At What Point Does It Become The Body?

I fear my concern with searching for a 'moment' is that it trivializes this most holy gift of Jesus. The movement of the liturgy is well discussed in Dom Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy and you may find that work helpful.

The Latin Tradition has highlighted the words of institution as the command and authority, where as the the Eastern Churches highlight the epiclesis as an acknowledgment of the action of the Spirit in leading us to the Father through Jesus the Son.

I feel it is important that we recognize that this is sacrament, in obedience to Christ, it is not a magic trick.

Philip_B said:

I fear my concern with searching for a 'moment' is that it trivializes this most holy gift of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Precisely. It's not about HOW or WHEN. It's all about WHAT and WHY.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

(Luther's Small Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

Philip_B said:

I fear my concern with searching for a 'moment' is that it trivializes this most holy gift of Jesus. The movement of the liturgy is well discussed in Dom Gregory Dix The Shape of the Liturgy and you may find that work helpful.

The Latin Tradition has highlighted the words of institution as the command and authority, where as the the Eastern Churches highlight the epiclesis as an acknowledgment of the action of the Spirit in leading us to the Father through Jesus the Son.

I feel it is important that we recognize that this is sacrament, in obedience to Christ, it is not a magic trick.

Click to expand...

Tangible said:

Precisely. It's not about HOW or WHEN. It's all about WHAT and WHY.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

(Luther's Small Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

Click to expand...

Well stated; we know what it is; but we are not told when or how; just that it is what it is.

Mysteries are allowed in Christianity.

Thread moved from Sacramental Ordinance Theology.

JoeP222w said:

It never becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. It is symbolic. It is a false doctrine of the Roman Catholic church that it becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

All Christians, until the 16th century, believed it was the very body and blood of Jesus. That isn't a uniquely Roman Catholic idea, it's also what the Orthodox have always believed, it's what Lutherans believe, it's what Anglicans believe, it's what the majority of Christians continue to believe because it's what we've always believed.

Also, since this is Traditional Theology, it is completely inappropriate to be calling the doctrine of the Real Presence "a false doctrine" here.

-CryptoLutheran

<Staff Edit>

Sure.

"[The heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 7, c. 105 AD

"And this food is called among us 'Eucharist', of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;' and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood;' and gave it to them alone." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66, c. 150 AD

"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 bones—that [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, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?" - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 2.2-3, c. 190 AD

That's just a handful really.

<Staff Edit>
I'm not claiming omniscience, I'm making a statement concerning the only available evidence we have. If there were Christians who believed otherwise, they never told us. Instead the unanimous and consistent statements made throughout the history of Christianity right to the very beginning is that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the real and true body and blood of Christ.

When false doctrine is presented, it does not matter what forum it is in. False doctrine is false doctrine. It is never inappropriate to expose false doctrine.

Click to expand...

When you signed up to be a member of this site you agreed to follow the rules. You aren't above the rules simply because you think you are right.

It cannot be demonstrated from the Bible that the Apostles or the early church believed that the bread and wine were the actual body and blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

Of course it can, because that's is precisely what Scripture says.

"Then He took a loaf of bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body, which is given for you. Do this for the remembrance of Me.' And He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'" - Luke 22:19-20

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16-22

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

-CryptoLutheran

Admin Hat...

Visitors here Please read the Statement of Purpose: Which is found here:
Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

I have removed some posts; why? Read on!

Also, the original post which sets the topic for the thread askes:

It does not ask "if" but "when"; so posts which deny that there is a real presence in this forum are:

1. Off Topic to the statement of faith
2. Off Topic to the original post.

So, from this point forward, if you come here to post at odds with the purpose of this forum, or at odds with the topic of this post; expect staff actions that could result in warnings or even suspension of access to this thread, this forum and even the whole of Christian forums.

If this is not clear enough, start a thread in the MSC, and I will be glad to explain in more detail.

Are we all on the same page now?

Mark
CF Admin

There is no fear of disagreement. But the rules of this forum are in place for a reason. Those who disagree have been invited to start a thread in the MSC to discuss this with @MarkRohfrietsch

In fact, i would like to see a subforum area of TT where challenges are allowed, such as we have in TAW (The Ancient Way). For the simple reason that we are NOT afraid to defend and explain why we say what we do. However, the current configuration does not allow for that, as TT is a subforum.

If you would like such discussion, I am fairly certain Orthodox posters would be willing to oblige in St. Justin Martyr's subforum.

But this area was created apart from General Theology for a reason, and has separate rules for a reason. Without denigrating GT, some simply don't wish to become drawn down into a free-for-all and appreciate civil discussion.

We don't all in fact agree with one another here, on a number of points. But we can have civil discussion in spite of that.

To be honest, you are breaking several rules, by publicly discussing staff action (that should be carried out in private if anything needs to be said) and by continuing to post off-topic. However, I would prefer to explain things rather than take actions. But please understand, I am probably being too lenient, and you should not persist in this course. This is the last I will say on this matter here.

JM said:

Spinoffs are not usually as good but oh well. At what point during the Lord's Supper does the bread and wine become The Body? At the same time? Different times? Words of consecration? How long does it remain Christ's Body?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Click to expand...

Orthodoxy is not strictly dogmatic on the details of how, when, etc. the Eucharist becomes to Body and Blood of Christ.

Most commonly we would point to the epiclesis roughly as the point where that happens, but we consider the Eucharist a mystery - in fact it is often called the Holy Mysteries. We don't try to define things.

How long does it remain the Body and Blood? Well, some of the Eucharist is reserved and taken to the sick through the year when the need arises, so at least that long.

However ... we do not practice Communion in the hand in order to prevent abuses. But I have heard speculation that if an abuse was to be carried out, God would most likely simply withdraw His grace, and it might cease to be so. Again, not dogmatic, I think.

We also don't define anything on a molecular level, etc. Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood? Yes. Is it bread and wine? Yes. We simply say it is both/and, not either/or.

I welcome correction from my Orthodox brothers and sisters if I've made any mistakes here, or give any wrong impression of our beliefs. To be honest, it's not something I have studied out carefully or in depth. We call it a mystery, so probing too deeply into the details is not really proper, and some details are unknowable, so I left it at the basic understanding.

On this subject, I hold to the Orthodox doctrine, which is why I favor those Western liturgies which preserve or incorporate an epiclesis.

Theodore of Mopsuestia had an interesting view that the Prothesis affected a change from the gifts to the dead body and blood of our Lord and that these were then resurrected in the Epiclesis. I am not sure I agree because such a view seems difficult to reconcile with perfect humanity.

Paul Yohannan said:

On this subject, I hold to the Orthodox doctrine, which is why I favor those Western liturgies which preserve or incorporate an epiclesis.

Theodore of Mopsuestia had an interesting view that the Prothesis affected a change from the gifts to the dead body and blood of our Lord and that these were then resurrected in the Epiclesis. I am not sure I agree because such a view seems difficult to reconcile with perfect humanity.

Click to expand...

Is the Oriental Orthodox Epiclesis prayer said while the presider places their hands over the Eucharist with the hands side by side facing down with the thumb and the inside finger touching? This is supposedly the same hand position used by the Levitical priests during the sin offering as the sins of the petitioner were transferred into the sacrifice.

The rubrics vary across the four different liturgical rites.

I am late to the discussion, but my Abp. made a point of emphasizing the epiclesis as the key and pivotal moment in the eucharistic liturgy. He was so adamant on this point, that he made mention of adding an epiclesis to the 1662 liturgy (which does not contain it) on occasions when he celebrates that rite.

The Presbyterian Church USA has slowly been getting more traditional in liturgy. We have normally put the Words of Institution last. Commonly they are said in a way that could be understood as indicating when the elements become Christ's body and blood, though that's never said.

In the most recent worship book, the Words of Institution are allowed in several locations, including at the beginning. That is historically seen as making them a warrant for the liturgy rather than more traditional Western understanding. That would leave it more natural to see the epiclesis (which we do have) as that moment.

However the Reformed tradition views the elements as signs of the presence of Christ's body and blood, so they don't really change. That makes it unclear whether we need to ask when the change happens.

hedrick said:

The Presbyterian Church USA has slowly been getting more traditional in liturgy. We have normally put the Words of Institution last. Commonly they are said in a way that could be understood as indicating when the elements become Christ's body and blood, though that's never said.

In the most recent worship book, the Words of Institution are allowed in several locations, including at the beginning. That is historically seen as making them a warrant for the liturgy rather than more traditional Western understanding. That would leave it more natural to see the epiclesis (which we do have) as that moment.

However the Reformed tradition views the elements as signs of the presence of Christ's body and blood, so they don't really change. That makes it unclear whether we need to ask when the change happens.

Click to expand...

By "Reformed", it is clear you mean "Zwinglian" and not "Calvinist," in that Calvin proposed a spiritual presence whereas Zwingli took a sign-based approach, which was still closer to the idea of Real Change than Melancthon.

Paul Yohannan said:

By "Reformed", it is clear you mean "Zwinglian" and not "Calvinist," in that Calvin proposed a spiritual presence whereas Zwingli took a sign-based approach, which was still closer to the idea of Real Change than Melancthon.

Click to expand...

That wasn't my intent. Westminster says:

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.[11]

...

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]

The concept here is that Christ's body and blood are really, though spiritually present. The elements remain bread and wine. I think it's reasonable to refer to them as signs of Christ's body and blood, which are present with them. (I'm OK with the Lutheran in, with and under.)

I think this is consistent with Calvin. His French Confession refers to the elements as signs:

Thus we hold water, being a feeble element, still testifies to us in truth the inward cleansing of our souls in the blood of Jesus Christ by the efficacy of his Spirit, and that the
bread and wine given to us in the sacrament serve to our spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as they show, as to our sight, that the body of Christ is our meat, and his blood our drink. And we reject the Enthusiasts and Sacramentarians who will not receive such signs and marks, although our Savior said: 'This is my body, and this cup is my blood.'

JM said:

At what point during the Lord's Supper does the bread and wine become The Body?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "Body". If you mean the Body of Christ, then that would be like asking, "At what point does the bread and water transform into the followers of Jesus". The people are the body.

Part of the communion teaching comes from John 6 where Jesus feeds the multitudes then runs away. They catch up to him, wanting to make him a King and he rebukes them because they don't really care about his teachings, but rather that they want his food making power.

He then goes into telling them about how he is the living bread of life come down from Heaven. He was trying to reason with them on a level they could understand; food is important for survival. If physical food is good, then how much better "living bread of life come down from Heaven"? The people still don't get it. They murmured among themselves about how they could eat Jesus' flesh.

So Jesus played along and proclaimed that his flesh and blood were indeed food and drink and that "who ever eats me lives by me". When the people continued murmuring and "striving" over all this, Jesus knew they were offended, but he didn't care. It's like Jesus' reasoning was, "Ok fine, if it's food you really want, then it's food I'll give you; eat my flesh and drink my blood".

Then, he tries one last time to get through to them by saying that the flesh counts for nothing (whether it be bread, blood, or flesh), but rather it is the spirit which gives life. He finishes by saying, "The words I speak to you are spirit".

All that stuff about bread, blood, and flesh was just a smokescreen that, "seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear". Any sincere person at the time was expected to conclude something like, "Man does not live by bread alone, therefore Jesus was not speaking of physical eating, but rather "taking in" his words into us as our real nourishment".