How Often Should You Partake in Holy Communion?

xenia said:

Ah AV, you know what I mean.

-Xenia


.

Click to expand...

So I take it you believe in Transubstantiation? Such complete rubbish...

So I take it you believe in Transubstantiation? Such complete rubbish...

Click to expand...

So you see why I didn't bother answering you when you asked?

All Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until the Reformation. Look at the writings of the early Church Fathers.




Wiffey

AV1611 said:

So I take it you believe in Transubstantiation? Such complete rubbish...

Click to expand...

Now, there's a helpful and loving response!

Wiffey said:

All Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until the Reformation. Look at the writings of the early Church Fathers.




Wiffey

Click to expand...

All Christains...that is quite a claim. What about the Holy Bible does that support transubstantiation? Well no it does not, and so transubstiantiation is wrong

See:

[size=+4]"This Is My Body"
(Matthew 26:[/size][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+3]26[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+4]). [/size][/font]
[font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+2]This Is Appendix 159 From The Companion Bible. [/size][/font]

[font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1] A figure of speech consists of a word or words used out of the ordinary sense, or order; just as we call a person dressed out of the ordinary manner or fashion a "figure": both attract our attention; and, in the case of words, the one and only object is in order to call the reader's attention to what is thus emphasized. For examples see the notes on Matthew 16:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]6[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1] : where, had the Lord said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is like leaven", that would have been the Figure Simile (Appendix 6). Had He said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is leaven" the Figure in this case would have been Metaphor (Appendix 6); by which, instead of saying one thing is like another, it is carried over (as the word Metaphor means), and states that the one thing is the other. But in Matthew 16:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]6[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1], the Lord used another Figure altogether, Videlicet: Hypocatastasis (from hupo = under (Appendix 104. xviii), kata = down (Appendix 104. x), and stasis = a stationing), which means putting one of the two words (which are necessary in the case of Simile and Metaphor) down underneath, that is to say, out of sight, and thus implying it. He said, "beware of the leaven", thus implying the word "doctrine", which He really meant; and , by thus attracting the disciples attention to His words, thereby emphasized them.

In these three Figures we have a Positive, Comparative, and Superlative emphasis. The essence of Simile is resemblance; the essence of metaphor is representation (as in the case of a portrait, which is representative of some person); the essence of hypocatastasis is implication, where only one word is mentioned and another is implied.

Through non-acquaintance with Figures of Speech every Figure is to-day called "Metaphor". But this is not the case. A Metaphor is a special Figure different and disticnt from all others.

"This is My body" is the Figure Metaphor : and the Figure lies in the Verb "IS", which, as in this case, always means "represents", and must always be so expressed. It can never mean " is changed into". Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb "represents" can always be substituted for "is". For example :

"The field is (or represents) the world" (Matthew 13:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]38[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

"The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]38[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

"The reapers are (represent) angels" (Matthew 13:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]39[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

"The odours are (represent) the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]8[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

"The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains" (Revelation 17:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]9[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

"This cup is (represents) the new covenant" ([/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]1[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1] Corinthians 11:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]25[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?" ([/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]1[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1] Corinthians 10:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]16[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matthew 16:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]18[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1], the Pronoun "this" is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter), which is Masculine. See note, and Appendix 147.

So here : the Pronoun "this" is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos (= bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter).

In like manner, when He said (in verse [/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]28[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]) "this is my blood of the New Covenant"; "this", being Neuter, refers to poterion (= cup)[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=-1]1[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1] and not to oinos (= wine), which is Masculine, and means :- "This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins".

For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]31-34[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all (see Appendix 95), for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]39[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]).

Now, "blood" was shed, and sacrificially used, only in connection with two things, the making of a covenant, and the making of atonement. In the former, the victim which made or ratified the covenant was slain and the body divided in two, the parties to the covenant passing between (see notes on Genesis 15:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]9-18[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1] Jeremiah 34:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]18[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]. Galatians 3:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]20[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1], and Appendix 95). As long as the victim (the covenant-maker) was alive the covenant could have no force. See notes on Hebrews 9:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]16-22[/font] [font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1].

At the last supper this New Covenant was made; and Peter's proclamation in Acts 2:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]38[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; 3:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]19-26[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; 5:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]31[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; and Paul's in 13:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]38[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; 17:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]30[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; 20:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]21[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; 26:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]20[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]; were based upon it. Messiah had to be "cut off", that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Acts 3:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]18[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]). But that having been accomplished, and the sufferings having been endured, nothing stood in the way of the glory which should follow. "Repent ye THEREFORE and turn [to the Lord] that your sins may be blotted out" etc. The New Covenant which had been made had provided for that, as the Lord had said in Matthew 26:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]28[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1], "for the remission of sins".

In the last supper the Lord was not instituting anything with a view to the Secret (the "Mystery" to be yet revealed in the Prison Epistles); but was substituting bread and wine for the Paschal Lamb (the type being exhausted in the Antitype), because of the new meaning which the Passover should henceforth convey. It was to be the Memorial, not of the Exodus from Egypt, but of the Exodus which the Lord afterward accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9:[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]31[/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]), according to the New Covenant made by His death. [/size][/font]

[font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]NOTE [/size][/font] [font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=-1]1[/size][/font][font=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][size=+1]Poterion being put by Metonymy (of Ajunct), Appendix 6, for the contents, for the "cup" itself could not be swallowed. [/size][/font]

This Companion Bible.... This sounds like a tradition of man to me.

xenia said:

This Companion Bible.... This sounds like a tradition of man to me.

Click to expand...

It is a study yes...however can you show me one verse in the Holy Bible which says that at the Lord's Supper when we give thanks for the Bread and wine it tuns into the body and blood of Jesus Christ? I think not

...however can you show me one verse in the Holy Bible which says that at the Lord's Supper when we give thanks for the Bread and wine it tuns into the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Click to expand...

No need to as you well know.

LOL- We ought to make up some codes to save time typing. If I say something you don't agree with, you can type CODE 1, meaning: Show me where you find THAT in the Bible! And I can respond with CODE 2: Ha! I don't HAVE to find it in the Bible because I have Holy Tradition! Then you can come back with a snappy CODE 3, meaning "Traditions of men! Traditions of men!" And I can retort, Not so fast there, AV! CODE 4! being translated: They are not the traditions of men, Christians have believed these things for 2000 years! And you can reply with a swift CODE 5- Who? You or the Catholics?

I believe this would be a very efficient system.

Love, Xenia


.

AV1611 said:

So I take it you believe in Transubstantiation? Such complete rubbish...

Click to expand...

I take it you believe the Orthodox are similar to Catholics, beyond the superficial level...

To be precise, the Orthodox do not use the word 'Transubstantiation', which is a technical term, since they have an apophatic approach. So the answer to your question is 'No.'

However, they believe in the Real Presence.

AV1611 said:

It is a study yes...however can you show me one verse in the Holy Bible which says that at the Lord's Supper when we give thanks for the Bread and wine it tuns into the body and blood of Jesus Christ? I think not

Click to expand...

Is there some reason why you feel the need to say "Holy Bible" instead of just Bible? We know which one you are talking about and it is just as Holy to us as it is to you, if not more so. In any case, the fact that it does not say it turns to the body and blood of Christ, is not the point. the point is our Lord said "This is my Body, this is my Blood."

In fact, for your perusal, here's the New American Standard version:
Matthew 26: 25While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and (5) after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

Nowhere here does he say "It represents My Body" or "This is symbolic of My Body".

Kripost said:

To be precise, the Orthodox do not use the word 'Transubstantiation', which is a technical term, since they have an apophatic approach. So the answer to your question is 'No.'

However, they believe in the Real Presence.

Click to expand...

Quite so! Well done!

Suzannah said:

Is there some reason why you feel the need to say "Holy Bible" instead of just Bible?

Click to expand...

Because scripture is Holy and as I use the Authorised Version I see the two words every day on its cover. However the Orthodox churches/Catholic churches do not hold scripture in such high regard instead of prefering the traditions of men. Is that code three or four?

Nowhere here does he say "It represents My Body" or "This is symbolic of My Body".

Click to expand...

This is what I think about that argument does that mean I am a pink spherical blob with one thin black arm and I enjoy continually hitting myself in my eye?

AV1611 said:

Because scripture is Holy and as I use the Authorised Version I see the two words every day on its cover. However the Orthodox churches/Catholic churches do not hold scripture in such high regard instead of prefering the traditions of men. Is that code three or four?

Click to expand...

This statement reveals your lack of knowledge in this area. In fact, both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches hold Scripture to be infallible, Holy and without error.

This is what I think about that argument does that mean I am a pink spherical blob with one thin black arm and I enjoy continually hitting myself in my eye?

Click to expand...

This does not deserve response. But I would advise caution.

Coming from a formerly Quaker background (who don't take the communion elements) we understand that if someone is in Christ Jesus they are made a new creation and are in constant communion with God as they repent of their sins. According to them we're in constant communion so the elements are unnecessary.

Being Presbyterian, by way of Lutheranism, I find the sentiment to be true, but deem the elements helpful (not to mention is was comanded by Christ). As far as frequency, as often as possible while following Biblical principles.

Since Jesus was actually there in His body when He broke the bread and said "....this is My body....", I must assume that He believed the disciples were rational enough to understand what He was talking about.

1. The Eucharist is not symbolism. The Early Church held, as do a good majority of Christians today, that the Eucharist has the Real Presence of Jesus. The Bread is the Body and the Wine is the Blood. How is still debated (as it is a Mystery), but all of these agree that it is REAL. If it isn't, then the Holy Spirit lied to the Early Church and thus, Christianity is a hoax. I choose to hold to otherwise.

2. According to Holy Tradition, you should try to receive the Body and Blood daily if possible. I personally receive it two or three times a week, with more coming soon; Saturday services are in planning, twice on Sunday, and usually once on a Wednesday. I would love to be able to receive it every day, and if that we possible, I'd leap at the chance.

I think it is also very important to keep in mind that the profession of Christ as the Incarnate Son of God was the cornerstone upon which the Lord said He would build His Church.
If we believe, then, in the real presence (which we all should), I don't see how we can even call a service 'Church' without having the Eucharist.

Confessing Lutheran said:

I think it is also very important to keep in mind that the profession of Christ as the Incarnate Son of God was the cornerstone upon which the Lord said He would build His Church.
If we believe, then, in the real presence (which we all should), I don't see how we can even call a service 'Church' without having the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

Being a quaker through and through i do not understand your comment. We have the real presence all the time. that is what the Holy spirit is. that is why it is given, to be Christ in us continually. as for how often it doesnt say. it doesnt say its a command either. Christ doesnt build the Church God does when we are called to him through Christ and accept his death and ressurection. The Church is all those who have accepted Christ into there lives. Church is just a referrence of all christians together. We are commanded to come together so as to increase our faith and encourage one another that is all that is mentioned in scripture.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

I suppose the gates of hell prevailed against the early church in their understanding of the Lords Supper and the Real Presence??

The Sacrament is the Gospel, the forgiveness of sins. Unless your Gospel is the forgiveness of sins in the body and blood of Christ, you have another Gospel.



Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal lifeflesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of Him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"Eat my flesh, [Jesus] says, and drink my blood. The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christs] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 1516 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masters declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, This is the symbol of my body, but, This is my body. In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, This is the symbol of my blood, but, This is my blood; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"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 Lords 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).

Council of Ephesus "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).


[/font]

AV, you got a problem.

You see, the "AV" was written by the Anglican Church, which accepts the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

So your argument is completely invalid, as your interpretation of the KJV isn't even the same of that of the authors. And if they weren't inspired, there goes KJVOism!

You are now left with a loose-loose sitation.

In addition, you falsely equivocate belief in Real Presence with Transubstantiationism. Transubstantiationism is a type of belief of Real Presence, but it isn't the only one.

And by you falsely implying it to an Eastern Orthodox Christian who doesn't even hold to that form of Real Presence makes your credibility on the subject drop.

The historic, orthodox, and traditional belief has always been that of Real Presence. What was never decided in an Ecumenical Council was exactly how this happens and in what way, other than the Bread truly becomes the Body and the Wine truly becomes the Blood.