believe at least most of us agree on it being both physical and spiritual food.

---

What I mean is, when we're talking about the thing that the hypothetical man put in his mouth, would you refer to that thing as "the Body of Christ"?

---

I believe we all would.

---

I can't speak for your particular denomination, but my experience with the Episcopalian church is that they would not refer to it as the Body of Christ. Rather, they believe that Christ is present during the service, but that someone who eats the communion wafer without any knowledge or awareness of its symbolism is just eating a wafer. I.e. Christ is "present" during communion, but the wafer itself is not really the Body of Christ.

If calling the communion wafer "The Body of Christ" is merely metaphorical, then why would the wafer carry any significance apart from the believer's own attitude toward it?

I agree. I think I tended to read John 6 and stuff like 1 Cor 11 fast, because I didn't want to think about it too much. I didn't have a satisfying answer for it. I just had training, that to me didn't really square.

I agree with you at the thumbing their nose at the Romans. My Dad objects to me being Orthodox because we have bishops "like the Catholics".

The problem is, without a consistent theological way to talk about salvation and grace it really becomes a crapshoot. A -lot- of people think it's just a symbol.

With regard to 1 Cor 11, I think they have to quote it -- I mean, it's there, right? You can't ignore it. But when I was taught, the tendency to want it to focus on the believer, and whether they believe in Jesus or are unrepentant of something or other, rather than focusing it on what it says, which is discerning the body and blood.

I misread the scenario. Yes, during communion our pastors refer to the bread as the "body of Christ which has been broken for you." They wouldn't offer communion to someone who is not a professed believer, wouldn't have the bread lying around, and - if it was - we wouldn't consider anything other than bread was consumed.

I would say he did not consume the body of Christ.

Does the sanctity of a marriage expire sometime after the ceremony? Does baptism wear off?

One other comment I'd like to make on this topic is something that our conversation dug up unsystematically (swimmer I think pointed it out) -- that there is a strong link between our understanding of the Eucharist and our understanding of Christ.

This became especially clear in Christological controversies around whether Christ had one or two natures, whether he was both fully God and fully man, etc.

I think it is interesting that just as St Irenaeus' opinion "was in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion" the orthodox camp returned to the Eucharist to understand Christ. St Cyril of Alexandria wrote against Nestorius:

Quote:

---

For the Word of God saying that He is sent, says, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. But WE eat, not consuming the Godhead (away with the folly) but the Very Flesh of the Word Which has been made Lifegiving, because it has been made His Who liveth because of the Father. And we do not say that by a participation from without and adventitious is the Word quickened by the Father, but rather we maintain that He is Life by Nature, for He has been begotten out of the Father who is Life. For as the sun's brightness which is sent forth, though it be said (for example) to be bright because of the sender, or of that out of which it comes, yet not of participation hath it the being bright, but as of natural nobility it weareth the Excellence of him who sent it or flashed it forth: in the same way and manner, I deem, even though the Son say that He lives because of the Father, will He bear witness to Himself His own Noble Birth from forth the Father, and not with the rest of the creation promiscuously, confess that He has Life imparted and from without.

And as the Body of the Word Himself is Life-giving, He having made it His own by a true union passing understanding and language; so WE too who partake of His holy Flesh and Blood, are quickened in all respects and wholly, the Word dwelling in us Divinely through the Holy Ghost, humanly again through His Holy Flesh and Precious Blood....But since some of those who at first believed, ignorant of the tradition and force of the Mystery were pleased to be borne aside from what was right, celebrating in the churches banquetings and public feastings, the blessed Paul found fault with those who used so to do

And that the Mystery is Divine and the participation Life-giving and the might of this unbloody Sacrifice far better than the worship under the Law, is easy to see even from his saying that the things ordained through Moses to them of old time were a shadow, but Christ and what is His the truth.... For they that of old did sacrifice the lamb ate thereof, but the force of the eating amounted not simply to the satisfying of the belly, nor was it for this that the sacrifices were performed under the Law: but that when death fell on the rest, they might be superior to its suffering and might escape the destroyer. And verily in one night were the first-born of the Egyptians destroyed, but these fenced by the bare type, alone were saved by it, and having the shadow for their shield, prevailed gloriously over death itself too. The types then saved those before us; in what condition are our matters, on whom at length beamed the Truth itself, that is, Christ, Who setteth before us His own Life-giving Flesh to partake of? is it not clear to all? For very exceedingly better and in vast superiority are they. And the might of the Mystery our Lord Jesus Christ making manifest saith, Verily I say to you, he that helieveth on Me hath everlasting life, I am the Bread of Life: your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died, this is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die, I am the Living Bread Which came down from Heaven, if any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread Which I will give is My Flesh Which is for the Life of the world. For since they of the blood of Israel had marvelled at Moses for the largess of manna sent down to those of that time in the desert, which fills up a type of the Mystic Eucharist (for the Law is a shadow), therefore with exceeding skill doth our Lord Jesus Christ is the type, driving them [from it] unto the truth. For not that (He says) was the Bread of Life, but rather, I Who am out of Heaven and Who quicken all things and infuse Myself into them that eat Me, through My Flesh too that is united to Me. Which indeed He made clearer saying, Verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not Life in you: he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day, for My Flesh is true meat and My Blood is true drink; he that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the Living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, he also that eateth Me, he too shall live. Consider then how He abideth in us and maketh us superior to corruption, infusing Himself into our bodies, as I said, through His own Flesh too, which is true meat, whereas the shadow in the Law and the worship under it possess not the truth.

And the plan of the Mystery is simple and true, not overwrought with varied devices of imaginations unto unholiness but simple as I said. For we believe that to the body born through the holy Virgin, having a reasonable soul, the Word out of God the Father having united Himself (unspeakable is the union, and wholly a Mystery!) rendered it Life-giving, being as God Life by Nature, that making us partakers of Himself spiritually alike and bodily, He might both make us superior to decay and might through Himself bring to nought the law of sin which is in the members of the flesh, might condemn sin in the flesh, as it is written. But this no wise (I deem) pleases this dogmatist of new inventions, who like some straying calf runs after only what pleases himself: and diminishes the force of the mystery...

---

It always comes back to Christ. And again, this is the risk shown by St Paul in 1 Corinthians -- to deny the Eucharist shows, perhaps, a diminished understanding of the mystery of the incarnation and our salvation.

Quad Dog said:

---

So if strong believers can't agree one of their more important shared sacraments, how do those of us who question, struggle with, or don't have any faith stand a chance? From the outside looking in these relatively petty squabbles make me think "Whats the point of even trying?"

---

Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

Acts 17:11 "...they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. "

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 ""For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."

Quit listening to others, including even me, and dedicate time every day to reading God's Word for yourself and you will understand it. The great deceiver has deceived the whole world, but I'm confident if you ignore him and search out the matter for yourself, you will understand the essential commandments of YHWH and be able to observe them as He says. It might take more than one day, or one year. But your journey is more than one year. Your Halakha is a lifetime of walking with YHWH. And at the end of that walk, I have faith you will find Him.

Shalom