WeOrthodox
EN UA
Timothy Instagram

Real Presence Requires Actual Body and Blood, Speaker Argues

What the video says

The speaker argues that affirming a real presence in the Eucharist while denying that the bread and wine become Christ's actual body and blood is a contradiction. He cites Jesus's words in John 6, where Christ uses graphic language about eating his flesh and allows disciples to leave rather than explain it as a symbol. Saint Paul's use of "koinonia" indicates participation in the body and blood, and the term "anamnesis" denotes liturgical memorial, not mere mental recall.

Historical evidence from Saint Ignatius in 107 AD confirms the early church confessed the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ, a view unchallenged until Berengar of Tours in the 11th century.

Key moments

  1. The transcript opens with an objection that believing the Eucharist literally becomes Christ's body and blood is a "big no-no" and potential idolatry, while the objector claims to believe in a real presence without a molecular change.
  2. The speaker responds that defining real presence apart from Christ's actual body and blood simply redefines the Eucharist.
  3. The speaker cites Jesus's statement "this is my body" and John 6, where Jesus uses a Greek verb meaning "gnaw" or "chew" and lets disciples walk away rather than clarify a symbolic meaning.
  4. The speaker references Saint Paul's term "koinonia," meaning participation in the body and blood of Christ.
  5. The speaker explains the word "anamnesis" (remembrance) is biblical, liturgical memorial language, not merely mentally recalling something absent.
  6. The speaker cites Saint Ignatius writing around 107 AD that heretics do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ.
  7. The speaker notes there was no major challenge to this historic view until Berengar of Tours in the 11th century.
  8. The speaker concludes that claiming the real presence while denying Christ's actual body and blood is a contradiction dressed as a compromise and has never been Christian doctrine.

The speaker responds to an objection that believing the Eucharist literally becomes Christ's body and blood is a "big no-no" and potential idolatry. The objector claims to affirm a real presence without a molecular change. The speaker counters that defining real presence apart from Christ's actual body and blood simply redefines the Eucharist.

He cites Jesus's statement "this is my body" and the discourse in John 6, where Christ uses a Greek verb meaning "gnaw" or "chew" and allows disciples to walk away rather than clarify a symbolic meaning. The speaker references Saint Paul's use of "koinonia," which indicates participation in the body and blood of Christ. He explains that the term "anamnesis," translated as remembrance, is biblical and liturgical memorial language, not merely mentally recalling something absent.

Historical evidence from Saint Ignatius writing around 107 AD confirms the early church confessed the Eucharist as the flesh of Jesus Christ, noting that heretics do not confess this. The speaker states there was no major challenge to this historic view until Berengar of Tours in the 11th century. The speaker concludes that claiming the real presence while denying Christ's actual body and blood is a contradiction dressed as a compromise and has never been Christian doctrine.

Main points

  • The objector calls literal transformation a "big no-no" and potential idolatry while affirming real presence without molecular change
  • The speaker argues that real presence defined apart from Christ's actual body and blood redefines the Eucharist
  • Jesus in John 6 uses a verb meaning "gnaw" or "chew" and lets disciples leave rather than clarify a symbolic meaning
  • Saint Paul's "koinonia" means participation in the body and blood; "anamnesis" is liturgical memorial language
  • Saint Ignatius in 107 AD wrote that heretics do not confess the Eucharist as the flesh of Jesus Christ; no major challenge until Berengar of Tours in the 11th century
16 opinions in the discussion 15 participants, 2 replies to each other The opinion with the most support Also the verse right after, John 6:60, literally has the disciples calling it "a hard teaching" and questioning how anyone could accept it. I don't see how he could've been speaking figuratively if even the disciples were struggling that hard with the… Read the discussion
936 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 16

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#1874

    Also the verse right after, John 6:60, literally has the disciples calling it "a hard teaching" and questioning how anyone could accept it. I don't see how he could've been speaking figuratively if even the disciples were struggling that hard with the teaching. He spoke in parables constantly throughout the New Testament, but he also says he spoke directly and plainly to his disciples.

  • opinion#1872

    I'd love someone to explain this: Jesus used strong language to show importance, symbolism. But somehow with communion, oh now he means it literally - yet in Matthew he says "So if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." And last I checked, you all still have your hands and eyes. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in that passage he doesn't say "this is a symbol" either, he says cut off your hand, that it's better to enter eternal life with one hand. But somehow "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" couldn't possibly also be strong language emphasizing importance.

    • opinion#1879

      Respectfully, this was already addressed in the video and you still chose to ask the same question. Are you here because you genuinely want an explanation, or just to push your own views? We don't interpret the Bible by saying "oh look, this verse over here wasn't literal, so this one isn't either." That's bad hermeneutics. We interpret the Bible in its original language, in line with what the earliest Christians, taught directly by the apostles, believed. The video lays out an airtight case. If you don't want to accept it, that's your prerogative. No Christian believed what you believe until 1,000 years later - that should bother you. God bless.

    • opinion#1880

      I listened to that video a few times trying to get what you were saying, which is why I replied in the first place, to try to understand. What I actually asked was why other passages where Jesus used strong literal language aren't supposed to be taken literally too, when there's nothing showing they were metaphorical.

  • opinion#1865

    Is the orthodox position really that the "molecules change"? I assumed those details were a mystery. I'd think a real spiritual presence fits with the liturgical memorial, meaning ritually taking part in the cross, not merely "remembering" it. The bread and wine "are being" Christ's body and blood, as Fr. Stephen De Young has put it (pun intended) - kind of like the ship of Theseus being rebuilt plank by plank until none of the original wood remains, yet it's "still being" the ship of Theseus. In the same way, the molecules matter less than the fact that the bread and wine "still are" truly the Lord. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to grasp the exact doctrine here.

  • opinion#1866

    Forgive the silly question; I'm new to this topic and just trying to understand it better. I can follow the logic on both sides, but I have to ask: would Jesus have actually intended some form of cannibalism, or was it meant more metaphorically? See what I'm getting at? Thanks in advance for your sincere and respectful replies.

  • opinion#1867

    I've been watching your content lately and I really appreciate how you've deepened my love for the Saints and Catholic tradition. I'm not tagging you to argue or prove you wrong, I just hope to deepen your understanding of something you already love and hold sacred. From what I understand, for the earliest Christians it wasn't about the bread and wine specifically or the metaphysics, it was about what the body of Christ represents as a whole, complete way of being. Did you know the earliest Christians had Agape Feasts? House churches where people from every social class gathered and shared a meal together. Taking and eating wasn't about a priest holding up bread for people to receive, and it wasn't about grabbing a plastic cup of grape juice either. It's all a way of being. When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me," the Greek word for remembrance doesn't just mean looking back, it means making a past event real, active, and effective RIGHT NOW. Whenever we break bread, share, give and commune with others, we take part in the active, real, present body of Christ. This also connects to Jesus linking the wine to his blood. In ancient Hebrew thought blood symbolized life. When two people made a covenant they became blood relatives. When Jesus calls the wine his blood of the new covenant, it's not just ritual, it's about "pouring out" for others and giving. That's how we're…

  • opinion#1868

    Thoughts? From what I understand, for the earliest Christians it wasn't about the bread and wine specifically but about what the body of Christ represents as a whole. Remember when I told you the early churches had Agape Feasts where people of all different social classes gathered and ate a meal together? Taking and eating wasn't about a priest holding up bread for everyone to receive, and it wasn't about a plastic cup and grape juice either. It's all a way of being. When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me," the Greek word for remembrance doesn't just mean looking back, it means making a past event real, active, and effective RIGHT NOW. For me, the Eucharist isn't about the metaphysics of how Christ shows up, or just a ritual we perform, but an eternal way of being. Whenever we break bread, share, give and commune with others, we take part in the active, real, present body of Christ. EDIT: just to be clear, I wasn't saying the bread and wine don't matter at all, I was saying what they represented - Jesus doing what he always did, taking ordinary everyday life and letting God's kingdom invade the ordinary.

  • opinion#1869

    Funny how you skip John 6:35: "Then Jesus declared, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.'" So it's coming in belief that brings the sustenance of Christ's body and blood, and of course orthodox folks have to idolize the bread and wine beyond what God intended. That's the curse of worshipping a church and its "fathers" instead of the living Word of God. Remember the Pharisees? Yeah, same thing. Guess where they ended up. Stop taking things too far. Live in scripture. Quit being obsessed with the "church" and the early church fathers over scripture.

  • opinion#1870

    If the Eucharist really were the actual body of Christ, that's one ginormous body, don't you think? I mean, countless people have been eating it for centuries. Come on man, it's not the real body. Jesus is using figurative language, as he does all through the New Testament. "I am the door" - John 10:9. Jesus said, "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved." Jesus was not a literal wooden door; it's a metaphor saying he is the way to salvation. "I am the true vine" - John 15:1. Jesus isn't a literal vine and his disciples aren't literal branches; the imagery describes the spiritual relationship between Christ and believers. "I am the light of the world" - John 8:12. He was describing himself as the source of spiritual truth and life, not claiming to be physical light.

  • opinion#1871

    Genuine question from a lifelong protestant deeply in love with Jesus, just wanting to pursue God more every day and trying to understand this view of the Eucharist: how does an improper acknowledgment of it affect someone? If I take it with reverence and in remembrance of Jesus and His sacrifice, but don't hold to transubstantiation, is that a damning misunderstanding according to what you believe? What does taking it believing it physically changes versus taking it without believing that actually do? Can anyone point me to scripture or books to help me understand?

  • opinion#1873

    Communion is apparently the only time Jesus wasn't speaking in metaphor. "Born again" - we make fun of Nicodemus for taking that literally. "The living water" - did Jesus actually hand out water that made people never thirst again? Did a well spring up inside them giving eternal life? "Gouge out your eye" - our eyes have caused nearly all of us to sin, yet plenty of people are walking around with both of them. "Hate your own father and mother and wife and children." We know Jesus loved parable and metaphor. We apply that lens to everything He says that defies logic. Except this one thing. Why? Because the pope says so and he's "infallible," even though tons of popes have been wrong about tons of things throughout history, including your new pope who decided to go against the Council of Trent with his new stance on capital punishment.

  • opinion#1875

    Reading Eucharistic transubstantiation theology into John 6 is plain anachronism. The Lord's Supper hadn't even been instituted yet, and the main theme of John 6 is belief in Jesus, which is why Jesus rebuked people who ate the bread but didn't believe, and ended the chapter with "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life." (v. 63). The bread is merely for the flesh; Christ's words are what give eternal life, and they can only be consumed through belief in him.

  • opinion#1876

    He also said he is the sheep's gate - did he mean the gate to the sheep pen is literally him? No! Jesus spoke in parables and used symbolism constantly. He says to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of him! If I go hug my grandmother, is it out of remembrance? No, she's physically there. Why would I need something of remembrance for someone I'm literally embracing or taking into me? It's symbolism to remind us of the body that was broken and torn to nourish us and the blood that flowed freely to anoint us. Pointing at Jesus saying "this bread is my body, eat it in remembrance of me" and deciding he literally meant the bread turns into his flesh is not hearing what he actually said.

  • opinion#1877

    Sir... forgive me, but you are way in over your head here. The statement "not a denomination, born of water and Spirit" as a reply to mine is the tell-tale sign! You are mistaken about Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture. You are reading Holy Writ through the lens of your denomination, which was started by a man who interpreted them outside of Orthodoxy, which has been around for 2000 plus years!

  • opinion#1878

    When somebody goes and looks into why Carlos Acutis became a saint, they will understand what the Eucharist means and it all! Miracles have been performed all over the world concerning the Eucharist, where DNA has been found and tested, only to discover just one chromosome pattern, X, belonging only to the female chromosome, while the Y chromosome was never found. Please search Carlos Acutis and search the Eucharistic miracles. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Blessings