The Eucharist: A Coptic Orthodox Reflection on Sacramental Theology and Transubstantiation

As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, I believe with all my heart that the Eucharist is the true Body and true Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not a mere symbol or a memory meal, but a deep mystery of God’s love and presence among us. Both the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church confess this truth, but the way each Church explains it is different.

Matthew 26:26–28: “Take, eat; this is my body… Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mark 14:22–24: “This is my body… This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

Luke 22:19–20: “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

1 Corinthians 11:23–25: St. Paul repeats the same tradition: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

In all four accounts, Christ does not say “this represents,” but “this is.”

Matthew 26:26

τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου

touto estin to sōma mou

Mark 14:22

λάβετε· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου

labete; touto estin to sōma mou
Literal: “Take; this is my body.”

Luke 22:19

τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον

touto estin to sōma mou to hyper hymōn didomenon
Literal: “This is my body which is given for you.”

1 Corinthians 11:24

τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα

touto mou estin to sōma
Literal: “This is my body.”
The Greek word is: ἐστιν (estin) = “is.”
It is the present indicative of εἰμί (to be).
Nowhere in the Greek text does Jesus say: “This represents” (ὑποδείκνυμι / συμβολίζει).
The wording is direct and literal: “This is my body… this is my blood.”

The Coptic liturgical text (ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙⲟⲩ — “my body”) as it echoes this exact same Greek wording in the Divine Liturgy?

John 6:51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.' (Jn. 6:51 NJB)

NJB John 6:52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' (Jn. 6:52 NJB)

NJB John 6:53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

NJB John 6:54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day.

NJB John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (Jn. 6:55 NJB)

John 6:51–56:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Eucharistic Theology: Aristotle, Scholasticism, and Coptic Orthodoxy View

Early Church Belief

From the very beginning, the Church believed that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) wrote clearly:

“The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7).

In the 4th century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem told the faithful:

“Do not regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ” (Mystagogical Catecheses).

In Alexandria, St. Cyril of Alexandria (5th century) emphasized that it is the Holy Spirit, invoked by the priest in the Epiclesis, who changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

So from the beginning, the belief was the same: a real change takes place in the Eucharist.

What is the Catholic explanation?

Aristotle’s terms (used by medieval theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas):

Substance (ousia) = what a thing really is “on the inside.”
Accidents (symbebekota) = the outward, sensible features: taste, color, smell, weight, shape, location, etc.
(“Accident” here doesn’t mean a mistake; it means a non-essential property.)

At the consecration in Mass:

By Christ’s words (“This is my Body… This is the chalice of my Blood…”) and the power of the Holy Spirit,
The substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.
The accidents (everything testable by the senses or lab instruments—taste, alcohol content, gluten, color, smell, weight) remain as before.
Christ is wholly present under each “species” (host and chalice)—this is called concomitance.
Christ’s presence endures as long as the appearances endure; when the species are corrupted (e.g., decayed or fully digested), the sacramental presence ceases.

How Aquinas makes the mechanics “hang together”:

Normally, accidents “inhere” in a substance (the red of an apple is of an apple). In the Eucharist, God sustains the accidents without their ordinary subject (sine subiecto). Aquinas says the “dimensive quantity” of the species functions like a “quasi-subject,” explaining why the accidents behave normally (wine can intoxicate; bread can nourish).
Christ is not “moving locally” from heaven to the altar. His mode of presence is sacramental, not spatial.

2) Concrete examples to feel the difference

Accidental change (ordinary life): a green apple ripens and becomes red. It looks different, but it’s still an apple (same substance, accidents changed).
Substantial change (ordinary life): grapes ferment and become wine. The substance changed (grapes → wine), and many accidents changed too (color, taste, smell).
Transubstantiation (unique, miraculous): the substance changes (bread/wine → Christ’s Body/Blood), but the accidents do not.
- Lab test: a chemist would still detect gluten and alcohol.
- Pastoral sign: Catholics provide low-gluten hosts for celiac communicants—because the accidental properties (like gluten) remain. This is exactly what the doctrine predicts.

3) Why the West adopted this model

To defend the Real Presence against views that reduced the Eucharist to symbol or memory.

To use a precise, coherent vocabulary (Aristotle’s) so the Church could say:

“A real conversion happens, even though God miraculously preserves the appearances.”

Milestones:

Lateran IV (1215): first official use of “transubstantiation.”
Trent (1551): solemn definition against Reformation objections.

4) What critics say are the “problems” (and typical Catholic replies)

A. “It depends on Aristotle; what if that philosophy falls out of use?”

Objection: The doctrine leans on an ancient metaphysics not shared by everyone today.
Reply: The Church says the truth is that a real conversion occurs; Aristotle’s terms are a helpful tool, not the only possible language. (Popes have said other terms can help, but “transubstantiation” best safeguards the core meaning.)

B. “Accidents without a subject” sounds impossible.

Objection: How can color, taste, weight exist if there’s no underlying bread/wine substance?
Reply: It’s a miracle. God, who creates being itself, can uphold appearances directly. Aquinas’ “dimensive quantity” idea tries to show why the appearances behave normally.

C. “It over-explains a mystery and feels too technical.”

Objection: The Eucharist is a mystery; explaining “how” risks rationalizing what should be adored.
Reply: The Church agrees it’s a mystery. The purpose of the explanation is to protect the truth that the change is real, not just symbolic—not to demystify it.

D. “It isn’t the language of Scripture or the early Fathers.”

Objection: The Bible and many Fathers say “This is my Body,” but they don’t speak of “substance/accidents.”
Reply: Doctrinal language often develops to guard apostolic faith (like the Trinity’s “one essence, three Persons”). The content (Real Presence) is the same; the vocabulary is a later safeguard.

E. Eastern/Coptic concern: “Why not just say ‘it truly becomes’ and stop there?”

Objection: The philosophical “how” is unnecessary and creates East–West tension.
Reply: The West keeps the explanation to clarify that a real change happens. The East prefers to leave the how as holy mystery—but both confess the same reality.

F. Protestant concern: “If accidents stay, it’s still bread/wine.”

Objection: If lab tests show bread/wine properties, then it’s bread/wine.
Reply: The doctrine says senses and tests grasp accidents, not substance. Faith receives what God reveals: the inner reality is Christ Himself.

5) A quick, balanced takeaway

Strengths of the Catholic explanation:
- Protects the literal force of Christ’s words (“This is my Body”).
- Gives the Church a precise answer when people say “only a symbol.”
- Fits pastoral practice (e.g., low-gluten hosts) and adoration of the reserved Sacrament.
Main difficulties:
- Heavy reliance on Aristotelian categories;
- The puzzling idea of accidents without a subject;
- Risk of sounding like “physics,” which can eclipse mystery.

6) How a Coptic/Eastern Christian usually frames it

We affirm the same reality: by the Epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit), the gifts truly become Christ’s Body and Blood.
We deliberately don’t describe the mechanism; we keep the how as mystery, focusing on worship and communion rather than metaphysical analysis.

leavened bread

1. The Biblical Words for “Bread”

In the New Testament, the word used is the ordinary Greek word for bread:

ἄρτος (artos) = bread, loaf.
- Matthew 26:26: “Λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον… τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου” → “Jesus took bread … This is my Body.”
- 1 Corinthians 11:23–24: “…ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν” → “He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it.”

So, in the Bible itself, Jesus clearly used bread (artos) at the Last Supper.

2. Early Church Practice

The early Christians used ordinary leavened bread (bread that rises with yeast).
The Didache (1st century manual of Christian practice) speaks of “the broken bread” (ὁ κλασθεὶς ἄρτος).
In the East, all the ancient Churches (Coptic, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, etc.) have always used leavened bread in the Eucharist.

3. Why Catholics Use Unleavened Bread

In the Western Church (Latin tradition), a change began around the 8th–9th centuries.
The reasoning: at the Last Supper, Christ was celebrating a Passover meal (Matt. 26:17; Luke 22:7).
- At Passover, Jews were required to eat unleavened bread (Hebrew: matzah).
- Catholics concluded: since Jesus celebrated Passover, He must have used unleavened bread.
From the 11th century onward, the Roman Catholic Church formally required unleavened hosts in the Latin rite.
At the same time, the Eastern Churches (Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac) insisted on leavened bread as a symbol of the Resurrection (the “Risen Christ”).

This difference became one of the disputes between East and West, especially around the time of the Great Schism (1054).

4. Coptic Orthodox Understanding

In the Coptic Church, we use leavened bread (prosphora).
Why? Because Christ is the living Bread who rose from the dead (John 6:51). The yeast symbolizes the Resurrection and the life He gives us.
The priest prays over the bread in the Liturgy of the Oblation, marking it as the “Lamb.”

5. Catholic vs Coptic Symbolism

Catholic (West): unleavened bread = connection to the Jewish Passover, purity, sacrifice.
Coptic / Orthodox (East): leavened bread = Christ’s risen Body, fullness of life, Church as the leavened dough (cf. Matt. 13:33).

Both sides agree it is the true Body of Christ after consecration — the difference is symbolic and historical.