Евхаристия

§ 148. The concept of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The promise of the establishment of this sacrament and the establishment itself The essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist. - Preparing students for this sacrament. – The Lord’s establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Through baptism, a person enters into the gracious kingdom of Christ, mysteriously reborn to a new and holy life in union with God. In confirmation, the baptized person is given grace, which strengthens him in a new life and contributes to the growth of this life. But just as physical life cannot continue and develop without food and drink, so spiritual life needs food corresponding to it. Such food is served to the regenerate in the Eucharist, or sacrament of communion. “Communion is a sacrament in which the believer, under the guise of bread and wine, partakes of the very body and blood of Christ for eternal life” (Katikh.). I. Christ, preparing His disciples for the understanding of high mysteries and great events, predicted them in advance. So it is with regard to the Eucharist - before its establishment, He gave a promise about this sacrament in a conversation about animal bread (John VI ch.). He said: I am the living bread that came down from heaven: whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread, which I will give (δώσω), is My flesh (ή σαρξ Μοϋ εστίν), which I will give (δώσω) for the life of the world (v. 51). In these words, I. Christ represents His flesh, His humanity, on the one hand, as an atoning sacrifice for the world, on the other, as food that gives eternal life to believers. The words of the Lord were beyond the understanding of the Jews, who began to argue among themselves: how can He give us His flesh to eat (τήν σάρκα φαγείν), that is, the very flesh that they saw before them (v. 52). Apparently they understood His words in the sense of eating His body, and not in the sense of eating Christ spiritually by faith. And I. Christ not only did not show them in any way that His words should not be understood in their own sense, but, on the contrary, revealed even more strongly the teaching about eating His flesh. These are the significant words of the God-man: Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, nor drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood will have an eternal life, and I will resurrect him on the last day. For My flesh is truly meat, and My blood is truly beer. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in Him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live for the Father’s sake; and the one who is poisoned is Me, and that one will live for My sake (53–57 vv.). The Lord fulfilled the promise of granting His faithful spiritual food - His flesh and blood - on the night of His saving suffering at the Last Supper with His disciples, establishing and even apparently performing the very sacrament of the Eucharist. The evangelists tell about it this way: to those who eat, Jesus receives bread (τόν άρτον), and having blessed, broken, and given to the disciple, and says: take, eat, this is My body (τούτο έστί then σώμα Μού). And having received the cup and given praise, he gave it to them, saying: drink of it, all of you! For this is My blood (τοιεστί then αίμα Μού) of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:26–28; cf. Mark 14:22–24). According to the evangelists (almost literally similar to St. Luke), it tells about the establishment of the Eucharist and St. Paul: “I received from the Lord, and gave it to you,” he says, “as the Lord Jesus in the night, when you were betrayed, received bread, and broke it, giving thanks, and said: take, eat, this is my body (τουτο Μου έστι τό σώδμα), which is for you broken (in St. Luke - hedgehog for giving); do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise, the cup at supper, saying: this cup is the new covenant in My blood (in St. Luke - By My blood, which is shed for you); Do this in remembrance of Me (1 Cor. 11:23–25; Luke 22:19–20). With all the depth and incomprehensibility of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the Lord’s disciples accepted the institution of the sacrament, and in particular the words of the institution, without misunderstanding or surprise, and this suggests that they were prepared for it by the Savior’s promise about its institution. § 149. The visible side of the sacrament The substance of the sacrament of communion. – Question about unleavened bread. – Prayerful celebration of the sacrament. – The question of perfecting words and the time of transubstantiation of gifts. The establisher of the Eucharist, the Lord I. Christ, commanded that a “special place” be prepared for the supper, and the disciples prepared it in a spacious and “decorated” upper room. So in the Church of Christ, the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated not in every place, but in the consecrated church, of which the altar and antimension constitute an essential part. Without an antimension, “it is impossible to make a bloodless sacrifice” (Right Confession 107). The divine service at which the Eucharist is celebrated is the liturgy, without which the celebration of this sacrament in any other way is also impossible. In the very celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the visible side of it essentially includes: the use of an established substance corresponding to the concept of body and blood, and the prayerful celebration of the supper (the final words and actions of the sacrament). I. The substance in the sacrament of communion is bread and wine. The basis for the use of these substances is found in the history of the establishment of the sacrament. Bread and wine correspond in their properties to the body and blood invisible in the Eucharist; Christ - true food and true drink. In particular, regarding the bread of the Eucharist, first of all, it must be borne in mind that since it means one body and one intercessor of Christ the Lord, and the communion of the faithful in the sacramental bread indicates their union with Christ and among themselves into one body, then in fact for the sacrament one bread should serve, and not many: for as there is one bread, one body we are many; For we partake of the one bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And I. Christ, when establishing this sacrament, received bread (one, and not two, three or more) and, having blessed, broke it (one piece of bread into pieces), and gave it to the disciple (Matthew 26:26). The bread for the sacrament should be wheat, in imitation of the Eucharist of Christ, for such bread was used by the Jews in the days of Jesus Christ, such bread was always used by the church for the sacrament, and, as far as possible, the best, pure, both in the very substance from which it is prepared, and in the method of preparation. This is required by the holiness and majesty of the sacrament. On the question of whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used for the Eucharist, for a long time there was no confusion or doubt in the church: leavened bread was consumed everywhere and for many centuries in the East and West. The only exceptions were the Ebionites (II century), then the Armenians (from the 7th century). But in the middle of the 11th century, it became known in the East, where leavened bread was and is still used for the Eucharist, that Western churches everywhere introduced unleavened bread for this sacrament. Historical truth, however, is on the side of using leavened bread in the Eucharist, rather than unleavened bread. This is revealed from the following. The Gospels do not directly say about the bread of Christ's supper, whether it was leavened or unleavened. Jewish law obliged the consumption of unleavened bread only and exclusively on the days of their Passover (from the evening of the 14th to the evening of the 21st of Nisan), prohibiting at this time the eating of leavened bread under threat of death (Ex. 12:15–20; Lev 23:5–7). In the year of the crucifixion and death of the Redeemer, the Jews celebrated Easter days later than Christ celebrated supper with His disciples. Ev. John directly testifies that I. Christ celebrated His Paschal supper before the Easter holiday (13, 1), and the Jews, who brought I. Christ on Friday morning from Caiaphas to Pilate, after He celebrated the Passover with His disciples, did not go into the praetor, lest they be defiled, but eat the Pascha (18, 28). Consequently, until this time the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover lamb. If Jesus Christ celebrated His supper and established the sacrament of the Eucharist before the Jews celebrated Passover and the days of unleavened bread, then this gives reason to conclude that when He established the Eucharist, He used the bread that the Jews usually used on non-Easter days, that is, leavened bread, and not unleavened bread. True, before the establishment of the sacrament, He celebrated the Old Testament Passover according to the customs and law of the Jews, which presupposes the use of a lamb and unleavened bread. But if we admit that unleavened bread was used during the celebration of the Old Testament Passover, does it necessarily follow that Christ established the sacrament of the New Testament on unleavened bread, which had a special ritual meaning in the Old Testament? Isn’t it more natural to think, on the contrary, that, having celebrated the Old Testament Passover on unleavened bread, the Lord established the sacrament of the New Testament on a new substance, on leavened bread? Some confirmation of this can be seen in the fact that the evangelists and ap. Paul, the bread used by the Savior at the establishment of the Eucharist is called the word άρτος (from αίρω - I raise), and this name is used in Scripture preferably to designate bread that has risen, leavened, that is, leavened. Unleavened bread in Scripture is called either simply unleavened bread – άζυμον, unleavened bread – άζυμα, or “bread”, but always with the adjective “unleavened” – άρτος άζυμος (Num. 6, 19; Ex. 19:2; Lev 2, 4; 7, 25; Judges 6, 20). In the days of the apostles, the Eucharist was celebrated on leavened bread, and in this case the apostles, without a doubt, followed the example of the Savior. Everywhere in the book. Acts ap. Eucharistic bread is called άρτος᾿ om. The Eucharist was then celebrated often, at different times and in different places (Acts 2:42–46; 20, 7; 1 Cor. 19ff; 11, 20ff), and nowhere is it mentioned that special bread, unleavened bread, was prepared for it. In addition, in the book. Acts noted that the apostles, together with the disciples in Troas, broke bread, that is, they celebrated the Eucharist on a weekday more than seven days after the days of unleavened bread (Acts 20:6-7), when there was no longer any unleavened bread in use. All new converts to Christ then participated in the Eucharist, and the Jews would not agree to receive the sacrament on unleavened bread all day long (Acts 2:42–46) until the apostles decided how to look at the law of Moses. The history of the primal church testifies that the bread for celebrating the Eucharist was usually borrowed from the offerings (προσφορά) of the people, who, without a doubt, brought ordinary bread, since it was intended both for suppers of love (agap) and for helping the poor (1 Cor. 11:21-22). Ancient writers called the bread used for the Eucharist ordinary, leavened bread (Greek - άρτος᾿ om, Latin - panis usitatus, that is, commonly used bread, also termentum, that is, leavened bread). And the Trullo Council (11 rights) strictly forbade the clergy and laity to accept unleavened bread given by the Jews. If Christians should not even accept unleavened bread from the Jews (and according to 70 ap. laws, they should not even use Jewish unleavened bread), then did the ancient church not consider it all the more inappropriate to use them in such a sacred rite as the Eucharist? The second substance for the Eucharist is grape wine. The Savior Himself used grape wine at the establishment of the sacrament, as His words show: I say to you, that the imam should not drink from the fruit of this vine (Mark 14:25; Matt. 26:29). Since the wine of the Eucharist should represent the blood of Christ to the sensual eyes, it should be red. In Palestine and in the east in general, red grape wine was usually and preferably consumed (Gen. 49:11; Deut. 32:14). Grape wine must not be mixed with any other liquid - a pure and whole product of the vine. When performing the sacrament, wine is combined with water, which, according to Eastern custom (Proverbs 9:2) and according to tradition, was also performed by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. The church also assigns a special sign to the combination of wine and water, namely, that during Christ’s suffering on the cross, blood and water flowed from His pierced side. While maintaining unchanged the establishment of the use of wine in the Eucharist, combined with water during the offering, the Church, even in ancient times, condemned both those who did not use wine at all in the Eucharist, but only water (Encratites and Manichaeans), and those who, on the contrary, used only wine for the sacrament, without combining it with water (Armenians). II. The Eucharist is celebrated at the Divine Liturgy. The sacred act through which St. gifts already dedicated to God on the altar (in the proskomedia), after they are transferred during the great entrance to the throne, by the action of the Spirit of God are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, offered to God as a sacrifice for the living and the dead, and accepted by the believers for the sanctification of soul and body, performed in its last part - the Liturgy of the Faithful. More specifically, bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ when the minister of the mystery, after offering praise and thanksgiving to God for all His innumerable blessings revealed in creation, providence, and especially in sending to us the Son - the Savior of the world: 1) the words of the establishment of the sacrament are proclaimed: accept, eat... and drink from it all... These words express the will of the Savior about the transformation of bread and wine into His body and blood, and “by His almighty command,” says St. I. Damascene, so it happens and will be (that is, the division of bread and wine will take place) until the time when it comes; for so it is said: until he comes” (Accurate ex. c. IV, 13). At the same time, these words also constitute a saving commandment, according to which the altar servers dare and without which they would never dare to begin the sacred rite of such a great and terrible sacrament. It would be a mistake, therefore, to assign only narrative meaning to these words; 2) when the Holy Spirit is called upon the offered gifts, as the performer of transubstantiation (by prayer and the words: “send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and on these gifts set before us”), and 3) they are blessed three times by the Holy Spirit. gifts with the words: and make (ποίησον) for this bread (άρτος) this honorable body of Thy Christ, and in this cup the honorable blood of Thy Christ, translating (μεταβαλών) by Thy Holy Spirit” (rite of the liturgy of St. I. Chrysostom; almost the words of blessing in the liturgy of St. Basil V. are identical). The consecration of the gifts thus begins with the (Eucharistic) prayer, continues with the repetition of the Savior’s institutive words, and ends with the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of the gifts, may the power of God act upon them. Their mysterious transposition is combined with all three actions, but before the words of the prayer are uttered: and create this bread... obviously, the celebrant still has bread before him, which was not created by the body of Christ, the consecration of which, however, has begun. But when the blessing is performed, the celebrant, with a bow to the ground, already expresses reverence for the body and blood of Christ. This belief is based on the evidence of Scripture regarding the institution of the Eucharist. Evangelists point out that I. Christ, celebrating His supper, did not simply and usually give bread and wine to the apostles, but first gave praise (εύχαρίοτησας, - Luke 22:19), thanked (ε᾿ χαρίοτησας, - 1 Cor 11, 24) and blessed (εύλόγησας, - Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22), that is, he performed a prayerful and sanctifying action, after which the bread and wine should cease to be simple and ordinary bread and wine, and with thanksgiving and blessing he presented them to the disciples as the most pure body and as the most pure blood, commanding them to do this in His remembrance. Ap. Paul calls the Eucharistic cup a cup of blessing, which we bless (1 Cor. 10:16). That is why the prayer of thanksgiving, the words of establishing the sacrament of the Savior and the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the offered gifts for their sanctification and transformation are found. and in the Eucharistic Prayer (canon) of all other liturgies. § 150. The transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist Offering of gifts. – The most ancient liturgies are similar in that believers accept the true body and true blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. – Late origin of the doctrines of the Western Church. In the Eucharist, under the guise of bread and wine, Christ the Savior gives us Himself as saving food - His most pure body and His most holy blood. We believe, the Eastern patriarchs teach, that after the consecration of bread and wine, the bread is broken (μεταβάλλεσθαι), transubstantiated (μετουβσιοίσθαι), transformed (μεταποιήσθαι), npeobrazyemcya (μετ a ρριθμίζεσθαί) into the very true body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem from the Ever-Virgin, baptized in the Jordan, suffered, buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, has to appear on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is transformed and transubstantiated into the very true blood of the Lord, which, during His suffering on the cross, was poured out for the life of the world” (Eastern Patr. 17). Transformation or transubstantiation must be thought in such a way that “the very essence of bread and the very essence of wine is transformed into the essence of the true body and blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit” (Right. Confession 107). From here, after the consecration of St. gifts, although they seem to our external senses to be bread and wine, “but truly, truly and essentially the bread is the very true body of the Lord, and the wine the very blood of the Lord” (Post. Eastern Pat. 17 ch.). This teaching about the essence of the Eucharist is based on the clear evidence of Scripture about this sacrament. This is also what the ancient universal church believed. I. Giving the promise of the establishment of the Eucharist, I. Christ taught: I will give bread, which I will give, which I will give for the life of the world, that is, that in the Eucharist believers will eat His very flesh or His very body under the guise of bread. This is how the Jews understood the words of the Lord, and Christ not only did not reject this, that is, their literal understanding, but on the contrary, with even greater clarity and separateness, he proposed the doctrine of eating His flesh and blood in the above words: Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you do not drink His blood, etc. It is impossible to understand these words in a figurative sense. In a figurative sense, the expression - there is flesh always and everywhere means: to cause great harm to another, to inflict a cruel insult, especially to slander and slander (for example, Job 19:22; Ps. 26: 2; Mic. 3, etc.). Consequently, if we understand the words of the Savior’s promise about the Eucharist in a figurative sense, then they will receive the following meaning: poisoning My flesh, or (if we replace the metaphor with our own expression) causing Me the greatest evil, offense - to have eternal life, and vice versa: if we do not bear the flesh of the Son of man, or (actually speaking) we will not inflict cruel insults on Him, slander and slander Him, Let's not have a belly in us! The inconsistency of such a combination of thoughts is obvious, but inevitable with a metaphorical understanding. In the same way, it is unacceptable to understand the expression drinking blood in a figurative sense. Here it should be borne in mind that the law of Moses persistently instilled in the Jews an aversion to the blood of animals, even clean ones, and not only forbade the use of it, but threatened it with severe punishment (Gen.9:4; Lev. 7, 27; Ezek.33:25-27, etc.). If the law instilled in the Jews an aversion to the blood of animals, then human blood, of course, should arouse this feeling to an even greater extent. And so, the Lord I. Christ offers to drink human blood! By using such an image of expression in an improper, metaphorical sense, the Savior would thereby make the very subject of teaching hateful to His listeners, and, moreover, would do this intentionally. But, of course, nothing like this can be allowed. If, however, the Lord speaks of partaking of His body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist, then His words must be understood literally. The same teaching about the essence of the Eucharist is also contained in the narratives about the establishment of this sacrament. I. Christ did not directly offer His disciples the Eucharistic bread and wine, but first performed a special blessing over the bread and wine and uttered words of prayerful thanksgiving to His Father. The blessing of bread and wine by the almighty right hand of the God-man, of course, could remain ineffective. Through prayerful blessing, bread and wine were transformed by Him into His own body and into His own blood. Only with this understanding will the words of the Savior be understood when teaching the disciples the bread He blessed (ό άρτος): take, eat: this (τοίτο) is My body (το σώμα), and when teaching, with blessing, the cups of wine (ό ποίνος – wine): drink of it, all of you, this (τοίτο) for this is My blood (το αίμα) (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20). The image of the expression is significant, special: the nouns άρτος - bread and ποίνος - wine, masculine, meanwhile τοίτο - this - neuter (from οίτος - this). From here it is obvious that the word “this” does not refer to bread and wine, but to the words: σώμα - body and αίμα - blood, which are neuter nouns. Τοίτο indicates that I. Christ held it in his hands and taught it to his students without naming the subject. And this makes it clear that bread and wine, after the prayerful blessing of Jesus Christ, ceased to be essentially bread and wine and were transformed into His body and blood, preserving the properties of bread and wine only for our senses. Hence, the link in the above words should be understood not in the sense of meaning or signifying, but in its usual and direct meaning, i.e., that the Savior, under the guise of bread and wine, taught His true body and His true blood to the disciples. This, that is, a strictly literal understanding of the words establishing the sacrament, is also required by the following. About that which has the appearance of bread, the Savior told His disciples that it is given for you, and about that which has the appearance of wine, He said: it is poured out for many for the remission of sins. This indicates the essential identity of what is eaten under the guise of bread and wine with the body crucified on the cross and with the shed blood of the God-Man. Ap. Paul, regarding the participation of some Corinthian Christians in pagan sacrifices, writes: my beloved brethren, flee from idolatry... Judge ye, as I say: the cup of blessing, which we bless, is this not fellowship of the blood of Christ? bread, we break it, isn’t there fellowship of the body of Christ?... You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; You cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:14–16, 21). Just as by the cup and table of demons, that is, by the feasts of the pagans at sacrifices, no doubt, one should understand not only figurative, but actual eating of the blood and meat of sacrificial animals, so, obviously, believers looked at the cup and table of the Lord or the Eucharist as the actual communion of the true body and blood of Christ. The apostle wrote to the Corinthians: whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27), which is why careful preparation and testing of those approaching the Eucharist is necessary: ​​let a man tempt himself, and so let him eat from the bread and let him drink from the cup. He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment without considering the body of the Lord (28-29). The apostle represents as the consequences of unworthy communion the illnesses that happened to the Corinthians who received communion unworthily, which often ended in death: for this reason in you there are many who are weak and sickly and sleep contentedly, that is, many die (v. 30). II. The Church has always believed and taught that at the Lord's Table the true flesh and true blood of the Lord are presented to believers. The most ancient liturgies, similar to each other in their composition, all equally contain, like the currently used rites of the liturgies of Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom, the invocation of the Holy Spirit for the consecration of gifts and the confession that by the action or influx of the Holy Spirit bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council confessed: “at the divine table one should not see simply bread and a cup offered, but, rising in mind, one should understand by faith that the Lamb of God lies on it, taking away the sins of the world, sacrificed by the priests, and truly accepting His honorable body and blood, one should believe that this is a sign of our resurrection.” The Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council approved the message of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which says: “we make a bloodless sacrifice in the churches and are sanctified by partaking of the holy flesh and honest blood of Christ, the Savior of us all.” – The Seventh Ecumenical Council teaches: “never from the trumpets of the Spirit, that is, St. apostles and our glorious fathers, did not call the bloodless sacrifice an image (είκόνα) of the flesh of Christ, but the very body and very blood of the Lord. III. It is clear from this how one should look at the statement (of Protestants and Old Catholics) that the doctrine of the “transubstantiation” of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is not a dogma of revelation and the ancient universal church, but simply a theological opinion (doctrine) of later origin. It is true that in St. The term “transubstantiation” is not found in Scripture. However, in St. Scripture provides a solid basis for the teaching about the transition of the essence of bread and wine in the Eucharist into the essence of the body and blood of the God-Man, although they retain the properties of bread and wine for our senses. The very word (term) to denote this thought, i.e. “transsubstantiatio” (μετουσίωοις), is indeed of relatively later origin (came into use in the West in the 11th-12th centuries, and in the East for the first time in the 15th century). Ancient teachers used other words (in the 1st-3rd centuries - εστί, γίγνεται, ποιείν, tacere, in the 4th-7th centuries - μεταβολή, ματαποίησις, etc.) for expressions of the Eucharistic mystery. But not using the word “transubstantiation”, but using other words, the ancient fathers and teachers of the church contained and revealed the same teaching of I. Christ and the Apostles about the Eucharist, which is implied and given in the word “transubstantiation.” And the introduction of this new term does not say anything against the term itself, nor against the teaching contained in it. It would be a different matter if the church abolished such a word, which would have been forever established by the church to express any truth professed by it, but in this case this is not the case. The Church, from several terms, chose one that most accurately and clearly, “correctly and very strongly” (in the words of Metropolitan Macarius), in comparison with others, expresses the very essence of the ancient and constant teaching of the Church about the sacrament of the Eucharist and protects the truth from false teachings. § 151. The incomprehensibility of the mystery of transubstantiation. Particular explanations of the teaching about the image of the presence of I. Christ in the Eucharist The incomprehensibility of the mystery of transubstantiation. – The inseparable presence of the divine essence with the body and blood of the Lord. – The meaning of dividing and crushing the type of bread and wine. - Presanctified gifts. – Graceful worship of the Lord in gifts. – Objections to opponents of the transubstantiation of gifts. I. The transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery incomprehensible to us, constituting the object of reverent faith. “We believe,” teach the Eastern Patriarchs, “that the word “transubstantiation” does not explain the image by which bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of the Lord, for this cannot be comprehended by anyone except God Himself, and the efforts of those who want to comprehend this can only be the result of madness and wickedness: but it only shows that bread and wine, after consecration, are transmuted into the body and blood of the Lord, not figuratively, not symbolically, not in excess grace, not the communication or influx of the only divinity of the Only Begotten, but truly and essentially the bread is the truest body of the Lord, and the wine the very blood of the Lord” (Ecclesiastical paragraph 17). In the mystery of the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of the God-Man, however, there is nothing inappropriate for reasonable faith. Ancient teachers spoke a lot about the possibility of the mystery of transformation, either denouncing unbelief, or protecting believers from doubt and wavering in faith. They pointed out that the performer of this highest miracle is God - the same incarnate Word, Who performed all the miracles of the Gospel, acts with the same power of the Holy Spirit in the miraculous transfer of bread into His body and wine into His blood. Therefore, the compulsion for your faith is the same both to recognize the miracles of God’s omnipotence in general and the Gospel in particular, and the Eucharistic miracle of the transmutation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Damascus. Exact. Ill. c. IV, 13). The ancient teachers also explained this idea with similarities. Yes, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (secret f. IV, 2) compared the Eucharistic transformation of bread and wine with the transformation of water into wine at Cana, Gregory of Nyssa (and after him St. I. Damascene) - with how in ourselves the bread and wine or water that we take as food, unknown to us, are transformed into our body and blood (Bol. ogl. sl. Chapter 37). II. Recognizing the incomprehensible image of the presence of I. Christ in the Eucharist through transubstantiation, the Church, in order to prevent misconceptions about this mystery and for the purpose of possible clarification of it, teaches in the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs” (17 parts) the following private truths regarding the image of the presence of I. Christ in the Eucharist. 1) Although bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist are actually transformed into the body and blood of the Lord, He is present in this sacrament not only with His body and blood, but also “in His essence, that is, with soul and divinity, or perfect God and perfect man.” He Himself taught: He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. poisonous Me, he will live for My sake. 2) “The body and blood of the Lord, although they are divided and fragmented” during the communion of believers into many parts, “but this happens only with types of bread and wine... In each part, down to the smallest particle of the bread and wine offered, there is not any separate part of the body and blood of the Lord, but the body of Christ is always whole and in all parts one” - the whole Christ the God-man. Why “the universal Church always says: “The Lamb of God is fragmented and divided, fragmented, but not divided, always poisonous, never consumed, but sanctifying those who partake (of course, worthily.”) Therefore, he who eats the slightest part of the bread and wine transferred into the body and blood of Christ partakes of the same whole divine body, to which Christ Himself belongs according to His divinity. This teaching excludes grossly sensual ideas about the Eucharistic body and blood of Christ, according to which in the Eucharist believers do not generally accept the true body and blood of Christ, inseparably united with His deity, but eat certain constituent parts of the body of Christ. 3) “Although at the same time there are many sacred rites throughout the universe, there are not many bodies of Christ, but one and the same Christ is truly and truly present, one body and one blood in all the individual churches of the faithful. And this is not because the body of the Lord, which is in heaven, descends on the altar, but because the showbread, prepared separately in all the churches, and being transmuted and transubstantiated after consecration, becomes one and the same with the body that is in heaven. For the Lord always has one body, and not many in many places.” 4) “After the consecration of bread and wine, it is no longer the bread and wine itself that remains, but the very body and blood of the Lord, under the appearance and image of bread and wine,” that is, their essence becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. They remain such for the entire subsequent time, as long as they remain in their forms, without being converted back into bread and wine - they remain constantly, that is, “before consumption after consecration, during the use itself and after it,” therefore, regardless of whether they are consumed by believers. On this basis, in the church from ancient times there has been a custom to celebrate the liturgy on presanctified gifts on certain days, and to store consecrated gifts in sacred vessels for the guidance of the sick and dying, as the true body and blood of Christ. 5) Since in the Eucharist, after consecration, bread and wine are the most divine body and the most divine blood of Jesus Christ, in which He is always inherent in His divinity, then “the body and blood of the Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist should be given special honor and divine worship; what we owe to the worship of our Lord Himself and Christ, the same body and blood of the Lord.” III. Opponents of the doctrine of transubstantiation sometimes say that this doctrine is refuted by the evidence of our senses, for even after the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts we see and taste bread and wine. If, however, there really is a miracle of transubstantiation, then why does God hide from us the sight of the body and blood in the mystery of communion? In "Orthodox. Confession” gives the following explanation of this issue: “in the Eucharist, bread is changed into the true body of Christ, and wine into true blood; There remain only one kind of them that appears to the eye. And this is by divine order. Firstly, so that we do not see the body of Christ with our eyes, but believe that this is it, on the basis of the words that Christ said: this is my body... and this is my blood, that is, so that we believe more in His words and power than in our own feelings, which gives us the bliss of faith. For those who have not seen blessings have believed. Secondly, since human nature turns away “from eating human flesh and blood, especially in their natural form and state, then “God, in His condescension, gives His own flesh and blood to believers for food and drink under the cover of bread and wine” (Answer to Question 107). § 152. The Eucharist as a sacrifice. Her attitude towards the godmother's sacrifice The Eucharist, as a sacrifice of praise and gratitude for the good deeds shown by the Lord, is at the same time a propitiatory sacrifice. – The relationship of this sacrifice to the sacrifice of Calvary, their identity and difference. The Eucharist in its essence is not only a sacrament in which saving food is given to the children of the Church of Christ, but also a sacrifice to God the Father - a sacrifice of praise and gratitude for the good deeds shown by Him in Christ Jesus and at the same time “propitiating, offered for all those who live and die piously” - for their salvation and remission of sins (Ecclesiastical Eastern Pat. Ch. 17; Right. Rev. 107). I. The teaching about the Eucharist as a sacrifice is closely connected and presupposed by the teaching about the transposition of bread and wine into the very body of the God-Man, which endured suffering and death on the cross for the sins of people, and into His very blood, which He shed for us on Calvary. If the Savior offered Himself on Calvary as a sacrifice for the sins of the entire human race, then, of course, His body and blood, offered by Himself, the eternal High Priest, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, constitute a sacrifice. That is why those who reject the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Eucharist into the body and blood of the God-Man do not recognize the sacrificial meaning of the Eucharist (Protestants). Even at its very establishment, the Eucharist was not only a meal, but also a sacrifice. This is shown by the words spoken by the Savior at the establishment of the Eucharist about His body - which is given for you, broken, and about the blood - which is shed for you, poured out for many for the remission of sins. Obviously, only a sacrifice could be offered for the apostles and for many absent ones, and equally a sacrifice (but in no case a meal) could be offered “for the remission of sins.” The Eucharist was established immediately after the celebration of the Old Testament Easter by Jesus Christ, which prefigured the New Testament Easter. But the Old Testament Passover was not only a joyful meal, but also a sacrifice, for the Passover lamb was sacrificed to God: this is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, who passed by the houses of Israel in Egypt - this is the explanation that fathers had to give to their children when eating the lamb regarding the blood on the lintel and doorposts of the houses on the night the Jews left Egypt (Ex. 12:97; cf. 12, 41; 34, 25 and Deut. 16:2). If the slaughter of the Paschal lamb was a real sacrifice to God, which had its power, of course, through its representative relation to the Lamb of God for the sins of the world, then the Eucharistic sacrifice, essentially identical with the sacrifice of the God-man on the cross, is a real and true sacrifice, which should have a meaning in all subsequent times, until He comes. This is what the apostles taught about the Eucharist. Ap. Paul in the above words: my beloved brethren, flee from idolatry... (1 Cor. 10:14-16. 21), the table and altar (θυσιαστήριον - altar) of Christians contrasts with the table and altar of the pagans, and by this makes it clear that the Eucharist is true sacrifice, those participating in which must distance themselves from pagan sacrifices, for pagan sacrifices are offered by the demon, and not by God. In his letter to the Jews, rejecting Christians from Jewish sacrifices, the apostle wrote: the imams of the altar (θησιαστήριον), from him do not have power to eat the food and servants of the canopy (Heb. 13:10). In these words the Christian altar and sacrifice are contrasted with the Jewish altar and sacrifice. The altar from which the servants of the tabernacle cannot eat is a Christian altar, on which, therefore, the true sacrifice is offered to God, given as food only to the faithful. II. In essence, the Eucharistic sacrifice is identical with the sacrifice of the cross. On the altar of the cross, I. Christ Himself was both the High Priest, offering sacrifice, and the exclusive sacrifice to God the Father for the entire human race. The same is true on the altar of bloodless sacrifice: and here I. Christ Himself makes a sacrifice, as the eternal High Priest, and the same true body of I. Christ is offered, which suffered and died on the cross, the same pure His blood that was shed for us, the same immaculate Lamb. As then, so now, the one who offers and the one offered, the sacrifice and the bishop are the same. The identity in essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice with the sacrifice of the cross presupposes the sameness of the properties of both sacrifices. The Eucharistic sacrifice is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. This character of the Eucharist was sealed at its very establishment, for I. Christ at the Last Supper received the bread, as well as the cup, giving praise or giving thanks. And at the end of the supper, I. Christ and his disciples sang and went out to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30). The performance of the Eucharistic sacrifice by I. Christ was combined with thanksgiving to God the Father and glorification of Him, of course, for His revealed love. They are in the cause of the redemption and salvation of humanity. The same character was preserved in the Eucharist in the primacy of the Church, as evidenced by St. Paul, both in his narrative about the establishment of the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:23–24) and in calling the Eucharistic cup (10, 16) a cup of blessing, we bless. The laudatory-thanksgiving character of the Eucharistic sacrifice, however, does not consist only in laudatory-thanksgiving prayers and chants of the liturgy. And the bloodless sacrifice itself, which has a high substitutionary value before God, is the highest thanksgiving to God, which is why the sacrament is called the Eucharist, which means thanksgiving. The Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. It is such because in its essence it is completely identical and inseparable with the Calvary sacrifice. That is why in all liturgies, in prayers, after the consecration of gifts by the power and influx of the Holy Spirit, it is expressed that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered for many who do not partake of the sacrifice and cannot even eat. In particular, it is offered for the militant church, for the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, for “the city in which we live, and every city and country, and those who live in them by faith, for those who sail, travel, the sick, the suffering, the captives and their salvation” - for “those bearing fruit in the holy churches” and in general for the believing people, for the triumphant church and in general for “those who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and eternal life.” It should be noted, however, that a bloodless offering is made for the departed saints not for the purpose of appeasing God for them, but with the purpose of strengthening our prayers for the living and the dead with their prayers and intercession, so that God “through their prayers and intercession would accept our offering” (Cyril of Jerusalem), or “visit us” (Liturgy of Gold). If the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice that has the power to incline the mercy of God to us, then, naturally, through it we can ask God for various benefits. Due to this feature, the Eucharist can be called a supplicating sacrifice. Therefore St. The Church, when performing a bloodless sacrifice, always asks for various spiritual and physical benefits. III. While the Calvary sacrifice and the Eucharistic sacrifice are identical in essence and properties, there are also differences between them. These differences are as follows. The Calvary sacrifice is the main sacrifice, giving existence to the Eucharistic sacrifice. On the cross I. Christ, with a one-time offering, acquired eternal redemption for the entire human race. Through a bloodless sacrifice, the fruits of the sacrifice of the cross are assimilated to those members of the Church of Christ, Earthly and Heavenly, for whom this mysterious sacrifice is made and who are able to accept the gifts of His grace. That is why the Calvary sacrifice was offered once, and the Eucharistic sacrifice from the time of its establishment until now has been performed in the Church of Christ throughout all countries of the world, on countless altars, and will continue to be performed until the second coming of Christ. At Golgotha, I. Christ sacrificed the natural flesh and blood of His humanity, and in the Eucharist He sacrifices His true body and true blood, transformed by the action of the Holy Spirit from bread and wine and inherent in these species. Therefore, the Eucharistic sacrifice, as a sacrifice without suffering, without the shedding of blood, is called a bloodless and passionless sacrifice, although it is offered in remembrance of the suffering and death of Christ. The bloody sacrifice was made by I. Christ visibly and directly, in the days of humiliation, through the suffering of His humanity, the shedding of blood and the death of the body. The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered by I. Christ, but risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God the Father and not directly, but through the mediation of the shepherds of the church through the action of the All-Holy Spirit. § 153. Features of the Roman Church in the doctrine of the Eucharist Unleavened bread. - Formula of consecration. – Features of communion. The Roman Church departed from the commandment and example of Jesus Christ in the celebration and administration of the sacrament of communion, that is, in relation to its liturgical or ritual side. More specifically, these deviations concern: I) the substance of the sacrament that must be consecrated, II) the formula for consecration and III) the communion itself. I. In the Roman Church, for the sacrament of the Eucharist, not ordinary leavened bread is used, but unleavened bread. This is an unacceptable, unjustifiable deviation from the example of Jesus Christ, His apostles and the rules of the church. The substance for the sacrament, of course, must not correspond to its visible essence, but only true and real bread corresponds to the concept of true spiritual food, the bread of life. But unleavened bread, as it was prepared, for example, by the Jews, and as, no doubt, it was prepared in the Roman Church at the beginning of the innovation and is being prepared now, can it be called and recognized as bread in the proper sense? Obviously, no. Is it enough that flour and water, which have not undergone actual baking, but only because there is flour and water mixed together, should be called bread? II. The Roman Church teaches that the consecration (in the sense of transubstantiation) of bread and wine occurs when the celebrant reads a prayer (the third in the “canon” of consecration of gifts), which expresses the Gospel narrative about the institution of the Eucharist, and consecrates the gifts, pronouncing the own words of I. Christ (i.e., take, eat... and drink everything from it...). Prayer for invoking the Holy Spirit on St. There are no gifts in the rite of the Roman liturgy. The example of I. Christ testifies against this Latin teaching, Who, before presenting body and blood to the apostles, gave praise (to God), thanked and blessed, that is, performed a prayerful and sanctifying action, and the rule of the ancient universal church. In all ancient liturgies, in prayer addressed to God, after the words of the Savior spoken at the establishment of the Eucharist, there follows the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the gifts presented for their sanctification and transposition. III. In relation to communion, the Latin Church is mistaken in a threefold way. She does not partake of the faithful with the same consecrated bread, which is used by the altar server. The Lord I. Christ communed with his body to all the apostles from one consecrated bread broken into pieces. Following the example of the Lord, the apostles also used one, and not many, loaves of bread for communion, as a sign of the unity of Christians who constitute one body of Christ. For more than a thousand years, this establishment of the Lord was observed by the Roman Church, but from the 12th century it became a custom in the Roman Church to consecrate one round and main bread of a slightly larger size for the priest, and for lay believers they began to prepare small pieces in the form of a small coin (host). The invention of small hosts for believers is obviously a condemnable innovation. In the Roman Church, only priests and bishops (the church hierarchy in general) receive communion under two forms (bread and wine), and the laity and even bishops and priests who do not participate in the celebration of the sacrament are deprived of the cup of the Lord. They are given the sacrament in the form of unleavened hosts, and not drunk with the blood of Christ. Deprivation of the laity of St. cups began to become a custom in the West, despite popular protests against it, from the 12th century, and were finally approved at the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. I et II). Deprivation of the laity of St. they think to justify the cups on various grounds. “There is no divine command that the Eucharist should be given to the laity and non-clerical priests under both types,” says the Council of Trent. As for the words of the Savior at the Last Supper: drink of it, all of you, they say they apply only to the apostles and their successors. But we cannot agree with these statements. I. Christ established the sacrament of communion under two types and taught it to the apostles under both types with the words: do this in remembrance of Me. For the apostles and their successors, these words meant not only a command to perform this sacrament, but also an indication of the form and method of its teaching (do this) - therefore, they constituted a direct commandment that all believers should partake of His body and blood and under both forms. Before the establishment of the sacrament, He also taught that eternal life requires the communion of His body and blood, and not just the body (John 6:53–54). The apostles gave communion to believers under both types. (1 Cor. 11:23–29; 10, 15–16. 21). Regarding the R. Catholic interpretation of the expression: drink from her, all of you, it should be noted that the apostles then represented all those who believe in Christ; they were not then only priests. those performing the sacrament, for the performer was the Establisher of the sacrament Himself, but also priests in general, which they became after the descent of the Holy Spirit on them. They, therefore, received the Eucharist like ordinary laymen, and received it under both species. Therefore, the words of the Savior spoken to all the apostles apply to all believers. That is why the ancient church, not only Eastern, but also Western, condemned and denounced those who did not want to receive communion or receive communion in the way Christ established, under both types (Encratites and Manichaeans). They also say that there is no need for the laity to receive Holy Communion separately, because “where the body is given, there the blood is given.” But, of course, the reasoning cannot remain hidden from the omniscient Lord: “where there is body, there is blood.” Nevertheless, He established the sacrament and taught communion under both types. And, of course, no one has the right to cancel this direct commandment of Him about the communion of believers. The shepherds of the Roman Church themselves receive communion under both types; why do they find communion under one form insufficient for themselves, but sufficient for the laity? This is how lies expose themselves. – Sometimes they present an even cruder clause of this kind, that St. The cup is easy to push and St. blood can easily be shed if the communicant is careless. But is it really permissible, because of the negligence of some, to deprive St. the blood of all the laity, contrary to the command of the Savior? The same is the value of other similar considerations, for example, as if it is difficult to have and preserve wine in many cases, that some have a natural aversion to wine and the like. Having deprived the laity of St. cups, the Roman Church was forced to cancel communion for children up to a certain age (7–12 years old). Infants are unable to eat bread, especially in the form in which it is taught in the sacrament of communion by the Roman Church, but only hierarchical persons, but not the laity, can partake of the blood of Christ. In view of this, there was only one thing left in relation to Christian children - to completely deprive them of the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. Communion of children began to cease in the Roman Church only in the 12th century. Depriving infants of fellowship with Christ through the sacrament of communion cannot be justified in any way. Once, when the Lord’s disciples forbade bringing children to Him, He said: Leave the children to come to Me, and do not scold them: for such is the kingdom of God (Luke 18:16). After his ascension into heaven, when He became invisible with bodily eyes, where and how can Christian children come so close to Christ, if not through the sacrament of communion? When establishing this sacrament, saying about the cup: drink everything from it, and about the bread: take, eat (without everything), He showed that from eating His body it is permissible to exempt those who are not capable of taking solid food, but everyone must approach the cup of the Lord - all Christians without exception, and therefore children. § 154. Protestant doctrine of the Eucharist Lutheran doctrine of the co-presence of the Lord in the holy gifts. – Features of Reformed teaching. – Anglican teaching on the Eucharist. Protestant confessions recognize the Eucharist as a sacrament of the church, but about the essence of this sacrament they offer a teaching that is alien to the Ecumenical Church, for they do not recognize the transformation of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. I. Lutheranism modified the general church teaching on the Eucharist, first of all, by the fact that instead of the teaching about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist through transformation or transubstantiation, it called for the co-presence (inconsubsantiatio) of His body and blood with bread and wine, in them and under them (cum pane, sub pane, in pane), as if permeating His body and blood with bread and wine (Art. Smalk. III, 6). This coexistence of the body and blood of Christ with the Eucharistic bread and wine, however, occurs only with “the totality of external visible actions related to the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ, namely: consecration or words of institution, teaching and receiving or external, as they say, oral consumption of the blessed bread and wine, as well as the assimilation of the body and blood of Christ.” But outside of this “use,” when “bread is not distributed at the liturgy, but is either carried or deposited in monstrances,” then it has no sacramental power. In other words, the Eucharistic bread and wine are in themselves, outside of their “use,” and after their consecration they remain bread and wine (Form. cons. I, 7; II, 7). Having proposed such a teaching about the essence of the Eucharist, Lutheranism was met with the following objection to its teaching: how is it possible for the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, which takes place in many places at the same time, when Jesus Christ ascended according to His humanity into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father? It answered this question with the doctrine of the omnipresence of I. Christ in His glorified state, not only in divinity, but also in humanity (ubiquitas corporis Christi) due to His hypostatic union with the deity (Form. cone. II, 8). This false position (Monophysite) lies at the basis of the Lutheran teaching about the co-presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Having rejected the presence of I. Christ in the Eucharist through the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the Lutherans rejected the conclusions arising from this, and, above all, the doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The Lamb of God, they teach, once slain, is not slain again. He was offered in one single offering, and in one offering he made them eat forever to those who are sanctified (Heb. 9:28; 10, 14). Therefore, to assimilate to the Eucharist the meaning of a sacrifice for the remission of sins, offered for the living and the dead, would mean, they reason, to diminish or abolish the sacrifice of the cross, to recognize it as having a need to be replenished in the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Eucharist is only the sacrament of communion, but not a sacrifice (Cont. aug. II, 3; Apol. art. XXIV). Obviously, such reasoning is based on misconceptions about the relationship of the Eucharistic sacrifice to the sacrifice of the cross. The same denial of the mystery of transubstantiation led Lutherans to reject the need to render divine adoration to the Eucharistic consecrated gifts. It is also clear that Lutherans had to reject the storage of the Eucharistic gifts in the church for the sick and their communion with the so-called. reserve gifts, as well as the celebration of the liturgy of presanctified gifts (Form, conc. II, 7). There are also features in Lutheranism concerning the visible side of the Eucharist, partly inherited from the Roman Catholic Church. So, among them, the Eucharist is celebrated on unleavened bread (wafers, oblata - offering), and wine, like the Armenians, is not dissolved in water (contrary to the VI Ecumenical Council. 32 Ave. 1. Eucharistic bread and wine are consecrated with the words of I. Christ, spoken at the establishment of the sacrament. The invocation of the Holy Spirit for gifts is not in the Protestant rites Eucharist. Communion of believers is carried out under both types: the wafer is given to everyone by mouth, and then the wine from the chalice is allowed to take communion only after confirmation has been performed on them (sometimes 14–16 years). II. The Reformation, in its teaching on the Eucharist, also abandoned the Lutheran “co-presence” of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Thus, according to the teachings of Zwingli, the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance of the suffering of Christ, which has for us only a purely internal, subjective meaning. Bread and wine in this sacrament are only symbols, signs of the body of Jesus Christ crucified on the cross and the shed blood of Christ, reproducing in the memory of the believer the work of redemption and strengthening faith in redemption. He who approaches the sacrament of the Eucharist partakes of the body and blood of Christ only spiritually, and not carnally, and spiritually through faith he is united with Christ, assimilating the work of redemption, while the Eucharist itself does not possess and does not impart grace. In his doctrine of the Eucharist, Calvin tried to take a middle ground between the teachings of Luther and Zwingli. In his opinion, I. Christ is present in the Eucharist dynamically, that is, by His action, influence and power (praesentia operativa), just as the sun, being in the sky, acts with its rays on earthly objects (Calvin’s comparison). This understanding of the Eucharist acquired dominant significance in Reformation; it was also included in his symbolic books. Its essence can be conveyed like this. The bread and wine in the Eucharist are only signs or symbols of the body and blood of Christ, but there is neither their transformation into the body and blood of Christ, nor the physical presence of the Lord with them in the Lutheran sense. The body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist not materially, but spiritually, dynamically. Therefore, the communion of the body and blood of Christ is accomplished not through eating with the lips (manducatio oralis), but spiritually, however, simultaneously with the acceptance into the mouth of the signs of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The soul of the communicant miraculously ascends to heaven and there is brought into close contact with the body of Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father, so that it is communicated, in a tangible and saving way, the divine life-giving power emanating from the being and face of I. Christ (Instit. IV, 17; Conf. Gelv. I, 21–23). III. The doctrine of the Eucharist also has a general Protestant character in the Anglican Church. In “Members of the Faith” it is expressed as follows: “the Eucharist is not a simple sign of the mutual love of Christians, but the sacrament of our redemption through the death of Christ. For those who accept it correctly, worthily and with faith, the bread that is broken is communion of the body of Christ, just as the cup of blessing is communion of the blood of Christ. – The transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Eucharist cannot be confirmed by St. Scripture; This teaching, on the contrary, is refuted by the direct words of Scripture and has given rise to many superstitious opinions. – The Body of Christ is taught, received and consumed in the Eucharist only in a heavenly and spiritual way. The means by which the body of Christ is received and consumed in the Eucharist is faith "(ΧΧ VIII ch.). The wicked and those without living faith, although they bodily and visibly partake of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but “do not become partakers of Christ, but, on the contrary, eat and drink the sign of such a great thing to their own condemnation" (XXIX ch.). The recognition of the Eucharist as a sacrifice for the living and the dead in the “Members” is declared to be an error (XXXI chapter), the veneration and worship of the Eucharistic body and blood of Christ, as well as the preservation of the Holy. gifts for communion in exceptional cases, for example, mortal illness, - not justified by any commandment (XXVIII). The bread for communion is ordinary, leavened; It is prohibited to deprive the laity of the cup (XXX part.). The final words of the sacrament are the words of the establishment of the sacrament. You might be interested in: