This article was prepared on the basis of the “answers” that were
given to an OODE reader who had submitted an enquiry as to whether
the bread and the wine used in the Orthodox Divine Eucharist was
truly the Body and the Blood of Christ, or if it is a “spiritual”
thing or something that depends on one’s “believing it”.
********************
We will examine in this article what the post-Apostolic Church had
received from the Apostles - also what was safeguarded by the
Orthodox Church of Christ from the Apostolic times to this day - and
until the Lord Jesus Christ returns – on the subject of the Precious
Gifts turning into Body and Blood of Christ.
The first references by Jesus Christ relating to the Divine
Eucharist appear in John’s Gospel:
“51 I
am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of
this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is
my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. [...]
53 Then
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye do not
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you.54 Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I
will raise him up on the last day.55 For
my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink.56 Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, remains in me, and I in him.” (John
6:51-56).
Later, that same leader and founder of the Christian faith – Jesus
Christ – actualized the Sacrament (Mystery) of the Divine Eucharist
(aka “The Last Supper”), on the evening prior to surrendering
Himself to the Cross for our sins; these were the words He said, as
recorded by the Evangelists:
“26 And
as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it,
and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this
is
my body.27 And
he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink
ye all of it;
28 For
this
is
my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the
remission of sins.”
(Matthew
26:26-28).
The Lord didn’t say “take it, it symbolizes...”
Nor did He say “take it, it is...,
but only by believing”. He clearly said
THIS IS.
The faithful is called upon to accept the words as exactly
spoken by Christ.
Commenting on this excerpt, Saint Cyril of Alexandria says:
“He demonstratively said ‘this
is
my body and this
is
my
blood’, lest you think that the phenomena taking place are but a
type thereof, instead of - by some ineffable manner by the almighty
God - actually CHANGED INTO Body and Blood of Christ”.
Theophylaktos himself mentions that:
“For He did not say, ‘this is a copy of’; He said ‘this
IS my body’; by an ineffable energy
it is changed, even though it appears like bread to us.
Because we are weak and would not have accepted to consume
something raw and human flesh, that is why it looks like BREAD to
us, but is actually FLESH”.
While Zigavinos adds:
“...These words, ‘THIS IS MY BODY’ and ‘THIS IS MY BLOOD’ - just
as He had supernaturally deified the flesh that He had assumed, thus
ineffably did He CHANGE these (the bread and the wine) into His
life-giving Body and His precious Blood.” (From “Memorandum on
the Gospel of Matthew”, by P.Trembelas, pp.461- 462).
When giving instructions later on to the eminent officiators of the
local Church in Corinth – and after repeating the words of the Lord,
he says in conclusion:
27 Wherefore
whosoever shall unworthily eat this bread and drink this cup of the
Lord, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.28 But
let a man examine himself, and thus let him eat of that bread, and
drink of that cup.29 For
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
condemnation to himself, by not having discerned the Lord's body.30 This
is why many are weak and sickly among you, and many die.31 For
if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.32 But
when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, so that we not be
condemned together with the world. (1
Cor.11:27-32)
If the bread and the wine were mere symbols which “by believing” are
Body and Blood of Christ (that is, for me who believes, they are;
but for the other who doesn’t believe that much, they are not), the
Apostle Paul would not have drawn the Church’s attention with the
above words. Those who unworthily partake (=without prior confession
and repentance, given that none of us is sinless), are guilty of
THE BODY and
THE BLOOD of the Lord, by NOT
HAVING DISCERNED that they are truly His Body and Blood.
Paul clarified this matter very clearly.
This Tradition given by Christ was preserved by the holy Apostles,
who in turn handed it down to their successors, who likewise in turn
handed it down to those who continued after them – thus reaching us,
to this day.
In his commentary regarding the non-discerning of Christ’s Body
during the Divine Eucharist, Zigavinos mentions the following: “....by
not understanding that IT IS A MAGISTERIAL BODY; a body that fills
one with terror”.
(Memorandum on the Epistles of the New Testament, Vol.1,
p.359).
Trembelas comments that: “The Lord offered Himself as a sacrifice
on the Cross, so that by His death He would reconcile us with His
Father, for the remission of our sins - along with all the other
gifts and graces of His gospel. But with this (sacrifice), He
also “introduced” the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist, in which He
provides His BODY AND BLOOD to every faithful person as LIFE-GIVING
NOURISHMENT for their soul, and through which (Mystery), all
the benefactions that came from His crucifixional sacrifice were
rendered a personal acquisition for each and every one of the
faithful”
(Memorandum, Vol.A, p.356)
Let us now move on, to Saint Ignatius the God-bearer, who was a
DIRECT successor to the Apostles and as such, a continuer of the
APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
Let’s see – therefore – how he too had perceived the specific
matter, as evidenced in his epistles.
But before going there, let’s take a look at a brief overview
of the life and the works of this very important Father and Teacher
of the post-Apostolic era:
Professor of Theology H. Krikonis mentions:
“According to Eusebius, Ignatius was the second bishop of
Antioch, where he served from 70 to 107 A.D., after Evodius, while
according to Origen, he was a successor to the Apostle Peter.
John the Chrysostom mentions in general that Ignatius
associated with the apostles, and the record of Martyrs states that
he was an audient of John.
The same is mentioned by Eusebius, and additionally that
audients were also Papias with Polycarp.
Anyway, it should be regarded as certain that he was
acquainted with the Apostles.... In Antioch he served as bishop with
extensive works and for many years – possibly between 70 A.D.
through to his martyred death (113 A.D.)... he suffered martyrdom,
possibly around 113, devoured by wild beasts (see icon).
He is commemorated on the 20th of December.
(Apostolic
Fathers,
Vol.A,
pp.113-115).
Patrology Professor St. Papadopoulos, among other, many and
important mentions, also writes the following:
“The God-bearing Ignatius
is the first Father and Teacher of the Church, just as he is the
first major theologian after the apostles...
Ignatius’ theology, which bears the stamp of a major work, is
genuine and has become the conscience, ethos, and Tradition of the
Church, because it is poemantic (pastoral), it comprises the
expression and the continuance of the apostolic Tradition and was
created under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as he himself
confirms.”
(Vol.A,
p.173)
Below are excerpts pertaining to our subject, taken from his
genuine epistles:
When referring to the heretical teachings of the Gnostics (that
Jesus only seemingly suffered and as such, did not die), Ignatius the
God-bearer also made mention of the Divine Eucharist, where,
according to the heretics, the bread was NOT the Body of Christ (
and by extension the wine was NOT His Blood ). Ignatius believed in
the TRANSFORMATION/CHANGE of the bread and the wine, exactly as it
was in the teaching of the previous, apostolic teachings.
Those who didn’t believe thus, he named “HETERODOX” (=of
other beliefs).
Protestant faithful might want to check their beliefs, lest they
have such Gnostic origins, rendering themselves heterodox, per
Ignatius’ observations.
Epistle to the people of Smyrna, chapters
6 and 7: «…and
inform those who are “heterodoxing” about the grace of Jesus Christ
which has come to you, that they are opposing the opinion of God.
They do not care about love, about widows, about any orphan, or any
sufferer, or anyone tied or loosened, or hungry or thirsty.
They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, to NOT CONFESS
THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE BODY OF OUR SAVIOUR, Jesus Christ which
suffered for our sins, and which, by His uprightness, the Father
raised....”
To the people of Smyrna, chapter
8: «…That
is the certain Eucharist to believe, which is under the bishop or
whichever one he allows.
Wherever the BISHOP is present, there let the congregation
be; so that wherever Christ Jesus is, THERE THE OVERALL CHURCH
IS....”
In other words, a Eucharist is valid when it is officiated by a
Bishop who has apostolic succession, close to whom the people
congregate – exactly as wherever Christ is, there is the Church.
In his epistles, Ignatius identifies the three degrees of
priesthood, and speaks of the unity between them and the laity, and
by extension, with God.
And this is the medicine that he proposes for confronting heresies
and divisions in the Church: the unity that is achieved by obedience
to the Bishop. Could
this be the underlying reason for the thousands of differing
Protestant denominations?
We also have a very important testimony by Justin Martyr ca.150
A.D.. In fact, he refers to the
“zeon” (hot
water) of the Eucharist :
«And
on that so-called day of the sun
(Sunday), everyone living in towns or fields come together for
the same reason and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of
the prophets are recited as much as required.
Then, the reader having ceased reciting, the eminent priest
proceeds by means of a sermon to lecture, and challenges them to
emulate good deeds.
Then we all stand up and offer prayers, and, as we said earlier,
after having ceased our prayers, bread is offered, and wine, and
water,
and the eminent priest offers up blessings and thanks, with all his
might, and the laity acclaims by saying “Amen”, followed by the
distribution and the partaking by each and every one, of the
“thanked” precious Gifts (Holy Communion) , and to those not
present, it is sent to them through the Deacons.” (Α
Apology, 67, 3-5).
Justin mentions in the preceding chapter… «…for,
neither as common bread nor as common drink do we receive them...
our saviour assumed both flesh and blood; thus by the words of
blessing over the sustenance of the Eucharist blessed by Him, out of
which blood and flesh nourish us after their TRANSFORMATION,
WE ARE TAUGHT that they are the flesh and blood of the
enfleshed Jesus.” (Α
Apology,
66).
Irenaeus says the same:
«For, just as the bread from the earth, when receiving God’s
invocation, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD.
(Against Heresies,
IV 18)
Consequently, after invoking the Holy Spirit, the bread is no longer
ordinary bread, and as such, nor is it a symbol.
When the iconoclasts taught that the only icon of Christ is the
bread of the divine Eucharist, the 7th Ecumenical Council
replied that “the precious gifts of the Eucharist are not simply
an image; they ARE the Body and the Blood of Christ.”
Finally, we will close with Saint John of Damascus, who summarizes
the orthodox faith as regards our subject:
«And you now ask: how does the bread become the Body of Christ, and
the wine and water the Blood of Christ?
And I reply to you: the Holy Spirit descends upon them and
transforms them, transcending logic and thought.
When receiving Holy Communion, we are given bread and wine; However, God knows the human condition and
its weakness of usually avoiding whatever it is not familiar with in
usage, because it is upsetting.
Thus, with His familiar condescension, God actualizes the
supernatural, with means that are familiar to our nature.
And, just as in Baptism (where people are accustomed to
bathing in water and anointing themselves with oil), He linked the
Grace of the Holy Spirit with the water and the oil and made it a
bath of rebirth, likewise here, where people usually eat bread and
drink water and wine, He linked them to His godhood,
transforming them into His Body and Blood, so that with the usual
and natural we be led to the supernatural.
The Body
(that we consume) – and had originated from the Holy Virgin – is
truly the Body that is joined to divine nature. The Body which
had ascended does NOT descend from heaven; the bread and the wine
are transformed into Body and Blood of God.
And if you want to learn the way – how it is done - it
suffices for you to hear that
it is done by the Holy Spirit, exactly the way that the Lord had
assumed flesh for Himself from the Holy Theotokos by means of the
Holy Spirit. And we know nothing more, except that the Logos of God
is real, active and almighty, whereas the manner (of His
incarnation) is unsearchable...
The bread and the wine are not a “model” of Christ’s Body and Blood
– of course not! – but is the deified, very Body of Christ, as the
Lord Himself had said: “This IS my body” – not a model of His
body, nor a model of His Blood, but “This IS my blood”; and
prior to saying this, He had said to the Judeans that “unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have eternal life.
For my flesh is true fare and my blood is true drink”.
Elsewhere, He had said: “He
who consumes me, shall live”.
That is why, with every fear, with a clean conscience and an
unwavering faith, let us approach; and most assuredly, if we have no
doubts, we shall receive in accordance with our faith. And let us
honour this, with every cleanliness, both spiritual and corporal,
for it is double.”
(John of Damascus, Precise Essay of the Orthodox Faith,
chapter 86, On the holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord).
Translation:
A.N.
The Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents in infancy, and was
then taken to be reared by the abbess of a women’s monastery, named
Sophia. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God and
obedience. 
