Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[The Liturgist]

The cup spoken of in the garden and Christ on the Cross show us that it was indeed the Father's will that He lay down His life for us. The institution of the Sacrament in the upper room was/is, as scripture says, a foretaste of the the feast to come in heaven. Through it we are joined to the benefits of His suffering, we are not participating in His suffering.

Indeed, it is a foretaste, a literal foretaste, in that through the Eucharist we can experience an actual taste of the Life of the World to Come following the repose of our soul in Heaven and our resurrection in the flesh before the Last Judgement. This has always been my experience of it: for one brief second I am in communion with all Christian saints, past, present and future, living and reposed and resurrected, and with Christ our True God, and through Him, with the Father, by the Holy Spirit, who has effected the Real Change in the Gifts, making them the Body and Blood of our Lord.*

Throughout my life I have always experienced something unspeakably profound and beautiful at that moment, and one of my regrets is that so many Christians deny themselves the opportunity to share in that experience.

*There has been some needless controversy between Eastern and Western churches over when this change occurs, with Eastern Christians mostly arguing that it happens at the prayer to the Holy Spirit called the Epiclesis, and Western Christians mostly arguing that it happens at the Words of Institution (except perhaps for the Non-Juring Episcopalians of Scotland and the North of England, who had inserted the epiclesis from the Divine Liturgy of St. James into their Holy Communion service, and insisted that the Anglicans in the US do likewise as a condition of consecrating Bishop Seabury, and this is why historically there has always been an Epiclesis in the Episcopalian and most Continuing Anglican liturgies in the United States).

In my view this controversy is needless and irrelevant, because I believe the Words of Institution in the context of a Lutheran church service where there is not a separate Epiclesis become the Epiclesis; in other words, the Holy Spirit affects the change whenever the pastor prays that the change occurs, whether this happens during the Words of Institution as in Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism and conventional Anglicanism, or in a separate prayer of consecration, or Epiclesis, as in the Eastern Orthodox, Byzantine Rite Catholic, Assyrian and non-juring Episcopalian traditions.

 

[The Liturgist]

Here are the two statements. Where is there a contradiction?

This is MY body, therefore means to me that Jesus is literally talking about his real flesh and blood body that will be stripped naked, mocked, scorned, beaten, scourged and nailed to a cross the next day.

I believe that when Jesus said this is my body, he is referring to the bread he is giving those gathered to eat, as his body. Therefore, he means that the bread represents his real body that will be sacrificed the next day. It's therefore both his bread and his body when I eat sacramentally. To me it's all about venerating his loving sacrifice for me and all of us as a sacred thing when I partake of bread and wine in remembrance of him.

The contradiction is thus: between these two statements, if our Lord, when He says “This is my body” is literally talking about His real flesh and blood body which would be tortured and crucified on Great and Holy Friday, then he cannot, by definition, be talking about the bread He is breaking. Therefore, the only obvious* conclusion is that made by the Early Church Fathers: that the bread and wine has become the actual Body and Blood of our Lord, while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. And before you protest that this is impossible, I will remind you pre-emptively that we are talking about Jesus Christ, who is God Incarnate, fully God and fully Man, his humanity and divinity united in the Incarnation without change, confusion, separation or division. If He wills his flesh and blood to take on the appearance of bread and wine, they shall take on the appearance of bread and wine, and He has an infinite amount of flesh and blood at his disposal.

Now, moving on, there are a few additional errors which we should take notice of:

• Your use of the word “Remembrance” reflects an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the Greek word “anamnesis,” which I pointed out previously, and which our stalwart, pious and excellent friend @MarkRohfrietsch restated.
• Your suggestion that we should venerate the the loving sacrifice of our Lord is insufficient, in that since Jesus Christ is God, in the person of the Son and Logos, and God alone is worthy of worship and adoration, it follows that only worship and adoration are worthy of God. We can, and should, venerate His mother, Our Most Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, and all the Saints (those Christians who comprise the Church Triumphant, together with the Angels in Heaven), and likewise we can and should venerate the Holy Cross, and the Holy Icons that depict Christ our True God, but as far as Christ Himself is concerned, veneration is wholly inadequete. We must worship Him. Additionally, He deserves our worship in an integrated way; we Orthodox Christians object to Roman Catholic devotions to His Sacred Heart or His Holy Face, since these come uncomfortably close to suggesting a division between His created human nature, and His uncreated divine nature, which is Nestorianism. Now, I am not accusing Roman Catholics of Nestorianism, but rather, simply stating why we Orthodox are uncomfortable with it. Likewise, I believe we should refrain from directing our worship towards actions of our Lord in isolation (or indeed, venerating these on an individual basis); rather, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ should be worshipped according to His whole Person, human and divine.
• I note a continued lack of recognition in your posts of the presence of the Divine Nature in the Eucharist, which I have consistently asserted throughout this conversation. Likewise, you also continue to avoid acknowledging the glorification of Christ in His Resurrection, and how after the Resurrection, He has demonstrated abilities which exceed that of any mortal humans (which He is no longer, having trampled down death by death, and in becoming the firstfruits of the Resurrection, restoring, glorifying and making immortal our humanity, for He is the new Adam, repairing the damage done by the fall of the old man, and causing humanity to be regenerated, so that we are created in His image, the image of the Incarnate Word of God (Genesis 1, John 1, Romans 6).

*The Memorialist and Zwinglian interpretations which you are talking about did not emerge until the 16th century, and they did so during a period of radical anti-Catholicism in which many people called into question traditional doctrines up to and including the Trinity in the case of Soccinius and Servetus

 

[The Liturgist]

No - it is directly related to the topic of the thread.

If, as Roman Catholic mysticism teaches, transubstantiation is valid and true - then by strict definition it is indeed cannibalism. -

Cannibalism defined as:

noun​

1. The act or practice of eating human flesh by mankind.

On the other hand if the wine is, as Jesus called it, the fruit of the vine. Then transubstantiation is invalidated.

I don't think the OP had this in consideration when it was posted. But a thread is opened to point to controversy, one cannot complain because of the controversy that results.

This is my polite way of pointing it out.

The problem with your statement is that it is logically fallacious, a strawman argument, although I don’t think you realize that it is a strawman, because if I recall, based on our prior discussions concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, you regard the humanity and divinity of our Lord as entirely separate, which is Nestorianism.

However, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and even the modern day Assyrians (who ironically continue to venerate Nestorius as a saint while entirely rejecting his Christology) regard our Lord as having put on our human nature in the Incarnation, and uniting it with His divinity, without change, confusion, separation, or division, so that He is fully God and fully Man at the same time, and indivisibly so.

Thus, when we partake of the Eucharist, we are not merely partaking of the flesh and blood of another human, but we also become partakers of the Divine Nature, since the Humanity of Christ is inseparable from His Divinity. And therefore we cannot be accused of cannibalism or vampirism, because the presence of God and the infinite quantity of the Bread and Wine facilitated by the glorification of Christ’s humanity in the Resurrection, which rendered it immortal, and by His omnipotence mean that He is able to sustain us from His own flesh and blood in whatever quantities are required, and He is able to make His flesh and blood present for us in the form of bread and wine, for our comfort, so that we avoid the experience of cannibalism altogether, since God is infinitely loving and would not wish to subject us to such discomfort.

And of course, it is not the case that we believe are engaging in cannibalism concealed, as you seem to be suggesting, in that God has made His resurrected flesh and blood neither look nor taste like flesh and blood, but like bread and wine, but rather , we are not actually engaging in cannibalism, because, again, we are not merely partaking of His humanity but also of His divinity. And since His human nature and His divine nature can neither be separated nor divided, and since partaking of God is by definition not cannibalism, and since we cannot partake of His flesh and blood without partaking of the divine nature from which they are inseparable, logically speaking, we cannot engage in cannibalism.

The only Eucharistic theology which could be accused of implicit cannibalism was the very peculiar Eucharistic theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was anathematized along with Origen by the Three Chapters of Justinian, ratified at the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. Theodore of Mopsuestia believed that in the Liturgy of Preparation (which is a service performed before the main liturgy in all traditional churches, which is particularly long and elaborate in the Eastern Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox churches), the bread and wine became the crucified flesh and blood of our Lord, and then during the prayer of consecration in the Liturgy, the crucified flesh and blood was resurrected. This is very strange, and it obviously has the problem of depending on a separation between the humanity and divinity of our Lord (which Theodore of Mopsuestia taught and believed in; indeed, it was from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had reposed by the time Nestorius came to power, that Nestorius found the theological concepts he used to underpin his Christology, albeit he managed to do this with less consistency and less competence than Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, despite the strangeness of his views, was not accused of heresy in his lifetime (most likely because he never used a high ecclesiastical office to attempt to forcibly impose his theology on the people, whereas Nestorius persecuted with violence those who disagreed with his strange and innovative doctrines, an event which contributed directly to his eventual removal from office at the Council of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Synod, in 433 AD.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I was sure that in the end your position would come down to calling the real presence cannibalism.

Nope - you missed it again - I left the Roman Catholic Church and it's position on mysticism. I cannot possibly be calling it cannibalism, because I do not believe transubstantiation. If one does not believe the elements do not mystically change into flesh and blood, I cannot believe taking communion is cannibalism.

Here is my position on Communion:

The Communion is Sacred and Holy - it is part of a ministers Sacerdotal duties.

It is to be Holy and approached with reverence and respect. It is a physical commemoration of the broken body and shed blood of Jesus. It is a continuous reminder of what our Lord and Savior did for us. An act of Grace and Mercy available to all mankind. The communion celebration should give us time to reflect on not only His sacrifice, but how we conduct our lives. We are called to live Righteous and Holy as He is Righteous and Holy.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The problem with your statement is that it is logically fallacious, a strawman argument, although I don’t think you realize that it is a strawman, because if I recall, based on our prior discussions concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, you regard the humanity and divinity of our Lord as entirely separate, which is Nestorianism.

No - not at all. I understand you thinking so, and it is fine if you want to follow it - we have differing positions.

The differences coming from your leaning on extra Biblical teachings to come to your conclusions and my reliance on Scripture. Yes, that terrible Sola Scriptura! To clarify - Our Lord Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God inseparable, which pretty much sets fire to your strawman supposition.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I left the Roman Catholic Church and it's position on mysticism

You may be unaware, but the Holy Eucharist is not mysticism it is a mystery, as are all miracles of grace. And that you left the Catholic Church because you do not believe in Transubstantiation seems an odd reason for leaving. Transubstantiation is only an "apt" word for the mystery of the Eucharist.

 

[childeye 2]

Not asking; telling.

There's nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs.

The contradiction is thus: between these two statements, if our Lord, when He says “This is my body” is literally talking about His real flesh and blood body which would be tortured and crucified on Great and Holy Friday, then he cannot, by definition, be talking about the bread He is breaking. Therefore, the only obvious* conclusion is that made by the Early Church Fathers: that the bread and wine has become the actual Body and Blood of our Lord, while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. And before you protest that this is impossible, I will remind you pre-emptively that we are talking about Jesus Christ, who is God Incarnate, fully God and fully Man, his humanity and divinity united in the Incarnation without change, confusion, separation or division. If He wills his flesh and blood to take on the appearance of bread and wine, they shall take on the appearance of bread and wine, and He has an infinite amount of flesh and blood at his disposal.

There's no contradiction if Jesus means the bread symbolizes his flesh and blood sacrificed on the cross. Therefore, he wants his sacrificed flesh and blood to take on the appearance of bread and wine. He's certainly not meaning his actual flesh and blood body was made of bread and wine.

Now, moving on, there are a few additional errors which we should take notice of:

• Your use of the word “Remembrance” reflects an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the Greek word “anamnesis,” which I pointed out previously, and which our stalwart, pious and excellent friend @MarkRohfrietsch restated.

I think "anamnesis" fits well with remembrance when they essentially mean the same thing in practice.

• Your suggestion that we should venerate the the loving sacrifice of our Lord is insufficient, in that since Jesus Christ is God, in the person of the Son and Logos, and God alone is worthy of worship and adoration, it follows that only worship and adoration are worthy of God.

We can say it many ways, venerate, worship, adore, love, reverence, thankfulness, so long as they're sincere, they're all faith in God. He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

I've shared in another post that I imagine if I were to thank Jesus for dying for me, he would probably say, if you're truly thankful then do what I did and love others as I have loved you. True worship is caring for others and doing what Jesus did. Let each person examine themselves and so let them eat. And this brings to mind what Augustine said about receiving the sacraments "If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive".

• We can, and should, venerate His mother, Our Most Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, and all the Saints (those Christians who comprise the Church Triumphant, together with the Angels in Heaven), and likewise we can and should venerate the Holy Cross, and the Holy Icons that depict Christ our True God, but as far as Christ Himself is concerned, veneration is wholly inadequete. We must worship Him. Additionally, He deserves our worship in an integrated way; we Orthodox Christians object to Roman Catholic devotions to His Sacred Heart or His Holy Face, since these come uncomfortably close to suggesting a division between His created human nature, and His uncreated divine nature, which is Nestorianism. Now, I am not accusing Roman Catholics of Nestorianism, but rather, simply stating why we Orthodox are uncomfortable with it. Likewise, I believe we should refrain from directing our worship towards actions of our Lord in isolation (or indeed, venerating these on an individual basis); rather, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ should be worshipped according to His whole Person, human and divine.
• I note a continued lack of recognition in your posts of the presence of the Divine Nature in the Eucharist, which I have consistently asserted throughout this conversation. Likewise, you also continue to avoid acknowledging the glorification of Christ in His Resurrection, and how after the Resurrection, He has demonstrated abilities which exceed that of any mortal humans (which He is no longer, having trampled down death by death, and in becoming the firstfruits of the Resurrection, restoring, glorifying and making immortal our humanity, for He is the new Adam, repairing the damage done by the fall of the old man, and causing humanity to be regenerated, so that we are created in His image, the image of the Incarnate Word of God (Genesis 1, John 1, Romans 6).

*The Memorialist and Zwinglian interpretations which you are talking about did not emerge until the 16th century, and they did so during a period of radical anti-Catholicism in which many people called into question traditional doctrines up to and including the Trinity in the case of Soccinius and Servetus

I think everyone has their own personal walk with Jesus. I don't follow anyone else's approach to the cup. I think each person must examine themselves and approach the cup according to their own conscience.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You may be unaware, but the Holy Eucharist is not mysticism it is a mystery, as are all miracles of grace. And that you left the Catholic Church because you do not believe in Transubstantiation seems an odd reason for leaving. Transubstantiation is only an "apt" word for the mystery of the Eucharist.

You missed it again - I stopped believing in the teaching of transubstantiation, AFTER I left the Roman Catholic Church. It was when I started seriously studying Scripture that I came to the conclusion the teaching from eight centuries after the church was formed was in error.

Transubstantiation, the doctrine that during the Eucharist, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ while the appearances remain unchanged, was first articulated using the term “transubstantiation” by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 12151. However, the concept can be traced back to earlier teachings and practices within the Church.​

​

The first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, though not using that term, was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbie, France.​

​

Again our differences are that I rely on Scripture and you rely on traditions and writings written centuries after the Scripture.

 

[Always in His Presence]

• Your use of the word “Remembrance” reflects an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the Greek word “anamnesis,” which I pointed out previously, and which our stalwart, pious and excellent friend @MarkRohfrietsch restated.

Remembrance: Transliterated anamnēsis from the Greek ἀνάμνησις.
Strongs #G364 - denotes an unassisted recalling,

Definition -
ἀνάμνησις, -εως, ἡ, (ἀναμιμνήσκω), a remembering, recollection: εἰς τ. ἐμήν ἀνάμνησιν to call me (affectionately) to remembrance, Luke 22:19 [WH reject the passage]; 1 Corinthians 11:24f, ἐν αὐταῖς (namely, θυσίαις) ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν in offering sacrifices there is a remembrance of sins, i. e. the memory of sins committed is revived by the sacrifices,

THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com

BLB Scripture Index of Thayer's​

Luke22:191 Corinthians11:242 Timothy1:5Hebrews10:3

Simply put - remembrance means - to call to remembrance - There is the Greek along with a link -

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You missed it again - I stopped believing in the teaching of transubstantiation, AFTER I left the Roman Catholic Church. It was when I started seriously studying Scripture that I came to the conclusion the teaching from eight centuries after the church was formed was in error.

The real presence is a doctrine taught by the Lord Jesus Christ himself and by the evangelists and by saint Paul. It is not an eighth century production. Nor was the word "Transubstantiation" coined in the eighth century AD, it is not quite that old. The word was used from the thirteenth century onwards, it was used by the fourth council of the Lateran in 1215 AD.

Nor is the word Transubstantiation specific to Catholicism - In the Greek Orthodox Church, the doctrine has been discussed under the term of metousiosis, coined as a direct loan-translation of transubstantiatio in the 17th century. In Eastern Orthodoxy in general, the Sacred Mystery (Sacrament) of the Eucharist is more commonly discussed using alternative terms such as "trans-elementation" (μεταστοιχείωσις, metastoicheiosis), "re-ordination" (μεταρρύθμισις, metarrhythmisis), or simply "change" (μεταβολή, metabole). You write that "I came to the conclusion the teaching from eight centuries after the church was formed was in error."

if your claim is correct then you rejected not the real presence (a first century doctrine) nor Transubstantiation (a thirteenth century doctrine), but something else.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The real presence is a doctrine taught by the Lord Jesus Christ himself and by the evangelists and by saint Paul. It is not an eighth century production. Nor was the word "Transubstantiation" coined in the eighth century AD, it is not quite that old. The word was used from the thirteenth century onwards, it was used by the fourth council of the Lateran in 1215 AD.

Nor is the word Transubstantiation specific to Catholicism - In the Greek Orthodox Church, the doctrine has been discussed under the term of metousiosis, coined as a direct loan-translation of transubstantiatio in the 17th century. In Eastern Orthodoxy in general, the Sacred Mystery (Sacrament) of the Eucharist is more commonly discussed using alternative terms such as "trans-elementation" (μεταστοιχείωσις, metastoicheiosis), "re-ordination" (μεταρρύθμισις, metarrhythmisis), or simply "change" (μεταβολή, metabole). You write that "I came to the conclusion the teaching from eight centuries after the church was formed was in error."

if your claim is correct then you rejected not the real presence (a first century doctrine) nor Transubstantiation (a thirteenth century doctrine), but something else.

It would really help if you read my posts before you reply.

It was certainly NOT a first Century Doctrine -

The first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, though not using that term, was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbie, France.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It would really help if you read my posts before you reply.

It was certainly NOT a first Century Doctrine -

It is by reading your posts before I reply that I find the errors in them and the misconceptions that you include in them.

That the doctrine of the real presence is a first century doctrine is affirmed by every ancient church because it is the teaching of the Lord, Jesus Christ himself.

And Transubstantiation is an apt description of the change that takes place in the elements of the Holy Eucharist but it is not a description of the mechanism of the miracle of the Eucharist.

 

[childeye 2]

You missed it again - I stopped believing in the teaching of transubstantiation, AFTER I left the Roman Catholic Church. It was when I started seriously studying Scripture that I came to the conclusion the teaching from eight centuries after the church was formed was in error.

Transubstantiation, the doctrine that during the Eucharist, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ while the appearances remain unchanged, was first articulated using the term “transubstantiation” by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 12151. However, the concept can be traced back to earlier teachings and practices within the Church.​

​

The first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, though not using that term, was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbie, France.​

​

Again our differences are that I rely on Scripture and you rely on traditions and writings written centuries after the Scripture.

I was taught the Eucharist was a sacrament (sign of a sacred thing). Augustine ate and drank sacramentally, and I found this online:

The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).

• He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).
• [The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).

“a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1)

 

[childeye 2]

It would really help if you read my posts before you reply.

It was certainly NOT a first Century Doctrine -

The Didache is regarded as a 1st century view on the Eucharist

Chapter 9. The Eucharist.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence

1356 If from the beginning Christians have celebrated the Eucharist and in a form whose substance has not changed despite the great diversity of times and liturgies, it is because we know ourselves to be bound by the command the Lord gave on the eve of his Passion: "Do this in remembrance of me."181

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as: - thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

Thanksgiving and praise to the Father

1359 The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.

1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all "thanksgiving."

1361 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him.

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.182 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.183 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."184

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."185 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."186

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. the Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. the lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men.

1369 The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. the bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. the community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.189

Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.190

1370 To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.

1371 The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified,"191 so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ:

Put this body anywhere! Don't trouble yourselves about it! I simply ask you to remember me at the Lord's altar wherever you are.192

Then, we pray [in the anaphora] for the holy fathers and bishops who have fallen asleep, and in general for all who have fallen asleep before us, in the belief that it is a great benefit to the souls on whose behalf the supplication is offered, while the holy and tremendous Victim is present.... By offering to God our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, if they have sinned, we . . . offer Christ sacrificed for the sins of all, and so render favorable, for them and for us, the God who loves man.193

1372 St. Augustine admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist:

This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head.... Such is the sacrifice of Christians: "we who are many are one Body in Christ" the Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered.194

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:195 in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"196 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,197 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."198

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203​

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"207 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,208 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.209

 

[jas3]

I found this online:

I should have been less snarky, I apologize. Augustine held to the view of the Real Presence as understood by the apostolic churches:

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Apparently he saw no reason the elements of the Eucharist couldn't be both symbolic and literal.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I should have been less snarky, I apologize. Augustine held to the view of the Real Presence as understood by the apostolic churches:

Apparently he saw no reason the elements of the Eucharist couldn't be both symbolic and literal.

I'd say that the elements are both outwardly like bread and wine and sacramentally they are the body and blood of Christ. That which could be called symbolic is the outward appearance, referred to as accidents, while that which is of the essence and reality of the sacrament is its substance namely the body of Christ and the blood of Christ. This is Aristotelian language which the Catholic Church adopted for use in describing the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"210

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore​

​

Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,​

​

See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart​

​

Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.​

​

​

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true. 211​

 

[The Liturgist]

The differences coming from your leaning on extra Biblical teachings to come to your conclusions and my reliance on Scripture. Yes, that terrible Sola Scriptura! To clarify - Our Lord Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God inseparable, which pretty much sets fire to your strawman supposition.

In this case, I am not leaning on extra-Biblical positions. The doctrine of the Real Presence is the plain meaning of Scripture. And I have no objection, as @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm, to Sola Scriptura, properly defined, that is to say, the doctrine taught by Martin Luther, who also taught the doctrine of the Real Presence. Indeed, Martin Luther taught the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because it is Scriptural, and he rejected Nestorianism because it is in opposition to the plain meaning of Scripture (including, but not limited to, Luke chapters 1 and 2, John 1:1-17, John 10:30-38, and many other pericopes).

Which makes this Ad Hominem response particularly amusing, in a deliciously ironic way, in that you just falsely implied that I oppose Sola Scriptura, which is laughable, considering that as a Congregationalist minister, I taught it for many years, and I still regard it, as defined by the traditional Protestant churches, as an acceptable system which is not greatly different from the Orthodox approach, in that Sola Scriptura regards Sacred Scripture as the highest authority, and Orthodoxy, in its own language, refers to Sacred Scripture as the living center of Holy Tradition, that is to say, the most important part, a verbal Icon of Christ.

But at any rate, even if I took the view allegedly held by some Roman Catholics that Sola Scriptura is entirely erroneous, and that only the Magisterium is of any importance, an ad hominem response to my argument such as that made by yourself is still fallacious, since what I believe has nothing to do with whether or not I’m right. Although in this case your Ad Hominem was doubly fallacious, in that you assumed things about my belief system which are simply untrue, and then on the basis of those false assumptions, you proceeded to declare my argument false based on the a priori assumption that anyone who believed those things which I in fact do not believe (and if you had asked me ahead of time, I could have clarified this for you), is automatically wrong, which we know not to be the case.

Now, moving on, if in fact you do regard the deity and humanity of our Lord as inseparable, you should agree that the doctrine of the Real Presence does not imply cannibalism, since the fact that in partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord requires us to partake of the Divine Nature, as the Holy Apostle Peter said, unless we were to say that the Divine Nature is not present in the Body and Blood of our Lord, and if we say that, we have just introduced a separation between the Divinity and Humanity of our Lord.

I am not saying you must agree with the Real Presence, for there is one, and only one, alternative interpretation which is compatible with the plain sense of Scripture, that being the interpretation often found among Calvinists such as the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterians, and also frequently found among Anglicans and Methodists, that our Lord is pneumatically, that is to say, spiritually present in the Eucharist, but not physically present, and therefore, that the bread and wine are spiritually His Body and spiritually His Blood. This alternate approach scrapes by, where Zwinglianism and Memorialism do not, since Scripture makes it clear that there are Spiritual realities that are invisible to us but that are an important part of our existence, for example, the Angels and other Bodiless Powers. Although that said, Martin Luther, on the basis of Scripture, concluded that the Real Presence was the more probable explanation, and so do I; also, with Sola Scriptura, properly defined, other secondary sources of doctrine such as the writings of the Early Church Fathers, ecclesiastical tradition, and so on, are admissible, and these secondary sources unanimously favor the real presence.

Rather, what I am saying is that if you really do believe that the humanity and deity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ are inseparable (which by the way entails, among other things, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is in fact Theotokos, since if the deity and humanity of Christ are inseparable, logic dictates that she gave birth to God; indeed the whole reason why Nestorius insisted on a separation of the humanity and divinity of our Lord was to protect the logical coherence of his insistence that St. Mary was Christotokos but not Theotokos), then it follows that you should not accuse those who believe in the real presence of believing in cannibalism, since the indivisibility of the humanity and divinity of our Lord means that we cannot eat His flesh and blood apart from His divinity, and the presence of His divinity with the flesh and blood differentiates partaking of the Eucharist from engaging in cannibalism, since obviously, partaking of the Divine Nature is not Cannibalism, and the Divinity of our Lord, while distinct from the Humanity that it is hypostatically united with, is inseparable from it. Cannibalism is, by definition, the eating of one man by another man, and does not encompass the eating of a Theandros, that is to say, a God-man, what the Church Fathers called our Lord, since He is the a person who is both God and Man in hypostatic union.

 

[The Liturgist]

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.'

I am not sure I can entirely agree with that. Now, bearing in mind I was a baptized Christian when I began to partake of the Eucharist as a toddler, I immediately noticed there was something special about it. It tasted better than anything i had ever tasted; it was so delicious, so singularly beautiful in flavor and in identity, that I regarded it as the most delicious food I had ever tested.

In the Methodist Church, the Eucharist was at the time consecrated using leavened bread and Welch’s Grape Juice. These products are readily available to a child, so imagine my surprise when I attempted to make myself some Communion, and nothing happened! I used the same kind of bread, the same juice, it should have worked, and then it occurred to me, that it was not the superficial ingredients of the Eucharist which were supplying the incredibly delightful flavor, but rather what they became: the very Body and Blood of Christ our God. Thus I have believed in the Real Presence even while working for a denomination whose clergy and laity usually did not share that belief.