The real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,188
1,401
Perth
✟129,431.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I believe that all of the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some others) accept and teach the real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

Catholics believe and teach that the elements of bread & wine are changed during the Eucharistic Prayer. The change is called transubstantiation among Catholics.

John Paul II wrote an encyclical entitled "ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA", available here Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II, in which is written:
15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in the words of Paul VI – “is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.22 This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.23 Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.24
Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, we shall continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever more deeply.
These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual realities”25 which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine”.26
This thread is intended for discussion about the real presence. If you or your denomination teach a metaphorical or symbolic presence then this thread is not for you.
 
Last edited:

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,313
492
Pacific NW, USA
✟107,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross. Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.

So yes, there is a real presence being displayed *figuratively,* so that in our personal experience we experience these things in reality. But what we experience in terms of eating the bread and drinking the wine is not in themselves the transformation. Rather, it is what they represent by our choosing to do this ritual that signifies we accept his presence in our lives on behalf of our redemption. And we are exhorted to take our commitment to this ritual and to what it represents very seriously.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,556
9,043
Florida
✟327,477.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross. Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.

So yes, there is a real presence being displayed *figuratively,* so that in our personal experience we experience these things in reality. But what we experience in terms of eating the bread and drinking the wine is not in themselves the transformation. Rather, it is what they represent by our choosing to do this ritual that signifies we accept his presence in our lives on behalf of our redemption. And we are exhorted to take our commitment to this ritual and to what it represents very seriously.
It has been the teaching of Christianity from the beginning that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It is not a point to be interpreted in any other manner or taken in any other way. And it is not "bright, scholarly Christian leaders" failing to see some thing or another. The established Christian belief in the nature and purpose of the Eucharist is testified to by Christ himself, the Apostles, and an unbroken chain of commentaries from the Church Fathers down to modern times.
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
44,138
14,103
Broken Arrow, OK
✟712,389.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's amazing to me how so many bright, scholarly Christian leaders can fail to understand a simple literary figure. Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross. Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.

So yes, there is a real presence being displayed *figuratively,* so that in our personal experience we experience these things in reality. But what we experience in terms of eating the bread and drinking the wine is not in themselves the transformation. Rather, it is what they represent by our choosing to do this ritual that signifies we accept his presence in our lives on behalf of our redemption. And we are exhorted to take our commitment to this ritual and to what it represents very seriously.
QFT. Well said.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,399
5,805
49
The Wild West
✟486,688.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
It has been the teaching of Christianity from the beginning that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It is not a point to be interpreted in any other manner or taken in any other way. And it is not "bright, scholarly Christian leaders" failing to see some thing or another. The established Christian belief in the nature and purpose of the Eucharist is testified to by Christ himself, the Apostles, and an unbroken chain of commentaries from the Church Fathers down to modern times.

You are of course entirely correct, and your post is, as usual, elegantly written and profound in its theological concepts. You, along with our friends @prodromos @FenderTL5 and @dzheremi are the members who I count on to ensure that my posts properly reflect Orthodox doctrine, for the four of you have much more of an Orthodox phronema than I do.

I also feel compelled to mention, as an addendum to your post (not that it needs one, but rather that it reminded me of this), the important point stressed by St. Peter in his second epistle, a point elaborated upon by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his refutations of Nestorius, in partaking of the Eucharist, we become partakers of the Divine Nature, and it is this which facilitates theosis, which is the basis for Christian salvation and glorification in the world to come.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,399
5,805
49
The Wild West
✟486,688.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body, figuratively, and that the wine represents his blood, figuratively, which was soon to see his death on the cross. Christians were encouraged to remind themselves not just that he did this to forgive us our sins, but also so that we could have his presence within us.

The problem with that interpretation is that nothing our Lord says suggests that he is speaking figuratively. On the contrary, when we read the four Institution Narratives from the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians 11 together with what our Lord said about the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved in John ch. 6, a saying which alienated most of his followers at the time, it becomes obvious that He was not speaking figuratively, for if he were, why not make that clear, and avoid driving away most of his disciples? Instead, he chose to say the hardest of the “Hard Sayings” in John 6, without saying anything to the Seventy that would assure them He was not speaking literally, but figuratively, so as to prevent their (temporary) alienation from Him (they would of course return, after the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, but if our Lord was not speaking literally of His Flesh and His Blood, He could have avoided the entire episode, and indeed there is no logical reason for Him to have delivered such a divisive “Hard Saying” absent the literal truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,399
5,805
49
The Wild West
✟486,688.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
And it is not "bright, scholarly Christian leaders" failing to see some thing or another. The established Christian belief in the nature and purpose of the Eucharist is testified to by Christ himself, the Apostles, and an unbroken chain of commentaries from the Church Fathers down to modern times.

That is quite correct. The denial of the real presence is limited to a subset of Protestants, specifically from Zwinglian, Memorialist and related schools of thought, associated primarily with Baptist, Evangelical, Puritan, and Restorationist denominations. Lutheran theologians, High Church Anglicans, and a great many liturgical Protestants share with the Orthodox, Old Catholic, Assyrian and Roman Catholic churches a belief in the Real Presence, while many Calvinists and Broad Church Anglicans believe in a Spiritual Presence or in Receptionism, which represent a via media between “the Real Absence” taught by Zwingli and the Baptists, Adventists, et al, and the “Real Presence” taught by all Patristic theologians, and also by all Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian theologians, and the vast majority of Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theologians (although in recent years, there have been a few Catholic writers who have denied the Real Presence, but in most cases, when Pope Benedict XVI and his successor Gerhard Cardinal Muller were in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, these writers were called out when they tried to deny the Real Presence.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,188
1,401
Perth
✟129,431.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Jesus is saying that the bread represents his body
Had the Lord intended to say, "this means my body" or perhaps "this represents my body" he had the words available to him in Aramaic and in Greek, but he chose, as God speaking to the world, to say "this is my body".

The only bible translation that I know that substitutes "means" for "is" in the last supper narratives is the one produced by Jehovah's witnesses, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which says, "As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: "TAKE, eat. This means my body." "(Matthew 26:26)

But that translation has such a bad reputation among Christians that I doubt anyone would want to identify with it for his or her theology of the real presence.
 
Upvote 0

Reasonably Sane

With age comes wisdom, when it doesn't come alone.
Oct 27, 2023
645
253
68
Kentucky
✟27,496.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It has been the teaching of Christianity from the beginning that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It is not a point to be interpreted in any other manner or taken in any other way. And it is not "bright, scholarly Christian leaders" failing to see some thing or another. The established Christian belief in the nature and purpose of the Eucharist is testified to by Christ himself, the Apostles, and an unbroken chain of commentaries from the Church Fathers down to modern times.
Clearly, opinions vary on this one. Likewise on the "ever virginity" of Mary, and a few other interesting things.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,188
1,401
Perth
✟129,431.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Haydock, a Catholic commentator, writes concerning Matthew 26:26 these words:
And whilst they were at supper. Jesus Christ proceeds to the institution of the blessed Eucharist, that the truth or reality may succeed to the figure in one and the same banquet; and to impress more deeply upon our minds the remembrance of so singular a favour, his last and best gift to man. He would not institute it at the beginning of his ministry; he first prepares his disciples for the belief of it, by changing water into wine, and by the miraculous multiplication of the loaves. ---
Whilst they were, &c. before they parted: for by St. Luke (xxii. 20.) and 1 Corinthians (xi. 25.) the blessed sacrament was not instituted till after supper. ---
Jesus took bread, and blessed it. St. Luke and St. Paul say, he gave thanks. This blessing and giving thanks, was not the consecration itself, but went before it. See the Council of Trent, session xiii. canon i. (Witham) ---
This is my body. He does not say, this is the figure of my body --- but, this is my body. (2d Council of Nice. Act. vi.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely this is my body; which plainly implies transubstantiation. (Challoner) ---
Catholics maintain, after the express words of Scripture, and the universal tradition of the Church, that Christ in the blessed sacrament is corporally and substantially present; but not carnally; not in that gross, natural, and sensible manner, in which our separated brethren misrepresent the Catholic doctrine, as the Capharnaites did of old; (John vi. 61, 62.) who were scandalized with it....
If Protestants, in opposition to the primitive Fathers, deny the connection of the sixth chapter of John with the institution, it is from the fear of giving advantage to the doctrine of transubstantiation, says Dr. Clever, Protestant bishop of Bangor. ---
This is my body. By these words, and his divine power, Christ changed that which before was bread into his own body; not in that visible and bloody manner as the Capharnaites imagined. (John vi.) Yet so, that the elements of bread and wine were truly, really, and substantially changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood. Christ, whose divine power cannot be questioned, could not make us of plainer words than these set down by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul to the Corinthians: this is my body; this is my blood: and that the bread and wine, at the words of consecration are changed into the body and blood of Christ, has been the constant doctrine and belief of the Catholic Church, in all ages, both in the east and west, both in the Greek and Latin churches; as may be seen in our controvertists, and particularly in the author of the books of the Perpetuity of the Faith. The first and fundamental truths of the Christian faith, by which we profess to believe the mystery of the holy Trinity, i.e. one God and three divine Persons, and of the incarnation, i.e. that the true Son of God was made man, was born, suffered and died upon the cross for our salvation, are no less obscure and mysterious, no less above the reach of human capacity, than this of the real presence: nor are they more clearly expressed in the sacred text. This change the Church has thought proper to express by the word, transubstantiation: and it is as frivolous to reject this word, and to ask where it is found in the holy Scriptures, as to demand where we read in the Scriptures, the words, trinity, incarnation, consubstantial to the Father, &c. ---
Luther fairly owned that he wanted not an inclination to deny Christ's real presence in the sacrament, by which he should vex and contradict the Pope; but this, said he, is a truth that cannot be denied:[3] The words of the gospel are too clear. He and his followers hold, what is called impanation, or consubstantiation; i.e. that there is really present, both the substance of the bread and wine, and also the substance of Christ's body and blood. ---
Zuinglius, the Sacramentarians, and Calvinists deny the real presence; and hold that the word is, ( est) importeth no more, than it signifieth, or is a figure of Christ's body; as it hath been lately translated, this represents my body, in a late translation, or rather paraphrase, 1729. I shall only produce here the words and reasoning of Luther: which may deserve the attention of the later reformers. [4]"Who," saith Luther, (tom. vii. Edit. Wittemb. p. 391) "but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men.... Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous." Thus far Luther; who, in another place, in his usual manner of writing, hesitates not to call the Sacramentarians, men possessed, prepossessed, and transpossessed by the devil. [5] ---
My body. In St. Luke is added, which is given for you. Granted these words, which is given, may bear this sense, which shall be given, or offered on the cross; yet as it was the true body which Christ gave to his apostles, at his last supper, though in a different manner. ---
The holy Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice, succeeding to all the sacrifices of the ancient law, which Christ commanded all the priests of the new law to offer up. Luther was forced to own, that divers Fathers, taught this doctrine; as Irenæus, Cyprian, Augustine: and in his answer to Henry VIII. of England: the king, says he, brings the testimonies of the Fathers, to prove the sacrifice of the mass, for my part, I care not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches, like that of Henry, stand against me. The Centurists of Magdeburg own the same to have been the doctrine of Cyprian, Tertullian, and also of Irenæus, in the end of the second age; and that St. Gregory of Nazianzen, in the fourth age, calls it an unbloody sacrifice; incruenti sacrificii. (Witham)
This is my body.
To shew how these words have been interpreted by the primitive Church, we shall here subjoin some few extracts from the works of some of the most eminent writers of the first five centuries.​
First Century.​
St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was a disciple and contemporary with some of the apostles, and died a martyr, at Rome, in a very advanced age, An. 107, speaking of certain heretics of those times, says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." See epis. genuin. ad Smyrnæos. ---​
He calls the Eucharist the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, by which we always live in Christ. ---​
In another part he writes: "I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and for drink, his blood." Again: "use one Eucharist; for the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and the cup is one in the unity of his blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the college of the priesthood," &c.​
Second Century.​
St. Justin, the philosopher, in an apology for the Christians, which he addressed to the emperor and senate of Rome, about the year 150, says of the blessed Eucharist: "No one is allowed to partake of this food, but he that believes our doctrines are true, and who has been baptized in the laver of regeneration for remission of sins, and lives up to what Christ has taught. For we take not these as common bread, and common drink, but in the same manner as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, being incarnate by the word of God, hath both flesh and blood for our salvation; so we are taught that this food, by which our flesh and blood are nourished, over which thanks have been given by the prayers in his own words, is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus." Apology ii. in fin. he calls it, Panem eucharistisatum Greek: ton arton eucharistethenta, the bread blessed by giving thanks, as he blessed and miraculously multiplied the loaves, Greek: eulogsen autous.
Third Century.​
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who suffered martyrdom in 258, says: "the bread which our Lord delivered to his disciples, was changed not in appearance, but in nature, being made flesh by the Almighty power of the divine word."​
Fourth Century.​
St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who was born in the commencement of the 4th century, and died in 386, explaining the mystery of the blessed Eucharist to the newly baptized, says: "Do not look upon the bread and wine as bare and common elements, for they are the body and blood of Christ; as our Lord assures us. Although thy senses suggest this to thee, let faith make thee firm and sure. Judge not of the thing by the taste, but be certain from faith that thou has been honoured with the gift of Christ's body and blood. When he has pronounced and said of the bread, this is my body, who will after this dare to doubt? And when he has assured, and said, this is my blood, who can ever hesitate, saying it in not his blood? He changed water into wine at Cana; and shall we not him worthy of our belief, when he changed wine into blood? Wherefore, let us receive them with an entire belief, as Christ's body and blood; for under the figure of bread, is given to thee his body, and under the figure of wine, his blood; that when thou hast received Christ's body and blood, thou be made one body and blood with him; for so we carry him about in us, his body and blood being distributed though our bodies." (St. Cyril, cathech.) ---
St. Ambrose, one of the greatest doctors of the Latin Church, and bishop of Milan, who died in 396, proving that the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is really possible to God, and really take place in the blessed Eucharist, uses these words: "Will not the words of Christ have power enough to change the species of the elements? Shall not the words of Christ, which could make out of nothing things which did not exist, be able to change that, which already exists, into what it was not? It is not a less exertion of power to give a new nature to things, than to change their natures. Let us propose examples from himself and assert the truth of this mystery from the incarnation. Was it according to the course of nature, that our Lord Jesus Christ should be born of the Virgin Mary? It is evident that it was contrary to the course of nature for a virgin to bring forth. Not this body, which we produce, was born of the virgin. Who dost thou seek for the order of nature in the body of Christ, when our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. (St. Ambrose, lib. de initiandis, chap. ix)
Fifth Century.​
St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who died in 407, does not speak less clearly on this subject. "He," (i.e. Jesus Christ,) says the holy doctor, hom. l. in Matt. "has given us himself to eat, and has set himself in the place of a victim sacrificed for us." And in hom. lxxxiii.: "How many now say they could wish to see his form, his garments, &c.; you wish to see his garments, but he gives you himself not only to be seen, but to be touched, to be eaten, to be received within you. Than what beam of the sun ought not that hand to be purer, which divides this flesh! That mouth, which is filled with this spiritual fire! That tongue, which is purpled with this adorable blood! The angels beholding it tremble, and dare not look thereon through awe and fear, on account of the rays, which dart from that, wherewith we are nourished, with which we are mingled, being made one body, one flesh with Christ. What shepherd ever fed his sheep with his own limbs? Nay, many mothers turn over their children to mercenary nurses; whereas he feeds us with his own blood!" --- On another occasion, to inspire us with a dread of profaning the sacred body of Christ, he says: "When you see Him exposed before you, say to yourself: this body was pierced with nails; this body which was scourged, death did not destroy; this body was nailed to a cross, at which spectacle the sun withdrew his rays; this body the Magi venerated." --- "There is as much difference between the loaves of proposition and the body of Christ, as between a shadow and a body, between a picture and the reality." Thus St. Jerome upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i. See more authorities in the notes on St. Mark's Gospel, chap. xiv, ver. 22, on the real presence, and also in the following verses and alibi passim.
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]​
Luther. Verum ego me captum video.... Textus enim Evangelii nimium apertus est.​
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]​
See Luther, tom. 7. Ed. Witttemb. p. 391.​
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]​
See Hospinianus, 2. part. Hist. Sacram. p. 187. He says the Sacramentarians have a heart, according to a French translastion, endiabole, perdiabole, transdiabole.​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,313
492
Pacific NW, USA
✟107,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It has been the teaching of Christianity from the beginning that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It is not a point to be interpreted in any other manner or taken in any other way. And it is not "bright, scholarly Christian leaders" failing to see some thing or another. The established Christian belief in the nature and purpose of the Eucharist is testified to by Christ himself, the Apostles, and an unbroken chain of commentaries from the Church Fathers down to modern times.
Yes, it has been taught due to the high level of respect for Jesus, taking his word way too literally, in my opinion. By saying that we should take the Eucharist seriously does not mean we should take his words literally, as these people have assumed.

I can see Jesus' words as symbolic and as emblematic of our Salvation and still take his words seriously as symbolic emblems. I can see the ritual as emblematic of our taking Christ into our heart without viewing the act of Communion as transubstantiation.

That is, I don't have to see the bread converted into "spiritual flesh," and the wine converted into "spiritual blood" in order to express my conviction that I've received Christ into my heart through the Holy Spirit. The Reformers recognized this.

It is thought, respectfully, that unless "transubstantiation" takes place that we aren't really taking Christ into our heart. Well, that would be true if Salvation was a matter of taking Communion. But it isn't.

Salvation actually takes place when Christ reveals himself to us, and we accept him into our heart by faith in his blood. Then we walk with him by the power of his Spirit such that when we take Communion we demonstrate that we've taken the "real presence" of Christ into our lives at the point of Salvation and not at the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, according to Jesus, a memorial, and not the actual act of Salvation.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,556
9,043
Florida
✟327,477.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Clearly, opinions vary on this one. Likewise on the "ever virginity" of Mary, and a few other interesting things.
Opinions only vary if we include groups that were formed in more modern times. All of the Apostolic Churches have always been uniform and consistent on the nature of the Eucharist.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,188
1,401
Perth
✟129,431.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
due to the high level of respect for Jesus, taking his word way too literally, in my opinion
What matters most is what the Lord, Jesus Christ, said and taught. Opinions are not the matter in question in this thread. If opinions were the material for our discussion, then we would need a hundred threads to accommodate the hundred and more opinions that people express about this matter of the real presence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,556
9,043
Florida
✟327,477.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Yes, it has been taught due to the high level of respect for Jesus, taking his word way too literally, in my opinion. By saying that we should take the Eucharist seriously does not mean we should take his words literally, as these people have assumed.

I can see Jesus' words as symbolic and as emblematic of our Salvation and still take his words seriously as symbolic emblems. I can see the ritual as emblematic of our taking Christ into our heart without viewing the act of Communion as transubstantiation.

That is, I don't have to see the bread converted into "spiritual flesh," and the wine converted into "spiritual blood" in order to express my conviction that I've received Christ into my heart through the Holy Spirit. The Reformers recognized this.

It is thought, respectfully, that unless "transubstantiation" takes place that we aren't really taking Christ into our heart. Well, that would be true if Salvation was a matter of taking Communion. But it isn't.

Salvation actually takes place when Christ reveals himself to us, and we accept him into our heart by faith in his blood. Then we walk with him by the power of his Spirit such that when we take Communion we demonstrate that we've taken the "real presence" of Christ into our lives at the point of Salvation and not at the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, according to Jesus, a memorial, and not the actual act of Salvation.

So. This opinion that you hold. And remember, you are welcome to hold whatever opinions you want. But when did the idea of the Eucharist not being the body and blood of Christ come up?
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
44,138
14,103
Broken Arrow, OK
✟712,389.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I also feel compelled to mention, as an addendum to your post (not that it needs one, but rather that it reminded me of this), the important point stressed by St. Peter in his second epistle, a point elaborated upon by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his refutations of Nestorius, in partaking of the Eucharist, we become partakers of the Divine Nature, and it is this which facilitates theosis, which is the basis for Christian salvation and glorification in the world to come.
Query if you would please:

2 Peter 1:1 To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.​

Question: Bearing in mind that at absolutely no point in these verses, nor anywhere in this epistle or his other is the Eucharist mentioned or referred to, how does one connect what was never mentioned with a religious position written 400 years later?

Request: Please stay with the question and resist brining in ancillary writings from other centuries. Kindest regards...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,852
5,683
Utah
✟726,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I believe that all of the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some others) accept and teach the real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

Catholics believe and teach that the elements of bread & wine are changed during the Eucharistic Prayer. The change is called transubstantiation among Catholics.

John Paul II wrote an encyclical entitled "ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA", available here Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II, in which is written:
15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in the words of Paul VI – “is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.22 This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.23 Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.24
Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, we shall continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever more deeply.
These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual realities”25 which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine”.26
This thread is intended for discussion about the real presence. If you or your denomination teach a metaphorical or symbolic presence then this thread is not for you.
I believe that all of the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some others) accept and teach the real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

Catholics believe and teach that the elements of bread & wine are changed during the Eucharistic Prayer. The change is called transubstantiation among Catholics.

John Paul II wrote an encyclical entitled "ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA", available here Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II, in which is written:
15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in the words of Paul VI – “is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.22 This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.23 Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.24
Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, we shall continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever more deeply.
These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual realities”25 which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine”.26
This thread is intended for discussion about the real presence. If you or your denomination teach a metaphorical or symbolic presence then this thread is not for you.

It's neither metaphorical or symbolic ... it's a man made ritual practiced by some denominations.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,188
1,401
Perth
✟129,431.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
it's a man made ritual ...
Indeed, it is manmade insofar as the Lord, Jesus Christ is a man, and he made the holy eucharist a sacrament of the church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,399
5,805
49
The Wild West
✟486,688.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Query if you would please:

2 Peter 1:1 To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.​

Question: Bearing in mind that at absolutely no point in these verses, nor anywhere in this epistle or his other is the Eucharist mentioned or referred to, how does one connect what was never mentioned with a religious position written 400 years later?

Request: Please stay with the question and resist brining in ancillary writings from other centuries. Kindest regards...

I disagree with the premise of your question. To me, the Eucharistic reference in 2 Peter is entirely obvious.

Also, I am not clear what religious position written 400 years later you are referring to? Do you mean the writings of St. Cyril I referred to? Because the position St. Cyril takes is not of Fifth Century origin, but rather represented an opposition against the counter-scriptural teachings of Nestorius, who sought to show that the humanity and divinity of our Lord was separate and divisible rather than merely distinct.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,399
5,805
49
The Wild West
✟486,688.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Indeed, it is manmade insofar as the Lord, Jesus Christ is a man, and he made the holy eucharist a sacrament of the church.

Splendid, well done, a toast to you my pious friend. :cocktail:

And I feel I should add that the Eucharist is indeed also also neither metaphorical nor symbolic, for the fact is that at the moment of consecration* the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of our Lord.

Thus our friend was quite correct in his post even if his intent was to disagree with the traditional faith.

*This, I believe, is at the Words of Institution in the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic Rites and other Western liturgies, and at the Epiclesis in the various Eastern liturgies such as the Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, East Syriac and West Syriac Rites, since it occurs wherever the liturgical prayers and the intent of the celebrant is that it should occur, a view which I would note has the advantage, as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, of handling the liturgical traditions of the Sui Juris Eastern churches, where historically the Words of Institution are not held to be consecratory, but the Epiclesis is, on the same terms as the Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite and Ambrosian Rite, in which the Words of Institution are definitely understood as consecratory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,313
492
Pacific NW, USA
✟107,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So. This opinion that you hold. And remember, you are welcome to hold whatever opinions you want. But when did the idea of the Eucharist not being the body and blood of Christ come up?
It came up the minute Jesus said it. He said this was a *memorial.* As such, it was obviously a symbolic ritual representing the death that Jesus had yet to go through. Jesus could not very well make his body the bread and make his blood the wine when his blood had not yet even been spilled!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WilliamC
Upvote 0