The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

The Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.

The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The Eucharist, because it belongs to God's Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

From St. John of Damascus:

If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit...we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable.​

Hope this helps

In XC
-

 

you are correct on both accounts, we use leavened bread and the majority of scholars of the Last Supper do not believe that it was a Passover meal...

for those that may not know...the Orthodox as Thinkingstuff has already noted, use leavened bread and real wine...not wafers.

normally a member of the Parish Church...one that can bake...lol...will make the loaf of bread that will be used during Communion. The wine we use is purchased from a vineyard from Lebanon. Unlike the RCC who get their wafers imported from Rome (I believe).

As Thinkingstuff noted, not all the bread is used for communion...thus the presiding priest must estimate how much of the bread to use and it's the center portion of the bread that contains a seal imprinted in the bread...the rest of the bread is used for the "blessed bread" that everyone, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike can partake of after Liturgy.

Once the bread is cut up its place into the cup of wine and warm water is added to the mix...at that point, the faithful come forward and receives the elements from a spoon...and unlike the RCC, the faithful includes baptized babies too.

The Orthodox takes both the bread and wine, whereas the RCC takes the wafer and has the wine as an option...also only a priest can serve Communion in the Orthodox Church, whereas any layperson can handle the wafer in the RCC and give Communion.

In XC
-

 

I've noticed the use of the word 'consubstantiation' several times in this thread. Usually on this board this is a term used to describe Lutheran belief. In fact, in my Baptist college I was taught that Lutherans believe in 'consubstantiation'. They do not. They don't like to define the mystery anymore than the Orthodox. The following is taken from Wikipedia from the LCMS page:

""It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ's presence.["

Anglicans are much the same way. They leave Real Presence left un-defined.

 

Then why define it?

 

I don't know what "ancients" you are speaking of, but I do know the Biblical writers deny that the symbol is to be understood as conveying any reality or real effects:

Heb. 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

This is how Biblical writers looked at the ceremonial laws. Just stand out in the sun and take a look at your "shadow." I can drive my car over your shadow and no harm is done to the object casting that shadow, however, if I drive my car over the object casting that shadow there is real harm done.
The sacrificial laws were but shadows and never realities in regard to Christ or remission of sins, as "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins". However, what is interesting is that the language of remission was attached to the shadows nevertheless, and so we read that they were to perform the ritual/shadow "for thy cleansing" and "for sin."
However, Christ puts this SYMBOLISM into perspective in his healing of the leper in Luke 5:12-14

And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

His literal cleansing from leporsey was immediate (v. 13) but nevertheless he is told to the priests and offer "for thy cleansing." He did not offer the sacrifice in order to be LITERALLY cleansed as that had already been done. He offered the sacrifice in order to be CEREMONIALLY/FIGURATIVELY cleansed or to present the "shadow." The purpose for doing this was "for (Gr. eis) a testimony unto them."

Likewise, with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The same ceremonial language of remission of sins is attached to these ceremonial ordinances as was to the Old Testament ceremonial ordinances:

"be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS."

Thus, the same language of remission of sins attached to Old Covenant ceremonial ordinances are attached to New Covenant ceremonial ordinances. However, in both cases the language of remission has nothing to do with the ordinances as they are for the purpose to give a "testimony" of a reality previously obtained prior to submission to the ordinance. Literal remission of sins has already been literally obtained whereas the ordinance conveys only that truth in "shadow."

In the Old Testament, those who brought such offerings were to do so BECAUSE they believed already in what the ceremonies pictured not in order to obtain the truths being pictured. Peter makes this clear in Acts 10:43 as does the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 4:2, that LITERAL remission of sins was obtained by faith looking forward to the coming Christ:

"To HIM give all the prophets witness that whosoever believeth in his name shall receive remission of sins." - Acts 10:43

"The gospel was preached unto them as well as unto us" but it only accomplished remission of sins in those who actually believed it or where faith was mixed with the word in those who heard the gospel.

Here is the true background for understanding both the Lord's Supper and baptism rather than the superstitious philosophical yarns found in transubstantiation or consubstantiation or any other "mystical" nonsense.

 

Uh. the Law was never a symbol. This passage doesn't suggest it is either So you make an incorrect analogy Here.

Again you apply symbology where it doesn't exist. Christ healed the leaper that wasn't a symbol but an anouncement that the Kingdom of Heaven had come and he brought it with him.

I think you miss the significance of this part of the verse:

As you can see it was a testimony not a symbol.

Since your argument fails to show symbolism in the original language then its misapplied to use in baptism.

With this I agree. No symbolism yet defined in passages offered.

Yet it is interesting that God commanded Israel to practice the Law. There again symbolism fails.

 

I can't speak for protestants since I am not one. I will speak concerning the bible. I did not say that the use of the word spirit meant symbolism. I said it meant He was talking about spiritual things. He wasn't telling those people to literally eat His physical body or literally drink His physical blood. He would have been telling them to do something against the law they were still under at that time. He was telling them about something spiritual. He wasn't talking about the Lord's Supper, which wasn't even established at that time. That's what Orthodox and Catholics don't get. He wasn't talking about communion, He was talking about spiritually feasting on the things of Christ in the gospel, which was then established and being preached. He said that whoso eateth, a present tense verb. He did not say whoso shall one day eat once I establish this ceremony you at this time know nothing about. That's ridiculous. He wasn't talking about something physical, He was talking about something spiritual.

Now, the writings of Ignatius are not scripture, and therefore they are fallible and subject to error. That being said, that man did not say that the bread literally becomes the physical body of Jesus Christ. He's talking about the way one looks at the Lord's Supper.

Now, let's talk about the Lord's Supper and the materials used. The Catholics use wafers and the Orthodox use leaven bread. You hold that the bread becomes the body of Christ, but you use leavened bread. How contradictory is this? Paul said, "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therfore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." What right have you to claim that a piece of leavened bread becomes the physical body of Jesus when Jesus is unleavened, undefiled, and holy? You make a show of keeping the Lord's Supper but then you turn around and do something that is totally against scripture.

 

I agree. I would prefer stating that He is fully present in Mystery sacramentally.

 

The law was symbolic. It was something literally done. They really did offer sacrifices according to the commandment of God. However, these sacrifices were intended to picture Christ's work at Calvary and man's need of that work. Those sacrifices never put away a single sin. Those things were a picture, a shadow, a symbol of what would one day happen. Christ is the very image, the law was a shadow.

 

This text does not mean "the law" is a symbol. It is referring to CEREMONIAL law as the context immediately addresses in offerings. It is the offerings that are symbols or a "shadow" and NOT THE VERY IMAGE.

The leper is to offer such a sacrfice to the preists "for a testimony" of PREVIOUS HEALING not in order to be LITERALLY healed. Thus the sacrifice being offered is SYMBOLIC or a TYPE that does not obtain LITERAL cleansing but provides only CEREMONIAL/FIGURATIVE cleansing.

Likewise, the same language of remission of sin that characterize these CEREMONIAL TYPES/FIGURES but do not actually and literally convey remission of sins also characterize the Lord's Supper and Baptism as CEREMONIAL TYPES/FIGURES which also do not convey literal remission of sins.

 

yes you are...straight from the egg laid by Rome...LOL

Of course St. Ignatius writings aren't Holy Scripture...LOL...but that doesn't excuse the fact that St. Ignatius was a disciple of both the Apostle John and Peter, meaning he personally knew the Apostles and tradition has it that St. Ignatius was one of the kids Jesus called to Himself as recalled in the Gospel...but again, before you go all cockeyed, it's just tradition...so don't have a heart attack over it please...and if anything, I will side with someone who personally knew the Apostles, than some modern day theologian, who knows nothing of Church history proper...

furthermore, St. Ignatius plainly states that they confess NOT the Eucharist to be the FLESH of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again...meaning that this Eucharist is the same flesh that was nailed to the Roman Cross and was raised up again...not sure how you can skirt the obvious, but it really doesn't surprise me...

Because as I said and as Thinkingstuff has also alluded to, the majority of scholars who study the Lord's Supper do not believe that what was celebrated in the upper room was the actually OT Passover meal...because we see the Jewish authorities were wanting a quick execution of Jesus before the Passover began...thus we use the same type of bread i believe as "leavened" as was used in the upper room. but then again, i don't loose any sleep over the type of bread used...there's so much to learn and experience as an Orthodox Christian that the issue of bread type has yet to peak my intrest.

In XC
-

 

Before the passover the Jews were required to remove all leaven from their homes and this is alluded to in direct connection with "Christ our passover is sacrified for us" in I Cor. 5:6-8 and the only available bread is "unleavened" bread which is also stated clearly in this same connection in I Cor. 5:6-8. Hence, unleavened bread was used by the Lord in the Lord's Supper in the upper room as all leavened bread had been purged from the premises in preparation of the passover.

Hymenaeus and Alexander knew the Apostle Paul too but they went into error. Demas knew an apostle personally too but went into error. Just because someone was a disciple of an apostles does not mean they could not or did not speak erroneously. Tradition is judged by God's Word not vice versa. I can call the church I pastor "the body of Christ" (I Cor. 12:27) without meaning it is the LITERAL fleshly body of Christ and so we can point to the unleavened bread and say this is the body of Christ without meaning it is the LITERAL fleshly body of Christ. Both are metaphors - the church IS the metaphorical body of Christ and the bread is the metaphorical body of Christ. Nothing more or less.

 

there's a few things i just don't lose any sleep over, and the type of bread used is one, just as the KJVO controversy in the Baptist Church when I was a Baptist...I just felt and still do, that there's much more pressing issues facing the Church today that the version of Bible and/or type of Bread...some make it their life long study and that fine with me...i'll let the scholars debate that...

but since this is a message board and it's all about discussing and engaging each other in healthy debate...I'll elaborate...

Orthodox Christians use leavened bread because this is the ancient apostolic practice. I would side with the Orthodox, mainly because it was Antioch and places as such in the East were the Church started and grew from...The introduction of unleavened bread dates to the 8th century. But still there was and in some cases still is great controversy over the fact that the eastern Christian Church uses leavened bread and the Western Christian Churches use unleavened...

As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

It is a debated question whether Christ used leavened or unleavened bread at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, since different conclusions may be drawn, on the one hand, from the gospel of St. John and the synoptic Gospels on the other. History does not establish conclusively what the practice of the Apostles and their successors was, but it may be asserted with some probability that they made use of whatever bread was at hand, whether azymous or fermented.​

Most Orthodox scholars would argue that St. John's chronology should be seen as a clarification and therefore adhered to. This, combined with the fact that the word 'artos' generally means regular bread, favor the view that the Lord used leavened bread.

It is true that yeast is often presented in Scripture as a symbol of sin, but as common bread was used throughout the year for the Eucharist in the Apostolic Churches, the leavened character was understood as symbolic of life - the living and risen body of Christ. (See also Luke 13:20).

In XC
-

 

The book of first Corinthians predates the 8th century as well as both the RCC and the Orthodox Church and it demands that "unleavened" bread was used in the Lord's Supper and this is by the Apostle Paul and therefore it is apostolic order and practice. In I Cor. 5:7 Paul is alluding to the Old Testament command to remove all traces of leaven from the dwellings of the Israelites before partaking of the Passover.


6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Notice he says "Christ OUR passover is sacrificed for us" and then calls on them "therefore let US KEEP the feast." The "feast" they are to keep or observe has been previously defined as "Christ OUR passover" thus distinguishing it from the Jewish observance of the Passover over.

He is referring to the manner in which the Jews would remove all leaven from their houses in preparation of the passover. He is identifying the Lord's Supper as the Christian passover as the "feast" they are to "keep." In this Christian observance he explicitly commands - "NOT WITH OLD LEAVEN, NEITHER WITH LEAVEN....but with the UNLEAVENED BREAD...."

He is both defining what and why for the use in keeping "the feast" or in observance of the Lord's Supper. WHAT to be used is not bread made of "old leaven" or "with leaven" but "unleavened bread." WHY because the common symbolism of "leaven" is sin, false doctrine, and malice DEMONSTRATED BY THE MAN IN OPEN FORNICATION AMONG THEM which they are forbidden to "eat" this feast with (I Cor. 5:11) whereas the symbolism of "unleavened bread" is truth and sincerity. They are to remove this leavened member before they can "eat" or "keep the feast" which is "Christ our passover" by this church.

This is apostolic command not a suggestion and another reason that RCC and the Orthodox Church are apostate churches and not apostolic.

 

I never came out of Rome, so let's just get that straight right off the bat. Rome left the early church and went into error. There were congregations that beleived the truth before and during Rome's existence, and far before the Reformation took place.

Alright, with that out of the way, Ignatius did not say the bread was the physical body of Jesus. Again, he is talking of the way the Lord's Supper is viewed. Is it viewed as merely a ritual that doesn't mean anything? Or, it is viewed as vitally important? Is it viewed as a remembrance of His death, where we were saved from sin and reconciled to God? Where Jesus' body was broken and His blood shed to cleanse us from our sins and make us holy before God? Or do we view it just as some ritual Jesus did? If we view it in a haphazard fashion, it is only a matter of time before we neglect it. If we understand that we are partakers of the blessings of Christ's death, we should view communion with a more spiritual outlook. We should see that, like baptism, there is more there than just a ritual form, but that there is something spiritual there that is incredible and lovely.

Finally, the fact that a Christian will fight so much over the bread literally becoming the physical body of Christ and make such a big deal over that and then act like the type of bread used doesn't matter is absolutely ridiculous. Really, you should be more zealous of using the proper kind of bread than I am. After all, I don't believe that the bread miraculously becomes the actual physical body of Christ. You do. Seeing as Christ was without spot and blemish, without sin, without malice, without error, etc, you should fight to use unleavened bread. But you see, that's how these denominations work. They make a fuss over something like "the real prescence" and all manner of man made rituals, but then turn around and treat the only two ordinances the Lord Jesus actually gave to His church to perform with disregard. They say it doesn't matter what kind of bread you use in communion. They say that sprinkling is perfectly fine when baptizing and it is ok to baptize an infant. Just a complete and total lack of regard for the ordinances God gave to His church. I'm not surprised that you quoted extra-biblical sources to support your man made doctrine - you've already rejected the bible in two of the most important church practices.

 

Maybe this will clarify...The Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not seek to re-enact the Last Supper Dr. Walter. In some ways it makes very specific changes in that early meal. The bread is not the unleavened bread of an Old Testament Passover Meal. In Byzantine practice, it is, by canon law, always leavened bread (this difference with the Western Church carried far more argument in the 10th century than questions of the filioque.) Hot water is added to the wine – something which has meaning in Christian practice, but no place within Old Testament Passover liturgies. Though the Church refers to this meal as the Passover (Pascha in Greek) it means to stand somewhere else in time.

Hope that helps

In XC
-

 

In other words, they've done whatever they wanted to with the ordinance with little regard for scripture.

 

Why, because Rome says to? You use unleavened bread because your denomination was born from the Reformation out of the Roman Church...YOU also recognize a specific day as "Easter" when Rome tells you to as well, yes? Of course you do, why? Because you are a Protestant...sorry

In XC
-

 

Then prove to me that Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper...prove to me that the Last Supper Jesus shared with His Apostles was in fact the Passover meal...

the practice of using leavened vs unleavened bread in the Eucharist goes to the Orthodox teaching regarding the "Last Supper" and the chronology of the events of Holy Week. Proponents of the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist point to the Gospel of Matthew and maintain the that Last Supper was a Passover Seder and thus the bread would be unleavened, while Orthodoxy, in accordance with the other Gospels and the chronology that indicates that our Lord died on the Cross on the eve of the Passover feast maintains that the Last Supper was not the Seder, but rather a meal during the preparatory period of Passover and thus the bread would have been leavened.

Thus we use leavened bread because we follow the example of our Lord when He instituted the Eucharist. The use of unleavened bread was itself a later deviation (admittedly a widely accepted one) from the original use of leavened bread.

In XC
-

 

In reading through the posts this has already been demonstrated to you but you won't accept it.
Furthermore, leaven is always symbolic either of sin or of wrong doctrine in the Bible, and never of any thing else. Why would Christ use a symbol of sin to represent himself? Does that make any sense to you?
"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." That was a command.
He was referring to their corrupt and sinful doctrine.

The feast of unleavened bread. The leaven was a symbol of sin. Egypt was a symbol of bondage and of sinful activity. The Exodus was symbolic of a coming out of slavery into Freedom into the promised land--a land where there was no corruption (no leaven), and thus they had to use unleavened bread in the Passover.
From that time onward unleavened bread was used in the Passover, which Christ also was using.

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
--Leaven speaks of corruption. God kept Christ from corruption.

There was no leavened bread used in the Last Supper. In that you do err.

Again there was no leavened bread used in the Passover. You do err. Christ would not use something symbolic of corruption to represent himself. Check 1Cor.5, where He Himself is referred to as Our Passover.

It is all speculation and rationalization on your part. Leavened bread was never used in the Passover. You cannot demonstrate that from the Scriptures. It is not the example of the Lord. Christ would condemn it.