Not "Dead Bread"

In previous posts, I presented the concept put forth by (heretical) Mary's Little Remnant leader, Richard Ibranyi, who says the Sacrament of the Eucharist is "dead bread", separated from Christ's human soul, though made alive by union with Christ's divine nature.  In other words, this Sacrament "proclaims the death of the Lord".  But this teaching is false, since it does not accurately represent the full understanding of the Apostles and Fathers. 

My former posts stated that the Roman counterfeit church fell into a Eucharistic Soul of Christ heresy, beginning with Antipope Gregory VII, and I proposed that this was because of the scholastic heresy of Absolute Simplicity.  Not only does this ignore the fact that the Sacrament had already been altered by Antipope Leo IX, I now see that I had only to continue reading the teachings of the Fathers and Councils in order to gain a proper understanding of what the Church has always taught. 

Though the Eucharist will always be a Mystery, I think St. John of Damascus provides a clear understanding of how the Eucharistic Presence of Christ is nevertheless the "whole" Christ (not only divinized flesh and blood), since Christ's body, blood and soul are always united to His one divine Person:

St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Ch. XXVII:  Concerning the fact that the divinity of the Word remained inseparable from the soul and the body, even at our Lord’s death, and that His subsistence continued one.

Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth) He was not subject to death, since death came into the world through sin.  He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes.  For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation.  God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant.  Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up.  For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.

Wherefore, although He died as man and His Holy Spirit was severed from His immaculate body, yet His divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean, from His soul and His body, and so even thus His one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases.  For body and soul received simultaneously in the beginning their being in the subsistence of the Word, and although they were severed from one another by death, yet they continued, each of them, having the one subsistence of the Word.  So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the subsistence of the Word, and of soul and body.  For at no time had either soul or body a separate subsistence of their own, different from that of the Word, and the subsistence of the Word is forever one, and at no time two.  So that the subsistence of Christ is always one.  For, although the soul was separated from the body topically, yet hypostatically they were united through the Word.

Perhaps Ibranyi's error is from the rejection of the Essence/Person distinction.  Regardless, I now believe the teaching that, the Eucharist is only part of Christ, is Nestorian, and I reject it:

Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, 431, Session 1 
First Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:  ...And not as common flesh do we receive it...but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word Himself. 
Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:  ...Neither do we say... that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of the flesh; for He is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable...  For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes...He filled all creation as God...for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.  Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ:  we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate Him into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united in Him only through a sharing of dignity and authority...neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a woman; but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with His own Flesh...  
For the Word of God, as we have said already, was made hypostatically one in flesh, yet He is God of all and he rules all...   
We are careful also how we say about Christ: "I worship the One clothed on account of the One clothing Him, and on account of the Unseen, I worship the Seen." It is horrible to say in this connexion as follows: "The assumed as well as the assuming have the name of God." For the saying of this divides again Christ into two, and puts the man separately by Himself and God also by Himself. For this saying denies openly the Unity according to which one is not worshipped in the other, nor does God exist together with the other; but Jesus Christ is considered as One, the Only-begotten Son, to be honored with one adoration together with His own flesh.  
...So although it is said that the resurrection of the dead was through man, yet we understand that man to have been the Word of God...
We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received His Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word Himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons. For neither is He, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two and they diverse, yet He has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person...
Therefore all the words which are read in the Gospels are to be applied to One Person, to One hypostasis of the Word Incarnate. For the Lord Jesus Christ is One, according to the Scriptures... having offered Himself as a sweet smelling savor to God and the Father.  Therefore also He said: "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not; but a body hast Thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do Thy will, O God." 
The XII Anathemas of St. Cyril Against Nestorius
III. If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.
VI. If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess Him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, "The Word was made flesh": let him be anathema.
VII. If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to Him as something not properly His: let him be anathema.
VIII. If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and recognized together with Him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this "Together with" is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to Him one glorification, as [it is written] "The Word was made flesh": let him be anathema.

The truth that the Eucharist which we receive is the whole Christ Himself permeates Christian worship:

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Liturgy of the Faithful
The Cherubic Hymn: (beginning prayer)  Priest:  ...Thou didst become man, yet without change or alteration, and as Master of all didst take the name of our High Priest and delivered unto us the ministry of this liturgic and bloodless sacrifice. For Thou alone, O Lord our God, rulest over those in heaven and on earth, Who art borne on the throne of the cherubim, Who art Lord of the seraphim and king of Israel, Who alone art holy and restest in the holy place...vouchsafe that these gifts may be offered unto Thee by me, Thy sinful and unworthy servant; for Thou Thyself art He that offereth and is offered, that accepteth and is distributed, O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe glory...
The Holy Anaphora:  ...Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of Thy glory: Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. 
The Lord's Prayer:  (after the Prayer) Priest:  ...Do Thou Thyself, O Master, look down from heaven upon those who have bowed their heads unto Thee; for they have not bowed down unto flesh and blood, but to Thee, the fearful God. Therefore, O Master, do Thou Thyself distribute these Gifts here spread forth, unto all of us for good, according to the individual need of each...Thou Who art the Physician of our souls and bodies.
The Elevation
Priest: The Holy Things are for the holy.
Faithful: One is Holy, One is the Lord: Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen. 
The Communion of the Faithful
Deacon: With the fear of God and faith and love, draw near.
Faithful: Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord. God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us. 
The Pre-Communion Prayers
All: I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly Thine own immaculate Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Wherefore I pray Thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thine immaculate mysteries, unto remission of my sins and unto life everlasting. Amen.
Of Thy mystic supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant: for I will not speak of Thy mystery to Thine enemies, neither will I give Thee a kiss as did Judas; but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me, O Lord, in Thy kingdom.  Not unto judgment nor unto condemnation be my partaking of Thy holy mysteries, O Lord, but unto the healing of soul and body. 
Dismissal
Faithful:  Let our mouths be filled with Thy praise, O Lord, that we may sing of Thy glory: for Thou hast made us worthy to partake of Thy holy, divine, immortal and life creating Mysteries.  Keep us in Thy holiness, that all the day we may meditate upon Thy righteousness. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.
Litany of Thanksgiving
Deacon: Stand upright. Having partaken of the divine, holy, immaculate, immortal, heavenly, lifegiving and dread mysteries of Christ, let us worthily give thanks unto the Lord. 
The Thanksgiving Prayer
Priest:  We give thanks unto Thee, O Master who lovest mankind, Benefactor of our souls and bodies, for Thou hast vouchsafed this day to feed us with Thy heavenly and immortal mysteries...Thou art our Sanctification, and unto Thee we ascribe glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.  Amen.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 182 A.D., 5.2:  ...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of Him?

St. Ambrose, The Mysteries, 390 A.D., 9.58:  ...Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ.

Though the Genuine Orthodox Church of America is schismatic because its leader (Gregory of Denver) was deposed by his Synod in 2004, its website provides a clear teaching on Christ's institution of the Eucharist:

Genuine Orthodox Church of America, Brief Orthodox Replies to  the Innovations of the Papacy, #3. A Eucharist of Unleavened Wafers:  The Orthodox bishops, in their reply, also denounced the third innovation of the substitution of unleavened wafers for the leavened bread hitherto used in their sacrament of the Eucharist.

When the Lord instituted the Mystery of the Eucharist, He commanded us to do as He had done.  The Orthodox follow that instruction; Rome, however, does not.  The Roman Pontiff has altered the Lord’s institution and the traditions of the Holy Fathers, by instituting the use of azymes or unleavened bread (crackers), and not artos or leavened bread in the celebration of the Mystery of the Eucharist.  The Apostles are all unanimous in their testimony that our Lord made a point of offering leavened bread, which they show by using the word Greek artos and not the Jewish crackers or unleavened bread, which the same Apostles always specify as azymos, or azymes in English.  It is very clear that the Lord, the Apostles, and the Apostolic Church all used leavened bread, not Jewish crackers, in their Mysteries.  The Evangelist Luke recounts: “And He took bread (artos) and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is My body which is being given for you; be doing this in remembrance of Me...” [Lk. 22:19].  Likewise, St. Paul and the Apostolic churches use leavened bread: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of the Christ?  The bread (artos) which we break, is it not communion of the body of the Christ?...  For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up took bread (artos); and having given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is being broken for you; be doing this in remembrance of Me.”” [1 Cor. 10:16, 11:23-24]  St. Matthew also has leavened bread, not unleavened azymes, in the Mysteries:  “And as they ate, Jesus took the bread (artos), and blessed it, and broke it, and was giving it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body...” [Mt. 26:26]  And the same with St. Mark:  “And as they ate, Jesus took bread (artos), blessed it, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body...” [Mk. 14:22]

There is no disagreement among the “eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word” [Lk. 1:2].

Rome incorrectly attempts to justify its innovation by referring to the preceding words of the Evangelists that:  “And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they used to slay the passover, His disciples said to Him, “Where dost Thou wish that we go and prepare, that Thou mightest eat the passover?”...and they prepared for the passover.  And it having come to be late, He cometh with the twelve.  And...they reclined at table and ate,...And as they ate, Jesus took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” [Mk. 14:12-22]  Despite the clear use of the word artos for the Eucharist over and over again in the New Testament, Rome insists that the preceding passage must mean that the prohibition of leavened bread was already in force, in the night in which Christ instituted the Mystery of the Eucharist.  Thus, Christ must have used azymes, because artos was forbidden by the Law during the feast of azymes.

Anyone who reads the Law of Moses will see that, in fact, this is not so. “On the 14th day, nigh to its evening,...you shall kill the lamb,...and you shall eat it in that night (i.e., the beginning of the 15th day)...  Beginning on the 14th day, from its evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, as far as the 21st day, as far as its evening.  Seven days [days 15-21] leaven shall not be found in your houses” [Ex. 12:6-15].  Moses establishes that each day begins with nightfall and ends after the following evening with nightfall again.  Moses ordains that the Passover lamb be killed nigh to the evening of the 14th day and that it be eaten that night, that is, in the beginning of the 15th day.  Moses likewise commands the eating of unleavened bread to begin in the evening of the 14th day, from which it is called the 1st day of the unleavened bread [after sundown on Good Friday]... 

Saint Chrysostom in Homily 81 on St. Matthew, likewise, says that “he means the day before that feast; for they are accustomed always to reckon the day from the sunset, and he makes mention of this as the one in which the passover must be sacrificed in its evening.  ”Christ instituted the Eucharist in the night that began the 14th of Nisan, on which they sacrificed the Passover lamb, not in the following night when they ate it [with unleavened bread].

Rome, however, by its obstinate, scriptural illiteracy, makes the Evangelists contradict themselves, saying bread (artos), where they meant crackers (azymes), and it only becomes worse still, when the Evangelist John adds that on the morning after the Mystic Supper:  “Then they lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the Prætorium; and it was early.  And they themselves entered not into the Prætorium, in order that they should not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover” [Jn. 18:28].  The Jews had not yet eaten the Passover at the time when Christ was being lead to his Passion, which was the morning after He instituted the Eucharist.  Rome knows neither the Holy Scriptures nor the Holy Fathers, otherwise she would not have made this glaring error.  It still becomes worse yet when we compare the instructions for the night of Passover with what the Lord and His Apostles did on the night of the Eucharist.

If it were the Passover night, they would have been obliged to eat azymes, standing, and in haste, with loins girded, shoes on, and staff in hand [Ex. 12:11].  On the contrary, they ate artos, reclining at table.  Christ was not girded (a mode of binding ones clothes up high in preparation for work or travel), since He only afterward girt himself with a towel.  The reclining Apostles’ feet were bared for washing, not in their shoes.  Simon Peter carried not staff, but had empty hands to proffer for washing.  Not one Evangelist describes what would mark a Passover meal.  Nowhere in the Gospel accounts is there any reference to “unleavened bread” (azuma), but only to “bread” (artos).  Moreover, the Passover meal was eaten dry, without sauce or gravy, simply roasted flesh.  Yet, we read that the disciples dipped in the dish and that Christ offered a “sop” [Jn. 13:26].  No Evangelist mentions lamb or bitter herbs being eaten.  There was no blood upon the lintels or the doorposts.  Furthermore, the Mosaic Law strictly forbade any Hebrew to go out of doors on the night of Passover.  However, both the Jews and Christ with His disciples moved about freely during that Thursday night.  Even the action of Judas, when he “immediately went out into the night” [Jn. 13:30], was not considered unusual nor had it evoked surprise.

No, this was not a Passover meal.  The Gospel of St. John clearly states that it was “before the feast of the Passover” [Jn. 13:1] when Jesus, after the Mystic Supper, washed the disciples feet [v. 5].  Christ, the new Passover, the Lamb of God [Jn. 1:29], was sacrificed the next day, Holy and Great Friday.  The Holy Fathers taught that Christ was sacrificed on the Cross on the actual day and hour when the Passover of the Law was sacrificed.  Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek [Ps. 109:4; Heb. 5:6, 10, 20], not Aaron [Heb. 7:6].  Azymes belong the Aaronic priesthood, while Melchizedek is said to have offered bread (artos), not azymes (azuma) [Gen. 14:18].

The disciples made preparations to celebrate the Passover [Mk. 14:12], but it does not follow that they actually ate it.  Christ’s words, “with desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” [Lk. 22:15], refer not to the Passover of the Law, but to the New Passover, the eating of the new and true “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” [Jn. 1:29] which He was about to institute, and of which the former had been only typical, a “shadow” [Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1] and “copy of the archetype” of the coming one [Heb. 8:5; Ex. 25:40].  “For also Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” [1 Cor. 5:7], as St. Paul says.  Note, Christ did not simply say “the Passover,” but “this Passover”, as distinguishing it from any other Passover, meaning the new Passover, the Body and Blood broken and poured out in the coming sacrifice of Himself for the life of the world, of which His disciples that night partook.

The holy Apostles did as they were taught by Jesus, the true [Jn. 6:32] and living Bread of life [vv. 35, 51].  They always performed the Mystery of the Eucharist with leavened bread.  The Church of Christ, being instructed by the Apostles, observes this same rule unchanged.  We read that the early Church “continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread (artos), and in prayers” [Acts 3:42].  The same act was also seen to be done by St. Paul [Acts 20:11].  The expression “breaking of bread” is a reference by synecdoche to the Mystery of the Eucharist, as St. Paul shows when he describes the Mystic Supper in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, stating:  “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up took bread; and having given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is being broken for you; be doing this in remembrance of Me” [1 Cor. 11:23-24].  The breaking of the bread refers to the breaking of the consecrated Body of Christ in the Divine Liturgy.

Apostolic Canon LXX forbids any clergymen, on threat of deposition, to celebrate with the Jews a feast with azymes.  All the writers of the Divine Liturgy, the Apostle James (the brother of the Lord [from St. Joseph's first marriage]), St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom direct the Eucharist to be celebrated with bread, not unleavened wafers.  From the time of Christ, until sometime during the Ponficate of Leo IX (1049-1054 A.D.) (who, incidentally, was Jewish himself, according to his biographer; cf. “On Simonaics, and the Life of St. Leo IX” by Bishop Bruno of Segni [11th century A.D.], wherein he speaks of “Our Leo of the tribe of Juda, from which tribe this Leo traced his origin...”), the Western Church celebrated Mass with artos, leavened bread.  It was at this time that the Latin Churches were commanded to change to azymes or the Jewish crackers.  The compliance of the Latin Patriarchal church in Constantinople with this decree and also a letter on the Latin innovations from the Greeks of south Italy to Archbishop Theophylactos of Ochrida made the Patriarchate of Constantinople aware of this innovation.  The Patriarch of Constantinople reacted by closing the Latin Patriarchate’s church and denying the validity of their Mass of azymes, which was one of the grievances, mentioned by the Latins in their excommunication of the Orthodox.