Body and Blood of Christ

gregorytheSinner

Seems I have alot of questions regarding this topic.

We know that as Orthodox members we believe, that the bread and wine, infact becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, not a representation/symbol.

My question is:
Upon ingestion of the Body/Blood, do we believe, it returns to a different state as it passes through our body?  or Do we believe it remains as the Body/Blood of  Christ?  If so and i hate to be graphic, but is it excreted?

I was at a sermon this morning, where the priest was talking about certain aspects of the Body/Blood of Christ, and it got me thinking.

mabsoota

these are the sort of questions i have; for some reason i have a very strictly logical brain and often fail to understand when things are literal and when they are meant to be symbolic. i have thought about this for years, and would like to give my opinion, based on Bible studies and sermons i have heard in the church.
our church teaches that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in a mystical way, in other words, we don't know exactly what happens or if the elements would look different down a microscope. this is why we don't use the term 'transubstantiation' that is used by the catholic church.
it is not at the literal physical level that we understand what happens when we take the holy body and blood. of course, there are occasions in the churches history when people have been aware of some physical change in the elements, this usually happens when God sends a sign of His presence on a special occasion. however, we know that usually the holy body and blood look externally the same as we take them.
so the right question to ask is not 'what physically happens when we take the body and blood?' but 'what happens to us as people, as children of God as we take the body and blood?'
there is usually no physical change visible in our gut as we take the holy body and blood, but what does happen is that we receive a special blessing of the presence of God in us as we take them. He is definately present as we take the holy body and blood. He definately brings us His love, His strength and His purity as we repent of our sin and accept His sacrifice on our behalf. for many people, this is a profound experience; this can be seen as everyone becomes quiet at this point as they connect again with the head of our body, the church.
it is far, far more than a symbol; if it was, the 'left-overs' could be recycled and used for other purposes. if we started to investigate this at the molecular level, we may or may not see something. whether we see something or not physically is not important. the change in the bread and wine happens at the interaction of the physical and the spiritual levels, a place we can't discern with science or explain with formulae.
the Word of God is described as 'sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. (hebrews 4:12)
i think it's somewhere in this place 'between soul and spirit' that the most holy body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ have their action, a place that is hard to describe in words, not possible to see with the microscope, but very, very real.

Unknown

in my opinion, ask H.H Pope Shenouda III.

childoforthodoxy

Hello my brothers and sisters in Christ,

I hope that you are all well. I felt the need to interject into this discussion on a point that came up in mabsoota's post, namely that the Orthodox Church does not believe in transubstantiation. This is not true. The Greek term μετουσίωσις (metousiosis) means a "change in essence", and is the Greek term used to described the Latin term transsubstantiatio (transubstantiation). If you would, please clarify the source from which you obtained the information that the Orthodox Church does not believe in transubstantiation, not simply as an acceptance of the word but of the idea behind the word. Yes, the word itself was put into place by the Roman Catholic Church after the Great Schism, but I am speaking in terms of the idea behind the word.

Note: I realize that an official acceptance of the word "transubstantiation" has never been made and that the word "change" is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The Church Fathers: http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

Permit me, also, to make use of one of the stories related in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers:

"This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete' he was deceived and said, "The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol." Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, "Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol." The old man said, "It is I who have said that." Then the old men exhorted him saying, "Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the katholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ and that the cup itself is his blood and this in all truth and not a symbol. But as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ." The old man said to them, "As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced." So they said, "Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us." The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed in these words, "Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ." The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, "Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward." God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold an angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child in pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, "Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood." Immediately the flesh, which he held in his hand, became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, "God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith." Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labour. So all three returned with joy to their own cells.' "

In Christ,
childoforthodoxy

mabsoota

dear childfororthodoxy,
it was one of the deacons/subdeacons on this forum who objected to the term 'transubstantiation' in a previous post of mine, and from what i understand from my other coptic friends, it's the word which copts object to more than the idea, which i admit is very similar between catholics and orthodox. i can't say that it is the same, as i know some people on here would object to that!
i would be very interested to hear your and other people's thoughts in reply to the orignal question as it is a topic which interests me a lot. especially i would like advice on how to answer my protestant friends, most of whom find the idea of this change very strange.
interestingly, i met a anglican priest who was convinced the change happens, it seems some anglicans think the same way as us in this.

childoforthodoxy

We should view the "change" in terms of it being a Mystery. As such, it is not clearly defined with delineating lines what is and what is not. Is it possible that the whole of the Body and Blood is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract to be incorporated in full in our own bodies without suffering the idea of being "excreted"? It is a possibility. I do not know, nor do I believe that it is of any consequence; that is to say, would the answer edify me, would it change my understanding of God that has been presented to me by the Church, would it bring me, in effect, closer to God? I don't see how it could, either way. Whatever it may be, God has established it to be a certain way, a way that is beyond our understanding, truly, a Mystery. If we are to rationalize things and simply try to fit them into our own understanding, we will lose much of the essence of that with which we are presented with. In short, as I can not determine what it is that happens, nor is it for me to truly understand and know if the Holy Mysteries are expelled from the body, I bow in submission to the words of Christ, which command us to partake in the Divine Mysteries and do so without question of the sequelae to follow.

In terms of Protestants... it is said that Martin Luther himself either believed in transubstantiation or in "consubstantiation" (of the same substance). But, literally, to each Protestant, his own... his own way of thinking and rationalizing. Simply because Luther believed in something doesn't mean that those who followed in the Schism similarly believe. As such, it becomes quite difficult to "persuade," so to speak, a person who relies heavily on his or her own rationalism and disregards the words which have been spoken to us by the Church Fathers by the grace of the Holy Spirit. If it was a concept that would be easily grasped, it wouldn't be much of a Mystery.

childoforthodoxy

godislove260

Women in the Coptic Church are not permitted to receive the Communion while they are having their monthly period, the reason for that is said to be: losing blood means also losing the Blood of Christ which is in our body (similarly in general people are advised not to do anything that might cause them to bleed (etc shave) on the day they receive the Holy Mysteries. Is this a symbolic expression of respect? What about the Body and what happens with it? Doesn't the Blood go into the digestive system just as the Body?

If someone has more info, plz share

jydeacon

[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=8278.msg105679#msg105679 date=1251111428]
Women in the Coptic Church are not permitted to receive the Communion while they are having their monthly period, the reason for that is said to be: losing blood means also losing the Blood of Christ which is in our body (similarly in general people are advised not to do anything that might cause them to bleed (etc shave) on the day they receive the Holy Mysteries. Is this a symbolic expression of respect? What about the Body and what happens with it? Doesn't the Blood go into the digestive system just as the Body?

If someone has more info, plz share


This is one reason...the other which comes from the OT itself, is that women are considered "unclean" during this time and are not permitted to take of the Body or Blood because we have to be clean in body spirit and mind. This is also where the 40 and 80 days came from after giving birth to either a boy or a girl respectively. The woman is considered unclean during these 40 and 80 days. I think this goes for even men who may have cut themselves and are actually bleeding still..not those who simply have a cut and it has stopped although im not sure on this point..hope this was of some help

God Bless and Pray for me and my weakness

childoforthodoxy

Forgive me, my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, but I think that it is time to clear up a common misconception that has been propagated for some time concerning the idea of being "unclean" as it is properly understood in terms of a woman's menstrual cycle. If the administrators choose to remove this post, it is perfectly fine.

Allow me to quote a scholarly book at this point that may shed light on the situation:

The Hebrew word tame (unclean)... is not the ordinary word for things physically foul; it is a ritual term and corresponds exactly to the idea of taboo. The ideas 'unclean' and 'holy' seem to use to stand in polar opposition to one another, but it was not so with the Semites (the Jewish people). Among the later Jews the Holy Books 'defiled the hands' of the reader as contact with an impure thing did... Among the heathen Semites, therefore, unclean animals, which it was pollution to eat, were simply holy animals... [Frazer points] out that... women at childbirth and during menstruation are on the same level as divine kinds, chiefs, and priests, and must observe the same rules of ceremonial purity. The object of secluding women at menstruation is to neutralize the dangerous influences which are supposed to emanate from them at such times. The general effect of these rules is to keep the girl suspended, so to say, between heaven and earth.  The girl is viewed as charged with a powerful force which, if not kept within bounds, may prove the destruction both of the girl herself and of all with whom she comes in contact. The same explanation applies to the observance of the same rules by divine kings and priests The uncleanness, as it is called, of girls at puberty and the sactity of holy men do not... differ from each other. They are only different manifestations of the same supernatural energy.

This is to say, then, that women who were in their menstrual cycle or had just given birth were to be viewed as being spiritually charged, not as being unclean. They are charged with a gift that is given to them by God. As such, to my knowledge, the only people who practice the restriction of partaking in the Divine Mysteries are the Coptic Orthodox (perhaps the entire Oriental Orthodox, but of this I am not sure). Similarly, the waiting of 40 or 80 days to baptize is a tradition (small t) that is kept in our Church in accordance to the reference in the Old Testament, but is similarly not practiced in the other Orthodox faiths.

Forgive me if my words have offended you,
childoforthodoxy

godislove260

[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=8278.msg105681#msg105681 date=1251124218]
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=8278.msg105679#msg105679 date=1251111428]
Women in the Coptic Church are not permitted to receive the Communion while they are having their monthly period, the reason for that is said to be: losing blood means also losing the Blood of Christ which is in our body (similarly in general people are advised not to do anything that might cause them to bleed (etc shave) on the day they receive the Holy Mysteries. Is this a symbolic expression of respect? What about the Body and what happens with it? Doesn't the Blood go into the digestive system just as the Body?

If someone has more info, plz share


This is one reason...the other which comes from the OT itself, is that women are considered "unclean" during this time and are not permitted to take of the Body or Blood because we have to be clean in body spirit and mind. This is also where the 40 and 80 days came from after giving birth to either a boy or a girl respectively. The woman is considered unclean during these 40 and 80 days. I think this goes for even men who may have cut themselves and are actually bleeding still..not those who simply have a cut and it has stopped although im not sure on this point..hope this was of some help

God Bless and Pray for me and my weakness


[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=8278.msg105683#msg105683 date=1251131586]
Forgive me, my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, but I think that it is time to clear up a common misconception that has been propagated for some time concerning the idea of being "unclean" as it is properly understood in terms of a woman's menstrual cycle. If the administrators choose to remove this post, it is perfectly fine.

Allow me to quote a scholarly book at this point that may shed light on the situation:

The Hebrew word tame (unclean)... is not the ordinary word for things physically foul; it is a ritual term and corresponds exactly to the idea of taboo. The ideas 'unclean' and 'holy' seem to use to stand in polar opposition to one another, but it was not so with the Semites (the Jewish people). Among the later Jews the Holy Books 'defiled the hands' of the reader as contact with an impure thing did... Among the heathen Semites, therefore, unclean animals, which it was pollution to eat, were simply holy animals... [Frazer points] out that... women at childbirth and during menstruation are on the same level as divine kinds, chiefs, and priests, and must observe the same rules of ceremonial purity. The object of secluding women at menstruation is to neutralize the dangerous influences which are supposed to emanate from them at such times. The general effect of these rules is to keep the girl suspended, so to say, between heaven and earth.  The girl is viewed as charged with a powerful force which, if not kept within bounds, may prove the destruction both of the girl herself and of all with whom she comes in contact. The same explanation applies to the observance of the same rules by divine kings and priests The uncleanness, as it is called, of girls at puberty and the sactity of holy men do not... differ from each other. They are only different manifestations of the same supernatural energy.

This is to say, then, that women who were in their menstrual cycle or had just given birth were to be viewed as being spiritually charged, not as being unclean. They are charged with a gift that is given to them by God. As such, to my knowledge, the only people who practice the restriction of partaking in the Divine Mysteries are the Coptic Orthodox (perhaps the entire Oriental Orthodox, but of this I am not sure). Similarly, the waiting of 40 or 80 days to baptize is a tradition (small t) that is kept in our Church in accordance to the reference in the Old Testament, but is similarly not practiced in the other Orthodox faiths.

Forgive me if my words have offended you,
childoforthodoxy


thanks for your answers, but actually jydeacon, I specifically asked a coptic priest about the whole unclean thing, and he said this is NO LONGER the case in the New Testament, the era of grace, women are no longer viewed as 'unclean' at any time in their lives...

which is why I fail to understand the restriciton from taking communion for women during their menstrual cycle, especially since I heard, like childoforthodoxy said, that in other orthodox churches such ban from communion is not practised..

Also if we believe the Body to be somehow above the whole digestive system (which would include excretion at the end) then why is the Blood viewed differently??