Does the Bible Teach That Communion Brings Healing?

Theology
62

Brother @Samuel_23 ,

I have to be honest with you—this whole journey has been nothing short of life-changing for me, and I feel I need to tell you directly what your patience and words have done. When I first joined this forum, this very thread was the first one I stumbled upon. It immediately caught my curiosity, though I wasn’t sure why.

You see, for years I was held in the memorialist view. Not because I had studied Scripture deeply on my own, but because that was the only teaching I ever received. My pastors, my YouTube subscriptions, my books—they all repeated the same refrain: “The Supper is symbolic. Do it in remembrance, nothing more.” I never really questioned it. I thought Real Presence was just a Catholic superstition or an Orthodox ritual I didn’t need to take seriously. And so I carried that view, never realizing I was holding onto something one-sided, shallow, and incomplete.

But then I began following this discussion. I saw you engaging, not with insults or shallow answers, but with patience, careful arguments, Scripture in context, and testimony from the Fathers. I’ll admit—at first I resisted you. My heart whispered, “Don’t listen too closely. You already know the truth.” But something in me knew I had to wrestle with your words, because you weren’t just giving opinions—you were building a case, layer by layer.

There was one night, after reading through one of your long replies, that something broke inside me. I just sat still for a long while, and then the tears came. I cried for over an hour. Brother, it wasn’t just about theology—it was about realizing how much of my faith had been second-hand. I had borrowed arguments from others without ever weighing the fullness of truth for myself. And suddenly, through your words, I realized Christ was offering me not just an idea, not just a memory, but Himself.

You don’t know how much that moment shook me. I had tried before to compare the memorialist arguments with the case for Real Presence, but I never had clarity. It was like I had puzzle pieces but no picture to assemble them. Then you came and laid it all out. You explained why John shifted from phagein to trōgein—not carelessly, but to intensify the meaning. You unpacked Paul’s word anamnesis in 1 Corinthians and showed me how remembrance in Jewish worship meant making present, not simply recalling. You showed me why Paul warned about judgment for “not discerning the Body”—warnings that make no sense if it’s only bread and wine. You gave me the Fathers—not taken out of context, but faithfully—and their words pierced me: Ignatius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose, all proclaiming what I had been taught to dismiss.

That night I realized: I had settled for shadows when Christ was offering me reality. The Eucharist is not just “a symbol.” It is His Body, His Blood, His very gift of Himself, hidden but truly present. To deny it would be to deny the very words of my Lord—“This is My Body… This is My Blood.”

Samuel, I want you to know something: I am deeply thankful to you. You didn’t just argue. You cared enough to explain, to lay things out patiently for someone like me who was stumbling in half-truths. You didn’t just “win a debate.” You helped me see Christ more clearly. You helped break chains I didn’t even realize I was carrying.

Brother, you will never know how much your words meant. Because of you, I will never approach the Lord’s Table the same way again.

1 Like
63

I also plan to invite my friends to join this forum so that they can read this discussion and engage with you on this topic. With deep gratitude,
ILOVECHRIST

64

I always thought as Jesus Himself said, communion is to bring us to remembrance of Him. Our intimacy with Jesus, taking Himself into our own life and body through the representation of Him in the bread and wine.

1 Like
66

I’ll remove it due to copyrights, but you can search for Passion of Christ, Last Supper.

67

I have invited some of my friends to read your posts and the passages you shared.

To make it easier for them, I summarized your arguments and recorded them in a Word document, so I can send it to those who might benefit from it. I hope that’s not a problem.

If any of them want to engage further, I encouraged them to join this forum and discuss directly with you.

1 Like
68

image
image1024×520 78.4 KB

Is Transubstantiation, when explicated this way, an accurate and truthful way to understand what is happening in the Lord’s Supper?
I write this as a Christian inculcated with a memorialist view of the Lord’s Table. This may be why I find Steven Nemes’ critique of Transubstantiation so compelling. Let me repeat: you can hear his argument in full by listening to Nemes being interviewed by Dr RT Mullins on Mullins’ podcast, The Reluctant Theologian, here.

Nemes makes three arguments.
He makes an argument from the proper use of metaphor, exegesis and philosophy. His arguments bring into question not just Transubstantiation, but any ‘real presence’ view of the Lord’s Supper. As I have already said I find Nemes’ arguments compelling so what follows is a favourable summary… but ultimately I am not sure I am convinced… but that will be developed in a later post.

In today’s post I will explore only:

The argument Nemes makes against Transubstantiation from philosophy.
Nemes uses phenomenology as an argument against Transubstantiation because of the way he proposes that phenomenology should affect our epistemology.

As mentioned already, Aquinas acquired his philosophy of Transubstantiation from Aristotle who distinguished between the ‘substance’ of a thing and its ‘accidents.’

In Part III of Summa Theologica, Aquinas wrote:

“I answer that, The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: “This is My body which shall be delivered up for you,” Cyril says: “Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour’s words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not.”” (Summa Theologica FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 1]) (extract from Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged) (p. 6313-4). Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edition.)

Participants are, therefore, invited to believe, contrary to our senses, and contrary to our experience, that although this bread looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, and can be tested in a laboratory to show that it has the chemical composition common to other bread, nevertheless, it is no longer bread. In its essence it is now the body of Christ.

Nemes says: “All the perceptible qualities, everything that shows up in the world of experience, that remains exactly the same. But this deeper thing is what changes and that’s how to understand the Eucharistic change by appealing to this deeper level of reality that doesn’t show up in in experience.”

Nemes, commenting on Aquinas’ statement given above, says that there is, therefore, nothing about what we sense when we share in the elements that could point to or reveal the real presence that is claimed. He concludes that Aquinas requires faith to carry the whole weight of this doctrine:

“It’s only faith in this divine promise — ‘this is my body; this is my blood’ — that is what provides a basis for believing that the body and blood of Christ are really there.”

For Nemes this view of Transubstantiation is problematical.
Nemes points out that not only Aquinas, but another giant in the Western philosophical tradition, Descartes, also founded his whole philosophy on the distinction Aristotle gave us between substance and accidents.

Contra Aristotle and Descartes, Nemes argues that:

“Phenomenology says that if you distinguish in this way between consciousness and reality, between appearance and being, you’re going to get scepticism and you are going to fall into what is called an egocentric predicament, where you cannot prove that you are in touch anything real beyond your own consciousness, beyond your own subjectivity.”

Phenomenology, Nemes argues, posits that knowledge is a matter of seeing the truth of your opinion or becoming aware of the truth of your opinion about something. Nemes uses the following example to illustrate this:

Your partner tells you there are no Oreos. You disagree and state that in your opinion there are Oreos in the biscuit tin. You open the biscuit tin and see the Oreos in the tin. At that point Nemes says, “you achieve knowledge according to phenomenology… you’ve achieved an awareness of the truth of your opinion.”

Furthermore, phenomenology asserts that truth is a relational property. Nemes argues that “Truth is a relation between the proposition or a sentence, and the things to which it refers.”

To illustrate, if you believe there are Oreos in the biscuit tin (a proposition) and then prove your opinion to be correct by opening the tin to find said Oreos (the reality referred to by the proposition), the truth of the proposition is a matter of its relation to what is actually in the biscuit tin. Nemes summarises this by saying: “And when you achieve knowledge, you come to see the awareness of this relation.”

What has this to do with the truth or otherwise of Transubstantiation?
Phenomenology posits that we cannot perceive a relation in the absence of one or more of the relata. If I visit my cousin in York and I am licked by her dog and she tells me her dog is larger than the dog owned by my other cousin in Bath whom I have never visited, I am not able to verify my cousin’s truth claim since I only have access to one of the relata. That’s because perceiving a relation requires that all the relata be presented to me.

With the Oreos, however, I became aware of the truth of my opinion.

Nemes summarises thus:

Be careful what tools you use… there may be unintended consequences.

The Lord’s Supper 4: New Philosophical Objections To Transubstantiation. | Theologica.

Not trying to impose or change your mind @ILOVECHRIST

God bless.

J.

69

You are leaning on patristic scaffolding where the text itself gives you an interpretive key. John does indeed shift from φαγεῖν to τρώγειν, but to absolutize the verb as physical mastication and then import sacramental ontology from later writers ignores John’s own gloss. He explains the whole discourse in verse 63, τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν, it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. That alone rules out reading Jesus as teaching sarcophagy. The entire context of John 6 points to faith as the “eating,” see verses 35, 40, and 47 where believing is explicitly tied to eternal life. The gnawing imagery shocks the hearers into reckoning with the cross, but the saving act is his flesh given on Calvary, received by faith, not by chewing bread.

And Paul does not back you. In 1 Corinthians 11 he cites the words of institution, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, but his emphasis is ethical and eschatological. He tells the Corinthians that when they eat and drink they καταγγέλλετε τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου, proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. The function of the Supper is proclamation of the crucifixion, a memorial that anchors the church in Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, not an ontological transformation of elements. Anamnesis in Israel’s Scriptures (Exodus 12 and Passover) made the saving act present to the covenant community in memory and obedience, it never meant that the lamb reappeared on the altar in substance.

So let the inspired writers settle this. John tells you not to read/eat the flesh literally. Paul tells you the Supper proclaims the cross until the return. If you want to argue for ontological presence you must supply it from philosophy and later theology, because Scripture itself does not.

Simple as that.

J.

70

Brother, you are importing liturgical metaphysics into Paul where he gives you plain verbs that settle the matter. In Leviticus 24:7 the frankincense is placed ἀνάμνησιν (anamnēsin, memorial) to the Lord. The Hebrew verb there is זָכַר (zākar, to remember, to bring to mind). The point is not that bread becomes God’s presence, but that God is caused to remember His covenant. Likewise in Numbers 10:10 the trumpets are a “remembrance before your God” - again directed toward Him, not toward Israel transforming objects into divine substance.

But in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul flips the direction entirely. He commands τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (poieite, keep doing this) εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (eis tēn emēn anamnēsin, unto my remembrance). The memorial is no longer before God but in the church, remembering Christ. Paul even interprets himself in the very next verse, 11:26: ὁσάκις ἐὰν ἐσθίητε (esthiēte, you eat) τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε (pinēte, you drink), τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου καταγγέλλετε (katanggellete, you proclaim, announce, herald) ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ (achri hou elthē, until He comes). Paul defines the act with καταγγέλλω, not with ἀναφέρειν (anapherein, to offer up) or θύειν (thuein, to sacrifice). It is proclamation, not re-sacrifice.

If you want to tie this back to Hebrew categories, Paul’s logic matches זָכַר (zākar, to remember, to call to mind) and נָגַד (nāgad, to proclaim, to declare). The Supper functions by memory and proclamation, not by ontological transmutation. When Israel remembered Passover, they were not re-slaughtering Pharaoh or reliving the Red Sea. They were rehearsing God’s mighty act and declaring His faithfulness. So too the church, we remember Christ crucified, and we proclaim His death until He comes.

So let the verbs speak. Poieite (do this), anamnēsin (remembrance), katanggellete (proclaim). Not thuein (sacrifice), not anapherein (offer up). You can stack patristic authorities and liturgical theologians, but they cannot erase Paul’s Spirit-inspired vocabulary. The Supper is a proclamation of the once-for-all cross, not an altar of re-presented sacrifice. Scripture nails this down, and it leaves no room for the ontology you are trying to smuggle in.

Shalom.

J.

71

@ILOVECHRIST, take this amazing argument from @Johann, for more info you can visit this site, and take some points to note, we will discuss it either here or in personal messages.

I think you need to look into both views. You need to learn by yourself, and you will need to analyze by yourself.
Anyways Im happy to know about your friends, tell them to join our discussion if they are willing
Peace
Sam

72

Thank you @Johann and @Samuel_23 I will go through it

1 Like
73

We need to increase our understanding so bear with me brother
Who is Steven Nemes: https://stevennemes.com/
Nemes’ phenomenological objection rooted in Husserlian and Heideggerian traditions posits that knowledge arises from direct awareness of a proposition’s relational truth to its referent requiring all relata to be preceptibly present. Thus, transubstantiation’s claim of substantial change (essence shifts while accidents presist) allegedly fosters skepticism as the deeper reality (Christ’s Body) is imperceptible, leaving faith t bear the doctrine’s whole weight contra sensory evidence. Isn’t this Descartes’ Cognito-induced egocentrism, where appearance-reality dichotomy isolates consciousness.
Yet, this critique presupposes a modernist, anthropocentric epistemology that Orthodox and Catholic theology transcends. Phenomenology, while valuable for describing lived experience (Lebenswelt) is ill-equipped for divine mysteries which operate in the apophatic realm (new topic to learn @ILOVECHRIST, welcome to the world of Orthodox theology). St. Gregory Palamas in the Triads (1.3.4-5. ed. John Meyendorff, Paulist Press, 1983) distinguishes God’s essence from energies allowing sacramental encounter without exhaustive comprehension. The Eucharist manifests divine energies through material elements not via perceptual verification but noetic illumination (nous, spiritual intellect). This avoids Nemes’ egocentric predicament by positing knowledge as relational communion not mere verification.
Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III q.75 a,1) indeed invokes faith in divine authority but not isolated from reason or experience. Faith “rests upon Divine authority” yet integrates with sacramental effects: spirtual nourishment, unity and judgment 1 Cor 11:29-30.
Nemes’ Oreo analogy is the weird. **Sacramental Truth isn’t empirical like biscuits but eschatological y where “seeing” is faith, enabled vision. Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas (Being as Communion, SVS Press, 1985) argues eucharistic presence is ecclesial-personal, not objectified; phenomenology’s focus on individual consciouness neglects communal leitrugia where the assembly discerns Christ amid symbols.
Critiquing phenomenolgy’s adequacy:
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of Perception, Routledge, 1945/2012) acknowledges perception’s abiguity, opening to transcendent horizons. Nemes’ rigid relata requirement ignores this; in the incarnation (John 1:14) divine reality veils in flesh, yet knowable via faith-reason synthesis. Douglas Beaumont’s counter ((Ditch Transubstantiation, and You Ditch God) aptly notes the following:
phenomenological arguments against imperceptible change equally undermine the hypostatic union (Christ’s dual natures) or God’s immateriality. If perception trumps revelation, skepticism engulfs core doctrines
Visit: douglasbeaumont.com
Thus, transubstantiation (Catholic) and metabole (Orthodox) truthfully describe the mystery: change is real, discerned by faith illumined by the Spirit, not senses alone.
John 6:63 and the Spiritual-Somatic Union
John 6:63—“τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν”
The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing
@ILOVECHRIST, see, in Johannine usage, sarx often denotes unregenerate humanity or carnal mindset (for that refer to John 1:13, 3:6 and 8:15), not Christ’s Eucharistic Body. The verse critiques disciples’ scandalized literalism without faith, not on the realism of vv 51-58. Patristic exegesis concurs:
St. Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John 4.2, Patrologia Graeca 73:569–572) explains sarx as “flesh without the Spirit,” while Christ’s flesh (sarx mou, v. 51) is life-giving when Spirit-quickened.
Orthodox Father John Behr (John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel, Oxford, 2019) notes the discourse’s paschal context:
“eating” (trōgein, gnawing) shocks to evoke crucifixion (v. 51, “flesh for the life of the world”), received sacramentally.
Verses 35, 40, 47 tie believing to life, but not exclusively; faith (pisteuein) leads to eating (trōgein), as structure shows escalation from manna-analogy to somatic mandate. Trōgein’s visceral connotation (Liddell-Scott-Jones, p. 1830; cf. Septuagint Job 6:7 for loathsome chewing) demands literal ingestion, fulfilled eucharistically.

74

Bearing in mind brother-

Should We Trust Conflicting Church Fathers? (Karlo Broussard)

This apologetics talk acknowledges up front that the Fathers “can and do, in fact, contradict each other and get things wrong”
Catholic Answers
. It then explains how the practice of unanimous consent (when nearly all Fathers affirm something) is far more reliable, and why diverging opinions don’t undercut the authority of Scripture.

J.

75

Johann, which early Fathers clearly deny Real Presence outright in the first 3 centuries? Can you produce explicit texts? Because citing Fathers using ‘symbol’ language isn’t enough—Origen, Tertullian, Augustine all used ‘symbol’ while still affirming Real Presence. Do you have patristic evidence for the ‘memorial-only’ view in early Christianity?”
If the New Testament only teaches a memorial, why do the very next generation of Christians unanimously describe the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh and blood? Were they all misled so early, so universally, and so consistently?

1 Like
76

1 Corinthians 11, Anamnesis, and Proclamation as Participatory
Paul’s anamnesis (“εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν,” 1 Cor 11:24-25) is not mere mental recall but cultic re-presentation, directing remembrance toward Christ while effecting presence. Paul integrates both:
Supper proclaims Christ’s death eschatologically (“until He comes”), yet presupposes koinonia in the Body and Blood (1 Cor 10:16-17). Katangellein (proclaim) evokes heraldic announcement (refer to Acts 17:23), but in a liturgical context, its performative, declaring makes present, as in LXX Psalm 105:1 (katangelleite en tois ethnesin ta erga autou, proclaim His works among nations, actualising salvation history)
Anamnesis in Hellenistic Judaism (Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 2.146) and LXX( Ps 111:4) connotes active memorial, invoking divine action. St. John Chrysostom (Homily 24 on 1 Cor, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol.12) interprets:
The Supper mingles us into “one body” via real participation, not symbol.
Orthodox liturgy (Anaphora of St. Basil) employs anamnesis to “offer” the gifts, fulfilling Malachi 1:11’s pure sacrifice. Your verbs (poieite, anamnesis, katangelleite) omit diakrinō to sōma (v.29 discern the body), implying ontological reality, judgment for profanation parallels Uzzah (2 Sam 6:7).

77

@ILOVECHRIST

The New Testament presents the Lord’s Supper as a memorial and proclamation, not as a literal transformation of the elements.

In 1 Corinthians 11:24–26, Paul commands τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, do this in remembrance of me, and immediately clarifies ὁσάκις ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ πίνητε τὸ ποτήριον, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. The verbs ποιεῖτε, ἐσθίητε, πίνητε, and καταγγέλλετε indicate that the Supper is active remembrance and public proclamation centered on the cross, and Paul does not suggest a metaphysical change in the elements.

The Early Fathers often employed symbolic or spiritual interpretations of the Eucharist without affirming a literal Real Presence. Origen, in his Commentary on John Book Ten, interprets Jesus’ words in John 6:53–56 as emphasizing spiritual participation in Christ’s life and sacrifice rather than a physical consumption of His flesh and blood. He writes, “But on the other hand we have to say that if the Word became flesh, and the Lord says, John 6:53 ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him,’ then the flesh thus spoken of is that of the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world; and this is the blood, some of which was to be put on the two side posts of the door, and on the lintels in the houses, in which we eat the Passover.”

Tertullian, in De Carne Christi Chapter Thirteen, argues against Docetism by affirming the reality of Christ’s human flesh. However, he does not equate the Eucharist with a literal consumption of Christ’s body. He states, “Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.”

Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter Six, condemns those who deny the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ. While this may suggest a belief in the Real Presence, his emphasis is on the unity and truth of the Church’s teaching rather than a detailed theological explanation of the Eucharist’s nature. He writes, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because 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.”

These early writings do not provide a clear, uniform teaching on the nature of the Eucharist.

The memorialist view, that the Eucharist is a symbolic act of remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death, is consistent with the scriptural account and the varied interpretations of the Early Fathers.

Furthermore-

  1. Δεῖπνον (deipnon)
    This is the most common word for “meal” or “supper,” referring to the main evening meal. It appears in the Gospels and Acts to describe Jesus eating with His disciples, including the Last Supper. For example, Matthew 26:20: “When evening came (ὀψίας γινομένης), he sat down (ἐκάθητο) with the twelve.” The verb ἐκάθητο (ekathēto, sat) shows the communal, seated nature of the supper.

  2. Ἀγάπη (agapē)
    Sometimes called the “love feast,” especially in 1 Corinthians 11:20 and Jude 12. It denotes a communal meal marked by fellowship, charity, and sharing. The verb often associated with it is μεταλαμβάνειν (metalambanein, to partake, to share) or ἔσθιειν (esthiein, to eat).

  3. Εὐχαριστία (eucharistia)
    Literally “thanksgiving,” this word highlights the act of giving thanks over the bread and cup. The verb εὐχαριστεῖν (eucharistein, to give thanks) is central in the Pauline institution narratives (1 Corinthians 11:24–25) and in Luke 22:19. It emphasizes the prayerful, commemorative aspect of the meal.

  4. Ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis)
    Meaning “remembrance,” used in 1 Corinthians 11:24 and Luke 22:19. The verb ἀναμιμνήσκειν (anamimnēskein, to recall, to call to mind) underlines the memorial function: the meal is done in remembrance of Christ’s death. It is performative—doing the action recalls the event.

  5. Μετάληψις (metalēpsis)
    Literally “partaking” or “participation,” sometimes used to describe communion with Christ’s body and blood, emphasizing relational and spiritual participation rather than a purely physical meal. The verb μεταλαμβάνειν (metalambanein) appears in contexts of sharing in the bread and cup (1 Corinthians 10:16).

  6. Σαββάτιον / κοινὸν δεῖπνον
    Rare or indirect references to “weekly/sabbath meal” or “common meal” (for example, Acts 2:46 uses “breaking bread, κλάσεις ἄρτων,” in the fellowship). The verb κλάσις (klasis, breaking) is important, breaking bread signals communal sharing, not mystical transformation.

Summary of nuance

Δεῖπνον emphasizes the social, communal meal.

Ἀγάπη stresses fellowship and love in sharing.

Εὐχαριστία highlights thanksgiving over the elements.

Ἀνάμνησις emphasizes memorial remembrance of Christ’s death.

Μετάληψις stresses participation or communion.

κλάσις (breaking) underscores the communal act of sharing the bread.

J.

78

:slight_smile: brother @ILOVECHRIST, we discussed this yesterday…half picture is a dangerous one
Lets go about the patristic witnesses:
About Origen:
Commentary of John 10:13-18, Patrologia Graeca 14:589-592
Your citation emphaiszes spiritual participation but Origen’s broader corpus affirms realism.
In Homilies on Leviticus 7.5, he describes the Eucharist as Christ’s Body consumed for atonement, with “symbol” denoting a typological fulfillment:
His spiritual exegesis complements somatic presence, not denies it (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, HarperOne, 1978)
Tertullian:
De Carne Christi 13, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 2:904):
You note Tertullian’s “figure” (figura), but he uses it to affirm Christ’s real body against Docetism, not to deny eucharistic realism. In De Oratione (19), he calls the Eucharist Christ’s Body, urging reverence. Figura in Latin patristics often means sacramental sign effecting reality (cf. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana 3.16).

Ignatius:
Smyrnaeans 7.1, Patrologia Graeca 5:709
His condemnation of those denying the Eucharist as Christ;s flesh explicitly affirms realism tied to anti-Docetist pelmeic. His focus on unity reinforces koinonia in the real Body (1 Cor 10:16) not mere symbol.
The early Church’s consensus leans heavily realist: Justin Martyr (First Apology 66, ca. 155) calls elements “not common bread” but Christ’s Body; Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 4.18.5, ca. 180) links them to Malachi 1:11’s sacrifice. Symbolic language (e.g., Didache 9–10) serves pedagogy, not exclusion of presence (Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship, Concordia, 1966, pp. 45–67).

Your Passover analogy (Exod 12) as non-transformative overlooks its somatic realism: the lamb is eaten, effecting salvation. Manna (Exod 16) and Malachi 1:11’s offering prefigure a tangible Eucharist (Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, Doubleday, 2011). Hebrews 10:10’s “once-for-all” sacrifice is re-presented, not repeated, in the Supper (CCC 1366). Memorialism reduces typology to narrative, negating koinonia’s ontological depth.
We discussed about trōgein yesterday and you yourself, @ILOVECHRIST have checked the sources and references, because I have written it again and again, so that part about estin and trōgein is over.

  • Ἀνάμνησις and Performative Ritual: You emphasize ἀνάμνησις as remembrance, tied to ἀναμιμνήσκειν (to recall). In Hellenistic Judaism and the Septuagint (LXX), ἀνάμνησις is not passive memory but active re-presentation. Leviticus 24:7 uses ἀνάμνησις for frankincense on the Bread of the Presence, invoking God’s covenantal action (Hebrew ʾazkārâ, from zākar, to make present). Numbers 10:10’s trumpet blasts are ἀνάμνησις before God, effecting favor. Joachim Jeremias (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, SCM Press, 1966) ties this to Passover (Exod 12:14), where zākar re-presents liberation, making participants contemporaries with the event. Paul’s εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (1 Cor 11:24–25) mirrors this: the Supper actualizes Christ’s sacrifice, as Orthodox liturgies (e.g., St. Basil’s Anaphora) and Catholic theology (CCC 1357–1362) affirm via epiclesis or consecration. Your claim that ἀνάμνησις is churchward, not Godward, overlooks Paul’s dual direction: proclaiming (καταγγέλλετε, v. 26) to the world while offering to God (cf. Mal 1:11, minchah tahorah, pure offering).
  • Καταγγέλλετε and Sacrificial Proclamation: You interpret καταγγέλλετε (proclaim, 1 Cor 11:26) as excluding sacrifice, favoring nāgad (declare) over anapherein (offer) or thuein (sacrifice). Yet, καταγγέλλω in LXX (Ps 105:1) heralds God’s acts in salvific contexts, implying presence (cf. Acts 4:2, proclaiming resurrection). In 1 Cor 10:16–18, Paul equates eucharistic koinonia (participation) with altar sacrifices, using θυσιαστήριον (altar), a cultic term. St. John Chrysostom (Homily 24 on 1 Corinthians, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol. 12, Hendrickson, 1994, sees this as mingling believers into Christ’s Body, not mere declaration. The verb ποιεῖτε (do this) is performative, as Nicholas Cabasilas notes (A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, SVS Press, 1960, ), effecting presence akin to Mishnaic Passover rites (Pesahim 10).
  • Εὐχαριστία and Κλάσις: Εὐχαριστεῖν (to give thanks) and κλάσις (breaking) are not merely commemorative. Εὐχαριστία in 1 Cor 11:24 parallels Jewish berakhah blessings, which consecrate elements for sacred use (cf. Berakhot 6.1). Κλάσις in Acts 2:46 and Luke 24:30 (Emmaus) is eucharistic, revealing Christ (Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist, SVS Press, 1988). These terms presuppose transformation, as μετάληψις (1 Cor 10:16) denotes real participation in Christ’s Body, not symbolic fellowship (cf. Plato, Gorgias 507e, koinonia as tangible sharing).
79

Another classic example of ignoring the clear witness of Scripture, sidelining the Holy Spirit’s illumination as we read, and overemphasizing selective patristic sources in a way that mirrors Eastern Orthodox tradition.

J.

80

Brother @Samuel_23, after reading your posts carefully and revisiting Johann’s arguments, along with our discussion yesterday in the forum’s messages section, I’ve come to a new understanding. I checked your references, compared them with Johann’s points, and the patristic and scriptural evidence convinced me — the Eucharist is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, not merely symbolic. Your posts guided me to investigate and reflect, but it was my own engagement with the sources and Johann’s reasoning that brought me to this conviction. I now fully embrace the real presence, seeing it clearly through Scripture, the Fathers, and sacramental theology.

1 Like
81

Brother Johann, your jab at “ignoring Scripture” and “overemphasizing patristics” stings with mockery, but I forgive you in Christ’s love, as He forgave those who scorned Him. Your charge doesnt work: Orthodox and Catholic theology doesn’t sideline the Spirit’s illumination but channels it through Scripture and Tradition, as 2 Thess 2:15 urges. John 6’s trōgein (gnawing, not metaphor), 1 Cor 10:16’s koinonia (real participation), and 1 Cor 11:29’s judgment for misdiscerning the Body demand a Real Presence, not mere symbol. The Fathers—Ignatius, Cyril, Chrysostom—aren’t selective props but faithful expositors of this truth, echoing Passover’s somatic realism (Exod 12:8). Let’s trade barbs for charity, seeking truth together. Peace be with you.

82

As Samuel and I discussed yesterday, approaching divine mysteries such as the Eucharist requires humility.

1 Like