How can it be called orthodox if it is not biblical?

[ArmyMatt]

That is interesting Handmaiden. It would seem that according to your Liturgy that since you believe in the literal body and blood you are re-crucifying Christ every Sunday instead of remembering Christ's work on the cross done once 2,000 years ago. Is this your belief?

I forget who wrote it, but some really holy monk wrote that a sacrifice changes the state of what is being offered. so in the Temple, the Paschal Lamb would go from an un-sacrificed state to a sacrificed one (meaning alive then killed and consumed). for the Church, the Bread and Wine become the literal Body and Blood of Christ, that was sacrificed 2000 years ago on the cross and now is eternally presented in the true Holy of Holies at the right hand of the Father. that Body and Blood, the eternally sacrificed Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world, that is what we partake of.

I mean, if the Eucharist was merely a remembrance, then why tell it from an eternal perspective?

how does this work? well, when you have a God outside of time that works within time, how can this not work?

 

[Livindesert]

How can we, in good conscience, disregard that merely because its philosophically easier to talk of the Eucharist as a symbol? Am I superior to them, that I should reject their clear teaching on so impotant an issue?

In Christ,
Macarius

Because the gospels which are accounts of the churches oldest beliefs talk about it as a rememberance. Also I know the Apostolic churches cherry pick from the ECF's so we do not get to hear the real story as it is told from the Apostles. Thats how I se it from what I have learned about the church and the ECF's.

To me it is clear that according to the Apostles there is no magic in the bread and wine itself but like the woman who touched Jesus robe. It was not the fabric that caused the woman to be healed but her faith in Jesus. So the eucharist itself dose not have power, but the faith and belief in Christ that results from remebering his sacrifice and connecting with it is where we need to look.

 

[Livindesert]

I think you mean "throughout" here - correct me if I'm wrong.

If that's what you mean, then we agree with you. Christ's sacrifice occured once for all, but is ever present in the New Kingdom (throughout all time).

I think we agree on this point. I have too look it over some more though because I have to think about through vs throughout. Well my break is over I gtg back to work I will answer the rest later on if I get time before my new years party.

 

[Macarius]

Because the gospels which are accounts of the churches oldest beliefs talk about it as a rememberance.

No they don't. Only 1 Cor 11 talks about it as a remembrance - which is in no way a contradiction of the idea of it actually being Christ's body and blood (it can both be the body and blood AND be a remembrance, which we would say it is).

The Gospels all say "This is my body... This is my blood" - without mention of remembrance. The word "is" in Greek denotes functional equivalence (to the point that the word order doesn't matter - whereas in English we put the literal object of a metaphor as the subject). In other words, Christ's body is bread, bread is body. The word is means that the former literally IS the later.

Also I know the Apostolic churches cherry pick from the ECF's so we do not get to hear the real story as it is told from the Apostles. Thats how I se it from what I have learned about the church and the ECF's.

That's a bit offensive, honestly. If you think we cherry pick, then go and read them. They're available free online. I will challenge you to find one father or mother (or Christian of any authentic sort) from the first three centuries of Christianity that denied the reality of Christ in the Eucharist.

You won't find them.

This isn't a cherry picking. I'm speaking now as a church historian (I teach church history for a living) - the early church believed in Christ's real presence in the Eucharist. It isn't like they didn't speak on the matter (several early writers did). They spoke universally in favor of believing the Eucharist to be Christ's body and blood. They believed this so strongly that the Romans were executing them on the accusation of canibalism!

To me it is clear that according to the Apostles there is no magic in the bread and wine itself

Of course there's no magic! It's the grace of the Holy Spirit that effects the change (and there's no clear point at which this change occurs - the Orthodox are not so particular about those details as the RCC has tended to be).

Some would even say it doesn't become the Body of Christ until we (as the body of Christ) partake of it.

Yet just as we all, in faith, trust that God answers and is attentive to our prayers, we also trust that God is attentive to His promises concerning the Eucharist. There isn't "magic" in prayer either - you don't control God through prayer. But God always answers. We don't control God in the Eucharist, but God always makes Himself present through it.

This isn't us doing anything - its all about God.

but like the woman who touched Jesus robe. It was not the fabric that caused the woman to be healed but her faith in Jesus.

And that faith found expression through the fabric. Just as another time Jesus chose to heal a man through mud and spit. And another time Jesus healed through St. Peter's shadow, or St. Paul's handerchief.

And another time - many times - He has chosen to make manifest Himself through the Eucharist, as He promised "This is my body... This is my blood."

If we partake of the Eucharist without faith, that doesn't make God any less faithful (it is still Christ's body and blood) - but oh how demonic a thing! Such a Eucharist would be for us a judgment, even deadly. Notice in 1 Cor 11 that St. Paul talks of people falling asleep and dying because they partook of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, not discerning the body of the Lord.

So faith is necessary - on this we agree. But, if I may, why is the idea of God using the physical so objectionable to you? Isn't there, somewhere in there, a latent sense of the physical being too fallen - or too pagan? Doesn't that say more about our general disdain for the physical (and for God's creation), then it does about God?

Christ is born! The physical is redeemed. Let us rejoice!

So the eucharist itself dose not have power, but the faith and belief in Christ that results from remebering his sacrifice and connecting with it is where we need to look.

You are dividing what cannot be divided. The Eucharist, in so much as God's grace makes it communion, has power given to it by God. Faith allows us to experience and know this communion, and to be brought into deeper unity with God (both spiritually and physically). We remember His sacrifice, not in a cognitive way, but because we are made present to it every time we "proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

We must certainly look to re-membering (remanifesting) Christ's sacrifice, and we MUST look to it - indeed to its literal and physical presence. And we MUST connect with it - indeed on a physical and spiritual level. I agree.

But none of this says we must deny Christ's presence in the Eucharist. And we aren't cherry picking here - the early Church unanimously believed in this. Why should I deny it?

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Livindesert]

The Gospels all say "This is my body... This is my blood" - without mention of remembrance. The word "is" in Greek denotes functional equivalence (to the point that the word order doesn't matter - whereas in English we put the literal object of a metaphor as the subject). In other words, Christ's body is bread, bread is body. The word is means that the former literally IS the later.
In Christ,
Macarius

I am sad to say but you are wrong

Luk 22:19 And 2532 he took 2983 bread 740, and gave thanks 2168 , and brake 2806 [it], and 2532 gave 1325 unto them 846, saying 3004 , This 5124 is 2076 my 3450 body 4983 which 3588 is given 1325 for 5228 you 5216: this 5124 do 4160 in remembrance 364 of 1519 me 1699.


Word 364 ἀνάμνησις 1) a remembering, recollection derived from the root word ἀναμιμνῄσκω 1) to call to remembrance, to remind, to admonish.

So there you go in black and white remeberance of the crucifixion in a symbolic manner found in the Gospel of Luke.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Have to post this again:

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us.

 

[Barky]

To me it is clear that according to the Apostles there is no magic in the bread and wine itself but like the woman who touched Jesus robe. It was not the fabric that caused the woman to be healed but her faith in Jesus. So the eucharist itself dose not have power, but the faith and belief in Christ that results from remebering his sacrifice and connecting with it is where we need to look.

I'll add a little to Macarius' fantastic answer. It certainly is truee that there is no magic in the items themselves. That would be sorcery, not Christianity. Though, it must be admitted, Christ chose to work through objects. Whether it be mud and spit, Paul's shadow, Christ's garment, etc. It is only through faith that the Woman was healed of the flowig of blood, but the mircale took place thrugh the touching of the garment. This is how God choses to work. You see this throughout the old testament as well, with the serpent that healed the people of Israel when they looked upon it, God working miracles through the Ark of the covenant, and various other testimonies of God working miracles through objects.

Again, God could work in any way He wishes, but He has worked through objects throughout History. It is only through faith that this works, and it is not some mechanical process of, "touch this, then you get healed", that would be magic.

If you receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without faith, it would do nothing or might even harm you according to Paul's testimony of eating and drinking condemnation on yourself.

 

[Livindesert]

Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word. -Clement of Alexandria

To me that says symbolic.

 

[Livindesert]

If you receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without faith, it would do nothing or might even harm you according to Paul's testimony of eating and drinking condemnation on yourself.

I agree with you and Clement of Alexandria that said it is the faith that dose the joining the bread and wine and water being symbolic while faith is what matters.

 

[Thekla]

I am sad to say but you are wrong

Luk 22:19 And 2532 he took 2983 bread 740, and gave thanks 2168 , and brake 2806 [it], and 2532 gave 1325 unto them 846, saying 3004 , This 5124 is 2076 my 3450 body 4983 which 3588 is given 1325 for 5228 you 5216: this 5124 do 4160 in remembrance 364 of 1519 me 1699.


Word 364 ἀνάμνησις 1) a remembering, recollection derived from the root word ἀναμιμνῄσκω 1) to call to remembrance, to remind, to admonish.

So there you go in black and white remeberance of the crucifixion in a symbolic manner found in the Gospel of Luke.

First, it might be good to recover the older (contemporary) meaning of symbol, where there is an interpenetration. It is a meaning unlike the modern idea (which tends more to what we now understand as metaphor).

Then, the idea here translated as "remember" is a bit fuller than an intellectual exercise -- it means to experience what is before. As the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (aprox., Revelation), it also refers to experiencing in our time what is already true spiritually; it is to permit the intrusion, if you will, of the eternal into the temporal realm.

The term "memory" is related to the term memorialize (as in a memorial for the dead); we cannot memorialize Christ because He is not dead.

 

[Macarius]

I am sad to say but you are wrong

Evidently I was I must have lumped Luke and 1 Cor in my mind since their both Pauline (St. Luke being a disciple of St. Paul). I stand corrected. St. Luke's Gospel does, indeed, akin to St. Paul's letter to Corinth, include the phrase "do this in remembrance of me."

Matthew, Mark, and John do not - though. I don't think that can be readily discounted. Nor have you responded to the fact that remembrance is entirely possible even if the fully body and blood of Christ are present (if anything, the remembrance is enhanced with the reality of the presence).

So our view can both account for remembrance, and for the passages and traditions that are more directly in favor of a real-presence view (i.e John 6, the other three Gospels, St. Paul's warnings in 1 Cor 11, early church tradition).

In other words, the use of the words remembrance (either in Luke or 1 Cor) is not problematic for our view, and the essence of my previous post is still valid.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

The term "memory" is related to the term memorialize (as in a memorial for the dead); we cannot memorialize Christ because He is not dead.

I would actually further this idea, to encapsulate both meanings of remembrance.

Christ is dead (in the sense that the grave has been filled by Christ - so even in death is Christ present). We can memorialize Him. But the body of the one memorialized is (in many traditions, including the Orthodox) present at the memorial service. Indeed, the remembrance is enhanced by the presence of the body.

Yet this is no ordinary body - for Christ is risen, and death is overcome. How much more powerful a declaration of our joy than to have the risen Christ present with us! We remember Him, but not with the sorrow of a funeral - we remember Him with the joy of Thanksgiving (Eucharist's meaning). The very presence of the body confirms His LIFE.

So I think the funerary reference carried within the word "remembrance" can be transformed into conformity with the joy of the Gospel of Christ. But I'm speculating a bit here. I'm curious to know your thoughts...

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[choirfiend]

Remembrance in these instances means to more than have a mental recollection....it means to "bring to the present once again," or make real once again. It's timeless participation in the eternal sacrifice as we enter into the Kingdom of God on earth in the Liturgy.

 

[Livindesert]

Right so I am correct that Luke explains in detail with corinthians that it is a rememberance I found a before 300 A.D. church father that relates to that idea. Yet you still choose to ignore those facts. Ohhhh well

 

[Dorothea]

Speaking of the Eucharist and Christ's true Presence - His Body and Blood...I've been reading the Gospel of John the past several days, and a few days ago, I read about this in the footnotes:

6:60-66 Even His disciples took Christ's teaching on His Body and Blood as a hard saying (v. 60), and many walked with Him no more (v. 66). To this day, there are still those who reject Christ's own words concerning the sacramental eating of His Body and drinking of His Blood, and thus do not walk in His teaching. Because of the difficulty of grasping the depth of this Mystery, many attempt either to define its nature rationally or to explain away Christ's words altogether, giving them a purely metaphorical meaning. Either extreme is dubious; to reject this sacramental teachings is to reject the witness of the Scriptures and the unanimous teaching of the church throughout history.

 

[Livindesert]

I would actually further this idea, to encapsulate both meanings of remembrance.

Christ is dead (in the sense that the grave has been filled by Christ - so even in death is Christ present). We can memorialize Him. But the body of the one memorialized is (in many traditions, including the Orthodox) present at the memorial service. Indeed, the remembrance is enhanced by the presence of the body.

Yet this is no ordinary body - for Christ is risen, and death is overcome. How much more powerful a declaration of our joy than to have the risen Christ present with us! We remember Him, but not with the sorrow of a funeral - we remember Him with the joy of Thanksgiving (Eucharist's meaning). The very presence of the body confirms His LIFE.

So I think the funerary reference carried within the word "remembrance" can be transformed into conformity with the joy of the Gospel of Christ. But I'm speculating a bit here. I'm curious to know your thoughts...

In Christ,
Macarius

Ahhhh now comes the straw man. We will make it seem like remeberance is only for dead people as to smear Livindesert as a heretic.

As pointed out remeberance or a remebering a recollection of something an act of recalling to mind. What do we need to call to mind? That is the crucifixtion and ressurection. These events while effecting all of time happened only once. To claim real presance (if you do go by the straw man the posits that rememberance has a funerary referance which it dose not) then you claim the crucifixion must constantly happen every week. To claim this is to claim Jesus's sacrifice in 33 A.D. was not enough. That I cannot agree with.

 

[Livindesert]

Speaking of the Eucharist and Christ's true Presence - His Body and Blood...I've been reading the Gospel of John the past several days, and a few days ago, I read about this in the footnotes:

6:60-66 Even His disciples took Christ's teaching on His Body and Blood as a hard saying (v. 60), and many walked with Him no more (v. 66). To this day, there are still those who reject Christ's own words concerning the sacramental eating of His Body and drinking of His Blood, and thus do not walk in His teaching. Because of the difficulty of grasping the depth of this Mystery, many attempt either to define its nature rationally or to explain away Christ's words altogether, giving them a purely metaphorical meaning. Either extreme is dubious; to reject this sacramental teachings is to reject the witness of the Scriptures and the unanimous teaching of the church throughout history.

To read the body and blood as a remeberance as Luke says, is to reject adding magic and sorcery to the faith as real presencers do.

 

[Livindesert]

Evidently I was I must have lumped Luke and 1 Cor in my mind since their both Pauline (St. Luke being a disciple of St. Paul). I stand corrected. St. Luke's Gospel does, indeed, akin to St. Paul's letter to Corinth, include the phrase "do this in remembrance of me."

Matthew, Mark, and John do not - though. I don't think that can be readily discounted. Nor have you responded to the fact that remembrance is entirely possible even if the fully body and blood of Christ are present (if anything, the remembrance is enhanced with the reality of the presence).

So our view can both account for remembrance, and for the passages and traditions that are more directly in favor of a real-presence view (i.e John 6, the other three Gospels, St. Paul's warnings in 1 Cor 11, early church tradition).

In other words, the use of the words remembrance (either in Luke or 1 Cor) is not problematic for our view, and the essence of my previous post is still valid.

In Christ,
Macarius

Luke explains in detail how to correctly view the eucharist. To view it any other way is to use alchemy instead of faith and trust in God.

 

[Livindesert]

I pray that you will turn your non Biblical ways and repent before it is too late!

 

[Dorothea]

I forget who wrote it, but some really holy monk wrote that a sacrifice changes the state of what is being offered. so in the Temple, the Paschal Lamb would go from an un-sacrificed state to a sacrificed one (meaning alive then killed and consumed). for the Church, the Bread and Wine become the literal Body and Blood of Christ, that was sacrificed 2000 years ago on the cross and now is eternally presented in the true Holy of Holies at the right hand of the Father. that Body and Blood, the eternally sacrificed Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world, that is what we partake of.

I mean, if the Eucharist was merely a remembrance, then why tell it from an eternal perspective?

how does this work? well, when you have a God outside of time that works within time, how can this not work?

Also, if Christ meant it only as a remembrance, those disciples that fleed after Christ spoke of the bread and wine being his actual Body and Blood wouldn't have fleed.