There follows a controversy. All are wrong, but:
“The doctrine of the Orthodox Church about the actuality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist has imperturbable foundations in Holy Scripture, as well as in Holy Tradition.” (p. 386.)
Here is a sample of the proofs why this action is to be understood as the church understands it: “In establishing the eucharist, the Lord established the greatest sacrament of the New Testament, which he commanded to be performed at all times (Luke xxii. 19, 20). But the importance of the sacrament necessary for our salvation, and the nature of the promise, and the nature of the commandment demanded alike that the clearest and most definite language be used, so that it might not lead to any misunderstandings in so important a matter.”
216. The manner and consequences of the presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist. “(1) If this presence consists, as we have seen, in this, that after the sanctification of the holy gifts, there are present in the eucharist and are communicated to the believers not the bread and wine, but the real body and the real blood of the Lord,—that does not mean that he is present in the sacrament, that he, as it were, penetrates (according to the Lutheran heresy) the bread and wine, which remain intact, and only coexists with them (in, cum, sub pane) with his body and blood, but that the bread and wine are transformed, transubstantiated, transmuted into the very body and blood of the Lord. (2) Although the bread and wine in the sacrament of the eucharist are transformed properly into the body and blood of the Lord, he is present in this sacrament, not with his body and blood alone, but with his whole soul, which is inseparably connected with this body, and with his very divinity, which is hypostatically and inseparably connected with his humanity. (3) Although the Lord’s body and blood are broken in the sacrament of the communion and are
