+ Archimandrite fr. Apostolos Kavaliotis
Dr of the Department of Special Education and Psychology
Faculty of Primary Education of the National And Kapodistrian University of Athens
PROLOGUE
Trying to handle a difficult ecclesiological issue as the celebration of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is causing considerable anxiety in someone who is aware on the dogmatic differences of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, but sets in the side of those who wish to qualify for residing and not dividing issues. Certainly there is not a purpose of this work a presentation of an ecclesiological issue on the background of the differences of the churches but to describe how is the Mystery celebrated in a particular way by the Orthodox Church for reasons that will be explained in the text. A Reference to a different ecclesiological context of the two churches is to be done, but not from the position of a judge of religious traditions and their operators during the centuries, but by the position of a priest and a man who believes that in the near future the united church will be the most important basis of humanity against those who torture it.
INTRODUCTION
The Mysteries of the Orthodox Church are well known to the clergy and many aspects of them are also well established in the minds and hearts of the common people, the faithful of the church. However, it must be noted here that one of these Mysteries, the Holy Eucharist, is not only a Mystery: it is “the most sublime Mystery, the Mystery of the Mysteries, the Sacrament of the Sacraments”, as is wonderfully written in a book for the Orthodox Chtistianity.[1] In that Mystery we find the presence of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, to be real and essential. In the name of the God, the bread and wine are offered in the place of a sacrifice without blood, the Sacrifice that was unique and was offered on the Cross once and for all. These two aspects of the Holy Eucharist are well attested and richly manifested in the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition of the Orthodox Church,[2] as is to be shown later at this paper.
But first of all a critical question: why a discussion about this sublime Mystery is today well-timed and above all necessary? Why do we have to discuss, or even to debate, on the meaning and the right way of executing that Mystery, at the first steps of the 21th century, i.e. almost a thousand years after the period that the one and the only valid tradition of the apostolic Church has been divided in two different traditions, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic? This question is to be answered in the course of this announcement, along with the juxtaposition of some thoughts about the state of Christian relations under the shade of the differentiation of Christians on such a serious issue. We must note here that this discussion on the form and celebration of the two different traditions is not to be done with the aim of choice of better or more normal way to celebrate Eucharist. Any comment has the purpose to show that at the first steps of our century these two great Churches fortunately feel that is finally the time to find some common paths for a renewal of their relationship. This renewal is something that the humanity needs more than ever.
We will start by trying to see if the Scriptures provide a secure framework for the interpretation of the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist today and on its position in the Liturgy. After this approach there will be space for the description of the meaning and the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the frame of the Orthodox Church. At a third part of this paper some comments are to be made on the differences of the two main ecclesiological traditions, just for adding some more comments on the way they work today on solving the problems which are to become crucial factors for the relationship between them.
1. THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN THE SCRIPTURES
A main belief of the Orthodox Church is that the bread and wine, which are used in the divine Eucharist, are transmuted. This word denotes that a change is produced in these elements in the Eucharist, as bread and wine stop being themselves. They become the body and blood of Christ[3]. This is the meaning of the words we find in the Gospel of Matthew (26:26-28) and these elements are the medium for the remembrance of Christ: 26 And as they ate, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take and eat. This is my body.” 27 And when he had taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it everyone. 28 For this is my blood of the covenant, being shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins”.[4] Luke (22:19-20) provides the same testimony: 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.[5] And Paul (1 Corinthians 11: 23-27) adds a hermeneutic comment on these same holy words: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.[6]
As already noted and is manifested from these apostolic words, the nature of the mysterious transmutation permeates the nature of the bread and wine and changes it. In the Holy Eucharist the two elements, although their physical characteristics as is the taste, the smell, the color etc. remain unchanged, they become other than themselves, far away from the things they do represent in our world. But there is not only the miracle of the transmutation which must be noted here as a metaphysical process which gives at their elements their divine substance[7]. Another thing is demonstrated too from the words of Lord: these two elements are to be understood as a pair of pieces from the body of the Christ which are ordered to be used together. The confirmation of this order comes also from John (6:53-54), and the very words are those: 53 Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 The person eating my flesh and drinking my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 The one eating my flesh and drinking my blood abides in me, and I in him.[8]
This relation of bread and wine with Christ makes the use of these two common elements special. A scholar, trying to answer to the question “why did Lord use bread and wine?”, answers rightly that he did so because they were common food for Jews at the time that Lord lived. But, he adds, there is much deeper significance to bread and wine on the symbolic level, which is obvious un Genesis, in the Exodus event and in Apostle Paul who remarks on the symbolism of the many grains using a representation of Christians as made one by Christ in his body as grains ground into flour become one in one loaf.[9] But here we must note that the Apostle refers to the wine too: 14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.[10]
All these testimonies result to the conclusion that at the time of the institution of the Eucharist there was an established idea that a sacred meal corresponded to the communion with God. And it is obvious that all passages written above, i.e. all these references in the New Testament to the administration of the rite of the Eucharist were identical in that sense: they implied an ordinary and recognized part of Christian life. If we look at the words that St. Justin Martyr contained in its First Apology, which is written about 145 A.D., we could easily ascertain that the words of Jesus were given as a command, that is handed in the memoirs of the Apostles which are called Gospels. There, Jesus told to the Disciples about His body and blood and the way they had to use bread and wine as His memorial. Almost half a century later, in about 190 A.D. there was St. Irenaeus who wrote that Christ “and in like manner the cup … He acknowledged as His blood, and taught to be the new oblation of the New Testament”.[11]
The Eucharist is not called only with this name in the New Testament. There are many words that refer to that same Mystery. It is called the “Lord’s Supper”, the “Mystical and Divine Supper”, the “Lord’s Table”, the “Cup of the Lord”, the “Despotic Table”, the “Table of Christ”. The two elements also have their other names, as is the “Living Bread”, the “bread which comes down from Heaven”, the “Lord’s Bread”, the “Bread of God”, the “Heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation”, the “daily Bread”, the “Cup of blessing”. And at their supernatural change the two elements are called “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ”, “Mystical Table” and the “Lord’s Body”. Finaly, because the effect achieved up to them who partake, Eucharist is called “Communion of the Body of Christ”, “Communion of the Blood of Christ”, “Cup of Life”, “Medicine of Immortality” “the antidote we take in order not to die”. Some other words and phrases for the Eucharist are “Altar”, “Sacrifice without the shedding of blood” “Prosphora” (Offering), “Holy Sacrifice” “Mystical” and “Logical” Sacrifice. Many of these names are not from the first or second century A.D., as they derive from later texts too, as is the Evangelic Proof (c. 312 A.D.) of Eusebius of Caesarea[12].
Because of all above properties the Orthodox Church does not find the Eucharist to be a “symbolic and memorial ceremony”, but based on the Bible interprets this sublime Mystery as consisting of two elements, the bread and wine, which after the invocation of the God are not earthly any more. They become heavenly. And our bodies, if communicate in the Eucharist, are no longer wear, but have the hope of resurrection. This very teaching was offered by the early Church to the new members with the two elements of the Eucharist. By sharing these two elements, by spreading to all members the body and blood, the enlightened coul become shareholders of the divine nature[13]. Cyril of Jerusalem explains this at his catechetical lessons later at the 4th cent. A.D.: “Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ2453 Χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα. Procat. 15. in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed2454 Ben. Ed.: “᾽Αναδιδομένου. The Codices Coisl. Roe, Casaub. Scirlet. Ottob. 2. Genovef. have ἀναδεδεγμένοι, which does not agree well with the Genitives τοῦ σώματος and τοῦ αἵματος. It is evident that it was an ill-contrived emendation of ἀναδιδομένου, the transcribers being offended at the distribution of Christ’s Body among our members. But Cyril uses even the same word in Cat. xxiii. 9: Οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος.…εἰς πᾶσάν σου τὴν σύστασιν ἀναδίδοται, εἰς ὠφέλειαν σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ‘This Bread is distributed into thy whole system, to the benefit of body and soul.’” ᾽Αναδιδομένουis the reading of Milles and Rupp. For similar language see Justin M. Apol. i. 66; Iren. V. ii. 2. through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature”2455 2 Pet. i. 4. (Catechesis, Lecture XXII: On the Mysteries. IV).[14]
2. THE CELEBRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
J. Zizioulas, Professor Metropolitan of Pergamos and Chairman of the Athens Academy, explains that in the ecclesiology of the first Christianity we could not find theoretical or abstract meanings but rather practical. So, although a theoretical description of the Church is missing, a repeated view of it as an assembly in a particular place is present. The same author notes that “the point of altogether special importance is that it was not just any assembly, but strictly speaking, the Eucharistic assembly that was called ekklesia or ‘Church’. This is clearly shown by a careful examination of the information we can glean from the most ancient texts we have, namely Paul’s Epistles. … So from an examination of the … Epistles of Paul, it transpires that the Eucharistic assembly was identified with the ‘Church of God’ herself. … Paul does not hesitate in the slightest to call this assembly ‘the Church of God”: to despise the Eucharistic assembly is to despise the very ‘Church of God’.”[15]
For the Orthodox these acceptances suggest that the Eucharist is a manifestation of the mystical communion that a believer could join not only with the God, but with other believers. Moreover, it is a manifestation of the unity of the Church. Because of this belief the East did not feel doctrinal affections coming from the Western debates on transubstantiation, which are proven to be exhausting, maintaining a holistic view of the process of the entire Divine Liturghy. A good reason for this is probably the understanding of the Eucharist as is expressed within the liturgical prayers themselves[16]. This meaning for the Eucharist is repeatedly and constantly referenced by the Orthodox scholars, who find at the celebration of the Eucharist the consideration of an exemplary model of the communion experienced by all people in the Church with the God but also with each other[17].
The connection of the Mystery with the minister of the Church is obvious by the celebration of it in the presence of him. Firstly, the priest brings the bread and wine to the Holy Prothesis, and during the Liturgy, during the Great Entrance he carries them to the Holy Table. The Holy Anaphora begins, so too the celebration of the Mystery. This is an act which strongly recalls that of Jesus, who employed bread and wine during the Last Supper when he transmitted the Sacrament of Eucharist, this great Sacrament of people salvation to the Church. As Jesus said that bread was to be made His Precious Body and wine (or the Cup) His Precious Blood, this change of the nature of these two elements came by the mediation of the Holy Spirit. The faithful by their participation to the Eucharist feel the perceptible presence of their God-man Saviour in His entire Body. Everyone who is ready to communicate, communicates Him, because he/she receives within these two main elements not only bread and wine, but the very Body and Blood of Christ. The participants become “of the same body” and “of the same blood”, they come to be “Christbearers”, they constitute with Christ, Whom they bear within themselves. So, not only a change of bread and wine are transformed to the Body and Blood of Jesus, but also “our Lord’s entire life and saving work is represented and performed”[18]. At the Great Entrance, before the offering of bread and wine, which are brought by the priest from the Preparation Table, through the nave, and to the Altar Table, “we are called upon to love one another so that we may perfectly confess our faith … Only now can we properly offer our gifts of bread and wine to the Father as our Lord directed us to do in His memory. This offering is one of great joy, for through it we remember the mighty actions of God through which we have received the gift of salvation, and especially the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. We invoke the Holy Spirit upon ourselves and upon our offering, asking the Father that they become for us the Body and Blood of Christ. Through our thanking and remembering the Holy Spirit reveals the presence of the Risen Christ in our midst”.[19]
Today the celebration of the Eucharist follows four main forms, three of which are name after three Holy Fathers and one from the Pre-Sanctified Gifts. The most frequently celebrated is the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Second in frequency comes the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which is celebrated ten times a year. And the third form named by a Holy Father is the Liturgy of St. James, which is celebrated on October 23, at the feastday of the Saint. There are not differences in the structure and basic elements of these three forms of Liturgy, but several differences in some hymns and prayers are well established. This is due to the fact that every one of these saints must have been the author of many of the prayers. The fourth form, that of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts, is not a truly Eucharistic Liturgy, “but rather an evening Vesper Service followed by the distribution of Holy Communion reserved from the previous Sunday. It is celebrated only on weekday mornings or evenings during Lent, and on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week, when the full Eucharist is not permitted because of its Resurrection spirit”. It must be noted that the Divine Liturgy is properly celebrated only once a day, and is a custom with the aim of emphasizing and maintaining the unity of the local congregation. The Eucharist is the principal Service on Sundays and Holy Days. It may be celebrated on other weekdays. And as is indicated by the content of the previous paragraph, the Divine Liturgy is not celebrated by the priest privately, without a congregation.[20]
2. EAST AND WEST:
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST AND THE WAY THEY WORK TODAY ON THIS GREAT MATTER
The Catholic Church recognizes the central part and meaning of the Holy Eucharist in the prayer life of the Church, but in the course of time has introduced some major changes in the formal ceremony. They may be explained on the basis of the words of a scholar who says that in a central aspect like this many people are concerned about changes in the details of its celebration. So, the Catholic Church supports that the divine institution refers only to the essence of the sacraments and not to the detailed rites of their celebration. So, many parts of the rites have been arranged by the very Church across the centuries, not without the guidance of the Holly Spirit across the centuries. The divine institution is not something that could be changed, instead of the ecclesiastical arrangement that could change, as is shown by the variety existing between the Latin rites and those of the Orthodox Churches. A belief of this scholar is that the Catholic Church put forward changes very carefully, whithout ignoring that when she celebrates the sacraments she confesses the faith received from the Apostles[21].
With these in mind, another scholar writes that both Catholic liturgy and theology evolved for centuries. It is very right to locate and understand the liturgical rites and the theological assertions within their original historical and cultural contexts, but sometimes many things are obscured and need a better understanding. One of them is the Eucharist, certain aspects of which are doubted, eclipsed or ignored. The role of theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and of the official magisterium of the church which derives from church councils, such as the Council of Trent and Vatican II, is “to shore up what was lacking and to assert more clearly what had become ambiguous or even, in fact, erroneous in common liturgical practice and church teaching”[22].
There is no space or purpose here to discuss on the differences of the Churches on a matter of so importance as is the Holy Eucharist. It is enough to say that the greatest differences are those summarized this way: “In Catholic communion, the cup is withheld from the members, while the Orthodox bread cubes in the wine. Catholics believe the bread and wine (transubstantiation) become the literal body of Christ when the priest says, “this is my body”. The Orthodox disagree and say the change takes place at prayer. Catholics use unleavened bread, while Orthodox use leavened bread. Orthodox must keep a ridged schedule of fasts in order to have communion every week, but the most common practice is a minimum of four times a year during the four Orthodox Lents Christmas, Easter, Peter and Paul, The virgin Mary. Catholics on the other hand, must not eat the hour before, to have communion every day. In the end, Orthodox offer communion weekly and Catholics daily. In practice most Orthodox laity have communion four times year and Catholics weekly.”[23]
Many years ago, in 1984, there was a proposition for an agreed statement about Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, based on the works of the Eastern Orthodox-Catholic Consultation in the United States, during its 28th and 29th meetings (1983-1984). A document was resulted from the discussions which concludes on some useful comments about the way that the two Churches started to look at their differences at the end of the 20th century. The common points of their belief used to be the strong emphasis on the trinitarian dynamics of the Eucharist, mainly the balanced presentation of the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of Christ, together with some more crucial aspect as is the view of the Eucharist as a the sacrament of the unique and untreatable sacrifice of Christ in behalf of all. These common beliefs and the emphasis on the epicletic nature of the entire Eucharist celebration could help the two parts to overcome controversy about the moment of consecration and to move beyond some other historical controversies on the same subject. Further clarification is of course needed on the way in which Eucharist manifests the nature of the Church as the body of Christ, on the relationship between its sacrifice and his presence in the Eucharist, and on some more details too. The point without obvious solution is the inefficiency of the this growing consensus on Eucharist theology and practice to allow the sharing of the Mystery among the two Churches. This is due to the relationship of the Eucharist with a considerable degree of faith on the Church[24].
A crucial moment for the subject under discussion came with the common theological document of Ravenna in 2007, when the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue started its common announcement with these words: “Following the plan adopted at its first meeting in Rhodes in 1980, the Joint Commission began by addressing the mystery of ecclesial koinônia in the light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and of the Eucharist. This enabled a deeper understanding of ecclesial communion, both at the level of the local community around its bishop, and at the level of relations between bishops and between the local Churches over which each presides in communion with the One Church of God extending across the universe. … we must now draw the ecclesiological and canonical consequences which flow from the sacramental nature of the Church. Since the Eucharist, in the light of the Trinitarian mystery, constitutes the criterion of ecclesial life as a whole, how do institutional structures visibly reflect the mystery of this koinonia? Since the one and holy Church is realised both in each local Church celebrating the Eucharist and at the same time in the koinonia of all the Churches, how does the life of the Churches manifest this sacramental structure?”[25]
From our point of view and our position in the clergy of Greek Orthodox Church, a view and position which contain a great faith in the doctrines of the Orthodox Church, and an intimate sense for the right of the Orthodox in the way they celebrate this sublime Mystery we have to say this: In the difficult pathway of the 21st century humanity is facing very serious problems affecting its vitality, well-being and welfare. In view of these problems people are unfortunately removing from the church because of their daily problems. They do not have room for spiritual life and pious work. In the context of these findings everyday people might be interesting on how to find a stronger and more united support to cope with their daily problems and to move closer to the path of God until they come on it on full knowledge and conscience. The common faith of the Church can offer to these people that which is not provided by cosmic situations. But for doing this the Churches need to stop to quarrel over doctrinal issues which often are not of the flock’s interest but only of the priesthood. It is not necessary for the faithful to be obliged of involving in a Eucharist which flattens their religious beliefs, and certainly not to relinquish their dogmatic sovereignty just for finding devastating solutions for the Union of the Churches. We must build on common beliefs first and up to a second place to the dividing ones, but not without discussion of them, until we are able in the future to create the conditions for a better understanding of man by man, as taught by the miraculous work and sacrifice of the crucified Christ.
EPILOGUE
The main purpose of this study was to describe the spirit of the Orthodox Church and its thinking around the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, according to the apostolic tradition and the interpretations of the fathers during the first Christian centuries, from the last moments of Jesus on earth until the end of the 4th century A.D. The reference on the ancient sources, which could be more thorough, was to serve the second part of the announcement, which described the current ritual of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church on the connection to the tradition of the ancient church. A third part, which reported the general trends in the common efforts of Catholic and Orthodox on the serious issue of main ecclesiological differences as is the Eucharist, could not be omitted: although the first two parts highlight our position for harmonization with the ecclesiastical traditions, the third came to show that it there is no longer appropriate time for quarrels and disputes, but for a common path upon the unifying traditions, without the concession of ecclesiastical sovereignty for reasons that could lead to a false and superficial unity.
Bibliography
Alevizopoulos, A. (1994) “What is the Holy Eycharist” (text in Greek language with title: Τί είναι η Θεία Ευχαριστία;). http://www.impantokratoros.gr/euxaristia.el.aspx.
Anatolios, Kh., Brown, S. F. (2009) World Religions: Catholicism & Orthodox Christianity. Third Edition. New York: Chelsea House.
Bible Gateway, 1 Corinthians 10 (New International Version). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10&version=NIV.
Bible Gateway, 1 Corinthians 11 (New International Version). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11&version=NIV.
Bulgakov, S. N. (Fr.) (1997) The Holy Grail & the Eucharist. USA: Lindisfarne Books.
Dimoc, G. (2006) 100 Questions & Answers on the Eucharist. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press.
Early Christian Writings, An Introduction to the New Testament, XII The Work of Luke. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch12.html.
Fitzgerald, Th. (2014) “The Holy Eucharist”. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Webpage with the title Our Faith. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7077.
Francis Cardinal Arinze (2006) Celebrations of the Holy Eucharist. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Gifford, E. H. (2005) The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, with a revised translation, introduction, notes, and indices. In the series: Schaff, P. (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, GREGORY NAZIANZEN. Edimburg: T&T Clark. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxvi.html.
Irwin, K. W. (1991) Models of the Eucharist. New Jersey: Paulist Press.
Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (2007) Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communio, Conciliarity and Authority. Ravenna, 13 October 2007. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html.
Lampadarios, P. (Archibishop of Pelusium) (2006) The Holy Mysteries of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Port Said-Egypt.
Palmer, D. R. (2014) The Gospel of John, Part of the Holy Bible. (Translated from the Greek). http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/john.pdf.
Palmer, D. R. (2014) The Gospel of Matthew, Part of the Holy Bible. (Translated from the Greek). http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mattwgrk.pdf.
Prokurat, M., Goltzin, A., Peterson, M. D. (1996) The A to Z of the Orthodox Church. Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
Stone, D. (1925) A History of the Holy Eucharist, Volumes 1 & 2. Aeterna Press (reprinted: 2014).
The Interactive Bible (2014) “Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox Differences based upon tradition”. http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm.
Tynech, C. S. (2003) Orthodox Christianity. Hauppage, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
U.S. Theological Consultation (1984) «An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry». Borelli, J., Erickson, J. H. (eds.) (1996) Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue. USA: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, United States Catholic Conferrence.
Zizioulas, I. (2014 – last update) Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Translated from the original Greek text by Elizabeth Theokritoff – HOLY CROSS ORTHODOX PRESS – Brookline, Massachusetts. http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/ episkopos1/perieh.htm. (The Greek book is published in Athens, 2009 from Gregoris Publications).
[1] Tynech, C. S. (2003) Orthodox Christianity. Hauppage, New York: Nova Science Publishers, 106.
[2] Lampadarios, P. (Archibishop of Pelusium) (2006) The Holy Mysteries of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Port Said-Egypt, 113.
[3] Bulgakov, S. N. (Fr.) (1997) The Holy Grail & the Eucharist. USA: Lindisfarne Books, 63.
[4] Source of translated passage: Palmer, D. R. (2014) The Gospel of Matthew, Part of the Holy Bible. (Translated from the Greek). http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mattwgrk.pdf.
[5] Source of translated passage: Early Christian Writings, An Introduction to the New Testament, XII The Work of Luke. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch12.html. The Gospel of Luke is given there in its American Standard Version, also in other two which are not used here.
[6] Source of translated passage: Bible Gateway, 1 Corinthians 11 (New International Version). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11&version=NIV.
[7] Bulgakov (1997), 63.
[8] Source of translated passage: Palmer, D. R. (2014) The Gospel of John, Part of the Holy Bible. (Translated from the Greek). http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/john.pdf.
[9] Dimoc, G. (2006) 100 Questions & Answers on the Eucharist. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 17.
[10] Source of translated passage: Bible Gateway, 1 Corinthians 10 (New International Version). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10&version=NIV.
[11] Stone, D. (1925) A History of the Holy Eucharist, Volumes 1 & 2. Aeterna Press (reprinted: 2014), 3 και 7.
[12] Lampadarios (2006), 116.
[13] Source of translated passage: Gifford, E. H. (2005) The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, with a revised translation, introduction, notes, and indices. In the series: Schaff, P. (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, GREGORY NAZIANZEN. Edimburg: T&T Clark. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxvi.html.
[14] Alevizopoulos, A. (1994) “What is the Holy Eycharist” (text in Greek language with title: Τί είναι η Θεία Ευχαριστία;). http://www.impantokratoros.gr/euxaristia.el.aspx.
[15] Zizioulas, I. (2014 – last update) Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Translated from the original Greek text by Elizabeth Theokritoff – HOLY CROSS ORTHODOX PRESS – Brookline, Massachusetts. http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm. (The Greek book is published in Athens, 2009 from Gregoris Publications).
[16] Prokurat, M., Goltzin, A., Peterson, M. D. (1996) The A to Z of the Orthodox Church. Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 122.
[17] Anatolios, Kh., Brown, S. F. (2009) World Religions: Catholicism & Orthodox Christianity. Third Edition. New York: Chelsea House, 99.
[18] Tynech (2003), 107-108.
[19] Fitzgerald, Th. (2014) “The Holy Eucharist”. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Webpage with the title Our Faith. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7077.
[20] Fitzgerald (2014).
[21] Francis Cardinal Arinze (2006) Celebrations of the Holy Eucharist. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 60-61.
[22] Irwin, K. W. (1991) Models of the Eucharist. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 28.
[23] The Interactive Bible (2014) “Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox Differences based upon tradition”. http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm
[24] U.S. Theological Consultation (1984) «An Agreed Statement on the Lima Document: Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry». Borelli, J., Erickson, J. H. (eds.) (1996) Orthodox and Catholics in Dialogue. USA: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, United States Catholic Conferrence, 71-72.
[25] Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (2007) Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesial Communio, Conciliarity and Authority. Ravenna, 13 October 2007. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html.