The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper

Catholic Biblical Apologetics ^ | July 23, 2004 | Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl

[Mark17]

So thank you for this opportunity to learn something of true valor and God's grace.

And thank you for the story of Pilot Officer Magee. He was 2 years younger than my mother, who passed away 3 weeks ago. May they both rest in the eternal hands of God.

Regards to you and yours and maranatha.

[RobbyS]

Zwingli was the first to assert that the Eucharist is mere symbolism. By comparison, Calvin is ambivalent.

[RobbyS]

The term “substance” as used by St. Thomas and others in reference to the Bless Sacrament reflects the Credal meaning than that of Aristotle. Maybe that is what led Luther to use the term “consubstantiation.”

[kosta50]

The two individuals whom I pinged are far more qualified to speak to Orthodox theology than I am. Rather than either of us speculating on Orthodox attitudes on the Real Presence and/ or Transubstantiation, I think we should ask two individuals who would be in a position to know.

In the 17th century Latin terminology appear in in Eastern Orthodoxy by way of pat. Cyril Lucaris, who studied in Geneva and was infuenced by Calvinism, and in Ukraine following the 1596 Union of Brest-Litovsk which resulted in millions of Eastern Orthodox accepting communion with Rome, and the establishment of the Unkrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

Met. Peter Mogila (Mohyla) of Kiev uses the term "transubstantiation" around 1640 for that reason, and in 1672 the Council of Jerusalem states:

Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects.

The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place.  [Confession of Dositheius, Synod of Jerusalem, 1672]

Several years later a local Council in Constantinople uses the word "transubtsantiation" in a similar manner. However, the term is not encountered in source earlier than 17th century, and probably not much if at all in the 18th century onward.

This comes mainly from the fact that Orthodoxy treats the Eucharist as real Presence and change from brea dnad wine into true Body and Blood, but wihtout elaboration or suggestion as to whta the mechanism of that is.

Today, the EOC uses the term "change" rather than transubstantiation.

[markomalley]

Thanks Kosta.

[Mad Dawg]

Okay. You’re saying it’s all our fault? Go check the rosary thread again please. That’s our fault? That’s hard for me to believe.

[Kolokotronis]

I’ve nothing to add to Kosta’s fine explanation save these words from the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos, called the “epiklesis” when the change actually takes place. Note that it is the Holy Spirit Which makes the change, not the priest:

“Priest (in a low voice):
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.

And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Bread.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Cup.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

(He blesses them both.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen. Amen. Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith....”

[markomalley]

Brilliant response!

In fact, that would be appropriate to speak to the Latin Eucharistic Prayer, which largely says the same thing (in a different light):

Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Different words...but largely the same content. The epiklesis in the Latin (novus ordo) liturgy is italicized.

[Kolokotronis]

“Different words...but largely the same content.”

Well, yes and the order in which we say things is a bit different and, surprise, surprise, our consecration litany is a lot longer, but...it is the EXACT SAME EVENT, the EXACT SAME MYSTERY! Sort of nice and comforting knowing that, isn’t it.:)

[visually_augmented]

markomalley:”He’s very explicit there in what he taught...and many of his disciples were disturbed by his teaching and left that day (cf John 6:66). If he were speaking in allegories, why would they have been disturbed?”

Obviously they did not take it allegorically (as you have not). Had they not made the same mistake you have made, perhaps they might have stayed around??

They probably would not have stayed since I agree with ears_to_hear that the true hang-up was acceptance of Christ’s divinity.

[trisham]

He's very explicit there in what he taught...and many of his disciples were disturbed by his teaching and left that day (cf John 6:66). If he were speaking in allegories, why would they have been disturbed?

************

I would think it would be difficult to get past this point if one were to try to deny transubstantiation.

[HarleyD]

Gotcha. We don't teach grace is imparted solely from the Eucharist.

I assume you mean that the Eucharist is not the as the "only" method of imparting grace. That is true. If memory serves me correctly there are seven sacraments, the Eucharist being one of them. But the Church teaches that grace is imparted through the Eucharist (as one method).

CHAPTER II. That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. - Council of Trent, 23rd Session

According to the Council of Trent we find mercy and grace through the mass. This may seem like a technical difference to most Protestants today but please observe closely what Trent states; the mass is our propritiation, not the finished work of Christ. Consequently, Christ has to continuously die as a propritiation of our sins. This is contrary to scripture that teaches Christ died ONCE for all as our propritiation. We are justified not by taking communion over and over but by the blood of Christ that has already been shed.

[GoLightly]

This comes mainly from the fact that Orthodoxy treats the Eucharist as real Presence and change from brea dnad wine into true Body and Blood, but wihtout elaboration or suggestion as to whta the mechanism of that is.

Lutherans treat the Eucharist as real Presence and the bread and wine changes into true Body and Blood, but without elaboration or suggestion as to what the mechanism of that is. However, the visible elements are bread and wine.

[HarleyD]

I am confused, though, why you assume that John 6:64-65 would be problematic for a Catholic? Of course, God knew before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would not be saved.

According to Augustine, this is the definition of Pelagianism.
"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so."

Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe.

Augustine-A Treatise on the Predestination of Man

but I don't see that Jesus was ever running a soup line...please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I would agree that our Lord wasn't running a "soup line". However, there were many who thought He was. There were actually several times the Lord performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes:
Mar 8:17-21 And when Jesus knew [it], he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

The purpose wasn't for feeding the crowd but for us to know that Christ is the bread of life that will substain us.

Yes, the true disciples were separated from the false. "Eat my flesh" "drink my blood" are pretty durned explicit and unambiguous. I am not certain how in the world you could manage to ignore those phrases.

Just as Augustine states above, it is God who chooses those who will follow Him and He substains us. "Eating my flesh" and "drinking my blood" are only methaphors to the Jews who would find this absolutely repugnant; whose dietary laws forbid such things. Those hoping this would be the Messiah to restore the Israel to its physical glory were wrong. Our Lord's statement caused many who had such hopes to leave. To take this verse literally is simply not understanding who the audience was and the situation, IMO.

you cited 1 Cor 11:23-29, but you only actually quoted through 11:23-11:26. The entire citation is:...

Well, these posts do get rather long. When I mentioned the author quoting on two verses from John 6:60-66 I was going to say I can understand where he's coming from; you can't quote everything.

That being said, it doesn't negate the purpose of the Lord's Supper. Paul is very clear and, to my knowledge, this is the only place in scripture that specifically states the purpose; we proclaim the Lord's dead and return.

[stfassisi]

“and the order in which we say things is a bit different and, surprise, surprise, our consecration litany is a lot longer, but...it is the EXACT SAME EVENT, the EXACT SAME MYSTERY!””

Agreed!

It drive a knife through my heart every time I see “INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION by John Calvin “ posted anywhere.

I pray that we Catholic,s and Orthodox have the courage of Saints in defending Eucharist. They defended the Blessed Sacrament even until death.
I would do the same.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).

Dear Markomalley, please consider caucusing these threads .
There are too many wolves around here!

I wish you a Blessed Day

[HarleyD]

Since the priest clearly is NOT a changling, then perhaps he is a Vulcan in the process of performing a “mind-meld”.

Now, really, if the priest were capable of doing a "mind-meld" would there be a need for the confessional boxes? :O)

[armydoc]

I would think it would be difficult to get past this point if one were to try to deny transubstantiation.

If you are going to argue for transub, then it will be just as difficult to deny that anyone that has ever taken the Cathlic Eucharist is saved (see my post #111).

[GoLightly]

You’re saying it’s all our fault?

I wouldn't make that claim. I no longer blame others for my behaviour.

Go check the rosary thread again please. That’s our fault? That’s hard for me to believe.

I rechecked the beginning of that thread again & I am quite "over myself" thankyouverymuch. We really should not be dragging any thread over to another thread though, because that sort of thing is rarely constructive.

[GoLightly]

Note that it is the Holy Spirit Which makes the change, not the priest

Yep, agree.

[GoLightly]

I believe Trent included something having to do with the mechanism, which is the part that the Orthodox didn’t embrace.