The Not So Secret Rapture

I think “hijack” is hardly the right word. When David wrote down songs they weren't dictation by God but none the less inspired and recognized by Christians as really God's word.

They were originally included in the Tanakh, which the Jews recognized as lesser Scripture. The Church used the Septuagint as OT Scripture, and eventually authorized the new writings of its choosing as NT Scripture. However, nowhere does the NT claim that God dictated it; the closest we come is the quotations of Jesus.

I will call them generalities because a direct accusation of another poster

I gave you Scripture. If you feel a direct accusation it wasn't from me.

"For the Word of God is LIVING and ACTIVE. SHARPER than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it JUDGES the THOUGHTS and ATTITUDES of the heart."

of not either knowing Scriptures or the power of God are the two specifics of the question. And I know that you would not accuse me directly, being a good FR poster.

HE KNOWS who can and who cannot understand HIS Word. He knows the power behind HIS WORD. HE knows what is necessary to understand IT because it is "HIS WORD". You either learn from men in dresses OR you listen/learn from God's Word.

"The man WITHOUT the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT UNDERSTAND them, because they are Spiritually discerned".

A favourite thing for antiCatholics to resort to when they run out of other options, such as truth or Scripture.

An obvious thing for ANTI-WORD catholics is to resort to using Scripture when they have no knowledge of it's meaning.

such as truth or Scripture.

There is ONLY ONE TRUTH - God's Word. Get used to it Mark, HIS WORD isn't going away while man made doctrine will burn and return from where it came.

” However, nowhere does the NT claim that God dictated it; the closest we come is the quotations of Jesus.”

You argue against a proposition not made. The NT writers were conscious of what their writings constituted,
Paul finding it necessary to make clear when he was speaking his own opinion and not something directly attributable to God and Peter could call what Paul wrote “Scripture”.
The apostle John says that what he saw was a revelation from God to Christ and that he, John, came to be in the “Lord's Day” by inspiration or “in the spirit”.

So I don't see the ‘no claim it was dictated’ point having anything to do with whether the Scriptures are really God's word in their entirety.

"Yes, many of the early fathers believed in the Real Presence. There are some that did not."

All of the Fathers believed in the Real Presence. There were none who did not. +Ignatius tells us of heretics who didn't, but we have no names. Do you?

"Ratramnus...."

Ratramnus said that the bread and wine on the altar table were "vere corpus et sanguis Christi". Sounds like the Real presence to me, HD. What he denied, heretically in the opinion of Rome and, I suspect given the fact that Rome had yet to break with the rest of The Church, in that of the other Patriarchates as well if they ever gave him any thought, was that Christ on the altar table was the "same Christ" as He who was born of the Theotokos, lived, suffered, rose from the dead and ascended to the Father; an odd teaching indeed but not, apparently, a denial of the Real Presence.

HD, the denial of the Real Presence as a doctrine for Christians was an innovation of some Protestants after Luther. It is not even remotely patristic, let alone a teaching found in the consensus patrum.

"Well, John and Paul for starters...

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Oh, HD, I'm disappointed. You know that while +Paul and John are considered among the greatest Evangelists and Apostles, neither are considered, even by the Reformers, as "Fathers". Beyond that, neither of the quotes you cite stand for any form of the atonement theory of salvation all of which, other than the "ransom" theory, were virtually unknown in The Church until Anselm of Canterbury's innovations in the 11th century which, as expanded on by Aquinas, your folks later picked up and ran with.

In other words, "reality" exists independently of whatever "idealistic or notional ideas" we might have of it. It is not something "produced in our minds."

Indeed.

Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod believes and teaches that it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us (1 Cor. 10:12; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8, etc.). Such warnings are intended for Christians who appear to be lacking a right understanding of the seriousness of their sin and of God's judgment against sin, and who, therefore, are in danger of developing a false and proud "security" based not on God's grace, but on their own works, self-righteousness, or freedom to "do as they please."

EXACTLY correct.

Thanks Metmom,

It's good that you are reading the links I sent that prove that Jesus Christ is God

We Christians believe that Jesus Christ IS God -- and, as I showed in the links, there is adequate proof in the scripture that He was who HE said He was -- namely, GOD.

I'm still waiting for you to give exegetical proof for your denial of Christ's words inaugurating the Eucharist

Have you no eyes to read what Christ Himself says? Why do you deny His words?

I might also be missing a bite of a certain apple... :)

Yeah, right, if it wasn't for women you men would still be eatin' strawberries in the Garden of Eden. Something tells me though, you would have gotten to that apple all by your lonesome. ;o)

Great references. They provide much to clear up the false doctrine of transubstantiation. Thanks.

Actually, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ is as in the bible

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
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.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

here's the entire chapter for you

26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
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.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[b] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[c] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Remember, it was NOT a metaphor as Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't

In case of John 6 it is clear what Jesus means -- don't make Him out to be a liar -- look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16). Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 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?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

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.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Denial of Christ's clear words and misinterpration is sadly continuing what the pagans did in the days of the Early Christians

the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens).

The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist.

Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all believe in the True Presence.

1Cor 11:23-26 also explains the fallacy of transubstantiation.

John 6:26-69 well describes it. If transubstantiation were sound doctrine, there would have been no reference to the manna as being insufficient for life, for it also could have served that role.

On the contrary, we take of His body, the bread of life, or flesh, which God the Father provided, the living bread which came down from Heaven, then we have eternal life.

If we drink of the cup, His blood, i.e. His saving work on the Cross of His death, then we also have fellowship with Him.

As often as we eat or intake Him, we also are to do these things in remembrance of Him. 1stJohn 1:9 follows easily and matches well with the Eucharist.

Obviously to those whom the Father has drawn to the Son, it isn’t the physical consumption without the spiritual metaphor which saves, as the references to the manna and Paul’s admonition of those consuming the Eucharist because they were physically hungry, but now some were sickly (1Cor 11:30)

bb: As Chesterton noted, when a man ceases to believe in God that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t then believe in nothing. Rather it means he’ll believe in anything.

Spirited: Indeed. When a man chooses to reject God the Father, this does not mean that his choice makes him an autonomous individual whose mind is “sacrosanct.” No, it is just when man willfully rejects God the Father that “peculiar” ideas take root in his mind.

1Cor 11:23-26 does nothing of that sort,

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.

And this is clear -- this is the NEW Covenant, and plese note that you cannot read it in isolation without reading verses 27-29

1 Cor 11:27-29

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.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Now, you can not be guilty of sinning against the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord if you actually only Bread, no matter how symbolic. This is confirmed in Paul's (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 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?

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

This cannot be a metaphor, because of the Words of JESUS himself --

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't and John 6 is NOT a metaphor -- He solemnly repeats it TWICE and even when the disciples leave, does not call back "oh, it's just a metaphor for fellowship"

All of the Fathers believed in the Real Presence.

Isn't that a little extreme? While I'll agree there is substantial writings on this, this was not without controversy in the Church. The Roman Council in 1079 felt a need to issue a statement on it and the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 felt they needed to reiterate their stance. If this was universally accepted there would be no need to issue these proclamations, especially so late.

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). - Cyril of Jerusalem

Even though Cyril believed in the Real Presence it seems he needed to remind others that it's not just bread and wine.

But more important than whether it actually turns into the body and blood, what does the Real Present represent? Would you say the Real Presence represents a "sacrifice offered to God", as Augustine states? Quotes from the early fathers says is in regards to a sacrifice given to God, some say to appease God's wrath, and therefore we must participate in that sacrifice.

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). - Ignatius of Antioch
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]). -Cyprian of Carthage

Ignatius taught that it was Christ's suffering for our sins and those who refuse are perishing. Cyprian further this argument by saying that the sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Is this what the Orthodox believe when you take the Real Presence? Sure, the Real Presence is talked about by the early fathers but normally it is used in the context of appeasing God's wrath and satisfying our sins to God.

It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us. And when we take the Real Presence, that is what we should remember.

"The Roman Council in 1079 felt a need to issue a statement on it and the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 felt they needed to reiterate their stance. If this was universally accepted there would be no need to issue these proclamations, especially so late."

And therein lies the very danger in Rome's seeming inability to leave well enough alone. Dogma, in the One Church, was only declared to combat a known and present heresy, Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. In any event, the Roman Council was a local council and had no power to declare dogma. The 4th Lateran is not recognized by Orthodoxy as an Ecumenical Council but even if it were, in relevant part, what that council dogmatized was the Latin doctrine of Transubstantiation, which describes the Real Presence in physical terms using philosophical language. It didn't dogmatize the Real Presence doctrine.

"Even though Cyril believed in the Real Presence it seems he needed to remind others that it's not just bread and wine."

HD, I'll bet my own metropolitan has preached on this subject within the last year. That's what preachers do, they teach the Faith. He also teaches that Christ is True God and True Man, but there is no dispute in The Church about that either.

"Ignatius taught that it was Christ's suffering for our sins and those who refuse are perishing. Cyprian further this argument by saying that the sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Is this what the Orthodox believe when you take the Real Presence?

+Ignatius certainly teaches that Christ suffered for our sins. That is plain. Here he also teaches that those who cut themselves off from God's grace in the Eucharist have chosen their own fate. They reject God, not the other way around. You'll find no "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" phronema in +Ignatius. +Cyprian, like most of the early Westerners, was all over the map on theology (just like his theological mentor, the heretic Tertullian). Be taht as it may, the section you quoted from De Lapsi is not talking about partaking of the Body and Blood to appease an angry god, but rather about the Lapsi taking communion unworthily, before confessing their apostasy and receiving absolution for their sin. So, do the Orthodox believe as you have stated the matter? No. As I have stated the matter? Yes.

"It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us."

What you have written expresses what may be the most profound difference between what is taught by The Church and that preached by the various ecclesial heirs of the Calvinist groups. I do not for one minute doubt the sincerity of your belief. But it is why I have come to believe that Calvinists worship a "god" unknown to the Orthodox.