I pray this will become a balanced discussion between the Orthodox and Catholic view on the Eucharist, so as members of sister Churches we may grow in greater understanding of who we are. And in doing so, empower us to stand against those who deny the prescence of Christ in the Breaking of the Bread.
It is my understanding there is a difference use of words, from some of which is posted here. Fr. Athony gave the teaching from "The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew", Chrysostom Press, House Springs MO, 1992
Eucharist - Matthew 26:26-28
26 And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and having blessed it, and broke it and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take eat. This is my body. (Mk 14:22-25, Lk 22: 15-20,
1Co 11:23-25, 10:16)
27 And taking the chalice, and having given thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink all of this. (1Co 11:16)
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is being poured out for many for the remission of sins. (Ex 24:8, Zc 9:11, Jr. 33: 31, 34, Hb 7:22, Is 55:12)
26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, a d gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My Body. Matthew added the words "as they were eating", to reveal the cruelty of Judas. For worse than a beast, Judas did not become more meek when he partook of the common meal. Not even when reproved did he listen, but he went so far as to taste of the Lord's Body, and still did not repent. But some say that Christ did not give the Mysteries to the other disciples until Judas had left. So we too should do the same and withhold the Mysteries from those who are evil. When He is about to break the bread He gives thanks, teaching us also to offer the Bread with thanksgiving. At the same time He also shows by this that He gladly accepts as if it were a gift the breaking of His own Body, that is, His death, and that He is not displeased as if it were something that He is unwilling to accept, so that we too, in the same manner, might gladly accept martyrdom as a gift.tO By saying, "This is My Body," He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lord's Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, "This is a type," but "This is My Body." By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure to eat raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh.
10 The Greek words eucharisteo and eucharistos (one a verb and the other an adverb) from which we derive "eucharist". in a rich and profound manner express both God's good pleasure to give and man's good will to receive. In this passage of Theophylact's commentary they have been rendered variously as "giving thanks" and "gladly [accepting] as a gift", although neither phrase captures the perspective of the gracious Giver.
"The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew", Chrysostom Press, House Springs MO, 1992
The Greek (ekchunomenon = is being poured out), a present participle which follows the present tense verb (esti = is) in the clause, �this is my blood�. The present participle is an action in progress of simultaneous with the action of the principal verb. This means that the blood, at the time of Jesus speaking, is presently being poured out. Dogma specifies the blood of Jesus is under the appearance of wine. This is supported by the addition of the article (to peri pollon ekchunomenon) which sets off the event as a present occurrence (i.e. that which is in the act of being poured out for many). Matthew�s version also gives us the reason why the blood is poured out (i.e. for the remission of sins). This shows the connection between sacrament/sacrifice to propitiation for sins, which is the normal tautology connected with shedding of blood (cf. Lv 7:14, 14: 19-20, 17:11, Rm 3:25, 5:9)
Similarly, Luke�s version has: �This is my body being given for you� in which the present indicative �is� is followed by the present participle, �being given.� It follows the same grammatical rule noted above, that is, the body is being given to the apostles at the same time Jesus is speaking the words of consecration at the Last Supper.
On a purely lexical basis, the Greek phrase (peri pollon = for many) is general in application and does not specifically see to continue the benefits to a limited group, although on a theological basis there are certainly various reasons for limiting the audience. Mt. 26:28 and Mk 14:24 read �which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,� while Lk 22:20 reads �which is poured out for you,� with the addition of �many� or �forgiveness of sins.� Thus the consecration liturgy, �for you are many� combines the Matthean and Lucan texts. From a lexical analysis, Scripture often interchanges the meaning of �many� to include all, not always intending �all� to include all. For example Mt 20:28 and Mk 10:45, states that Christ gave his life as a �ransom for many�. While 1Tim 2:6 states that Christ �gave his life as a ransom for all�, which is further substantiated in 1Tim 2:4 by the statement �God desires all men (pantas anthropous) to be saved�. Similarly, 1Jn 2:2 states that Christ is the propitiation for �our sins� (ton hamartion hemon) yet continues with �not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (holo tou kosmou). Lk 3:6 state that �all mankind (pasa sarx) will see God�s salvation�; and Jn 6:51 states: �This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world�. Hb 9:28 states Christ came to �take away the sins of many�. Such interchanges also occur when �many stands for, or is equivalent to �all� (e.g. Lk 2:34-35, Bm 4:17, 5:5-19, 12:4); as well as instances in which �all� could refer to �many� or �much� (Lk 2:1, 1Co 1:5) At some points, �all is both inclusive and excluesive (eg. 1 Co 15:22 � �as in Adam all die, so in christ all will be made alive�). At other points �many� refers only to those who have the potential of salvation, yet �few� are those who actually receive it (Mt 22:14). In any case, it must be maintained that the Scriptural usage of �all does not mean that every person in the world will be save, but only that every person has the opportunity to be saved.
Apologetics
Question: Is Jesus teaching that the bread actually becomes His body, or is this event purely symbolic?
Answer: Jesus is teaching that the bread actually becomes His body. After His words of consecration, it is no longer bread, although it retains the appearance of bread. In doctrine the action by which the change from bread to Christ�s body occurs is called �transubstantiation�. The �trans� prefix denoted total change, while the root �substantiation� refers to the substance, or inner essence, of the entity. In other words, the substance, or essence, of the bread has been totally eliminated and has now become the substance of Christ�s body. Only the appearance of the bread remains, and is termed accidents, accidentia, from the Latin word for �appearance.�
The actual term �transubstantion first appeared in the writing of Hildebert of Tours (c.1079); followed by Stephen of Autun (d. 1139)� and Peter of Blots (d. 1200). In 12o2 Pope Inocent III use �transubstantiatiari� (DS 416, 784), which led to the use of the Ltain �transubstantiantiatio at the councils of Lateran IV and Lyons I in 1274.
In the Patristic literature, although the word �transubtantiation� does not appear, the concept is well attested in other words used by the early Latin Fathers, among them are �convertere (from which we derive the English �convert�); and �transmutare� (English �to change�)� as well as; transformare, transfigurare, and transfurdere (Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, et al)
The Greek Fathers used a number of words to describe the Eucharist. Among the strongest (metaousios = �change of substance). The prefix (meta) is similar to the Latin �trans,� (sorry I can�t type the word) has the same meaning as �transubstantiation�. Other words appearing in the writings of the Greek Fathers include: (metaballein = �to change,� e.b., Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia); (metabebletai = �to change,� �to transform,� e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem); (metapoiein = �to cast anew,� �alter,� e.g. Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene; (methistesin = �transmute,� e.g. Cyril of Alexandria); (metastoicheioun = �transelemented; eg. Gregory of Nyssa); (metarruthmizein = to change the form or fashion of a thing,� e.g. John Chrysostom); (metaskeuaxein = �to fashion differently,� �to transform,� �to disguise,� e.g. John Chrysostom) respectively.
In support of the doctrine of �transubstantiation,� the Greek grammar of Mt. 26:26 is laid out very carefully. For example, the clause (touto estin to soma = �This is the body of me�) contains the neuter adjective (�this�). As a neuter gender, it cannot refer to (artos = �bread�), since (sorry can�t type the word) is a masculine noun. Hence, the meaning is not, �This bread is my body.� Rather, since the word (soma = �body�) is a neuter noun, the neuter (can�t type it) refer to it, and thus the meaning of Jesus� words is: �This [new substance] is the body of me, � not �this bread is the body of me.�
Regarding the blood in Mt. 26:28, in the clause (touto gar estin to aima mou = �this is my blood�), (�this�) is, again, a neuter adjective, corresponding to the neuter (the same neuter gender as � oh my can�t type it). It is showing again that the biblical writers were very careful in making the object of the adjective refer to Christ�s body and blood, not to a symbol or other foreign element.
The Catholic position on this issue is as follows: the Church begins with the unshakable article of faith: Christ is really present in the Eucharist. That is the biblical datum that cannot be denied. Hence, everything said following that datum will be an attempt to explain how it is accomplished. The patristic and medieval theologians reasoned that an actual presence of Christ requires a change in the reality or substance of the bread, which led them to point �transubstantiation� as the best description of that conversion.
The Council of Trent assumed the same posture: Christ�s presence in the Eucharist must be accepted by faith, and thus, there must be a change of substance in the bread. Trent established two cannons. The first directed against those who had completely symbolized the Eucharist and claimed that Christ was not present in any manner. Neither Luther or Calvin fit into the condemnation of the first canon, since the former held to �con-substantiation�(that Christ is present �alongside� the bread and wine, and only during the liturgy); and the latter held to a �special� or �spiritual� presence in the Eucharist.
Hence, Trent stated in Canon 1:
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema (DS 883).
However, both Calvin and Luther were subjects of the second canon, which held that �transubstantiation� is the only acceptable description of the presence of Christ, since, according to Trent, any proposed theory had to account for a change of substance.
Canon 2:
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread and the body, and the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change of which the Catholic Church most fittingly call transubstantiation, let him be anathema (DS 884).
A few teachings:
Gregory of Nyssa: �Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God, the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh� (The Great Catechism, 37:9-13)
Gregory of Nanzianzus: �Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.� (Letter to Amphilochius, 171)
�The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, molds and rules the priestly people. Acting in the person of Christ he brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and offers to God in the name of all the people. For their part, the faithful join in the offering of the Eucharist by virtue of their royal priesthood�� (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church)
Hilary: �As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood."�(The Trinity, 8, 14)
The information that we are using is from, and with permission of Robert Sungenis:
The Gospel According to St. Matthew
The Catholic Apologetics Study Bible
Volume 1
Author Robert Sungenis
Queenship Publishing
The Blood and Water from His Side
St. John Chrysostom
Early Church Father and Doctor of the Church
This reading is an excerpt of The Catecheses (Cat. 3, 13-19; SC 50, 174-177) by St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest Early Church Fathers of the 5th Century. It is used inhe Roman Church's Office of Readings for Good Friday with the accompanying biblical reading of Hebrews 9: 11-28 and is a powerful meditation on the passion. But it also tells us much about the connection between the passion and the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist which flow from the paschal mystery and connect us to its saving power.
If we wish to understand the power of Christ�s blood, we should go back to the ancient account of its prefiguration in Egypt. �Sacrifice a lamb without blemish�, commanded Moses, �and sprinkle its blood on your doors�. If we were to ask him what he meant, and how the blood of an irrational beast could possibly save men endowed with reason, his answer would be that the saving power lies not in the blood itself, but in the fact that it is a sign of the Lord�s blood. In those days, when the destroying angel saw the blood on the doors he did not dare to enter, so how much less will the devil approach now when he sees, not that figurative blood on the doors, but the true blood on the lips of believers, the doors of the temple of Christ.
If you desire further proof of the power of this blood, remember where it came from, how it ran down from the cross, flowing from the Master�s side. The gospel records that when Christ was dead, but still hung on the cross, a soldier came and pierced his side with a lance and immediately there poured out water and blood. Now the water was a symbol of baptism and the blood, of the holy eucharist. The soldier pierced the Lord�s side, he breached the wall of the sacred temple, and I have found the treasure and made it my own. So also with the lamb: the Jews sacrificed the victim and I have been saved by it.
�There flowed from his side water and blood�. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, �the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit�, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: �Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!� As God then took a rib from Adam�s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.
Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...PSESSID=6d6e09c307270f191b5a11d51ee8fb82
