THE EUCHARIST

eric51 · Jun 13, 2009

Early Church Teaching on the Eucharist

How many times have Catholics and Eastern Orthodox been confronted by Protestants who claim that Apostolic Christianity started long after the death of Christ and His Apostles? Below are a couple of references that put such claims to shame. In the quote from the Didache we see that the name of "Eucharist" referenced (eu = true, charist = charism = Grace or Gift) which means literally, "True Grace or True Gift." This Eucharist is considered to be something "sacred" and not to be given to the infidels (dogs). It references "The Lord's Own Day" which is Sunday. It mentions confession of sins. It mentions that this "breaking of bread" is a "sacrifice" and this "sacrifice must not be defiled" and must be "pure." The reference from St. Ignatius tells us that the Eucharist IS the "TRUE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST."

This IS the Mass that both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox attend, believe and participate in. Anything short of the Mass as a Pure and Sacred Sacrifice, the True Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, held on Sunday and before receiving of it one must go to Confession, is something that falls short of the Truth. It is a strange doctrine to True Christians. It falls short of the Faith that has ALWAYS been taught by the Apostolic Church, as evidenced by the passages below.

The Eucharist in 70 A.D.

The Didache (means "teaching") or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" was written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D. This "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" contains the oldest Eucharistic prayer, liturgical worship, directions on Baptism, fasting, prayer, and the treatment of bishops and other clergy. It was used by bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or "Didache". The document tells us Apostolic Christians about the Mass and Eucharist in 70 A.D.:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". -Ch. 9:5
"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'" -Ch 14
The Eucharist in 90 A.D. (perhaps as late as 106 A.D.)

St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. Is it not believeable that St. Ignatius was conveying the words of his Master as written by his mentor, St. John in John 6:53?

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans starts:
“ 1:1 Ignatius who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp (see below) who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ, abundant greeting
1:2 to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ the Beloved, which hath been mercifully endowed with every grace,
1:3 being filled with faith and love and lacking in no grace, most reverend and bearing holy treasures;
1:4 to the church which is in Smyrna (St. Polycarp, Bishop) of Asia in a blameless spirit and in the word of God abundant greeting.
1:5 I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you;
1:6 for I have perceived that ye are established in faith immovable,
1:7 being as it were nailed on the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ,”
(snip to Chapter 6, Paragraph 6 hjj)
“6:6 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God.
6:7 They (who hold strange doctrines) have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty.
6:8 THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ABSTAIN FROM EUCHARIST AND PRAYER,
6:9 BECAUSE THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ALLOW NOT THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, WHICH FLESH SUFFERED FOR OUR SINS, AND WHICH THE FATHER OF HIS GOODNESS RAISED UP."

"7:1 They (who hold strange doctrines) therefore that gainsay (“deny” see below) the good gift of God perish by their questionings.
7:2 But it were expedient for them to have love, that they may also rise again.
7:3 It is therefore meet that ye should abstain from such ( people who hold strange doctrines) and not speak of them (these people who hold these strange doctrines) either privately or in public;
7:4 but should give heed to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished.”
Now for some from the Second Century through Augustine

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"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]). Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).

"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?" (ibid., 5:2). Clement of Alexandria

"'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus

"'And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table' [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: 'My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink' [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage

"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]).
Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"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). Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, 'I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?' It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my body,' but, 'This is my body.' In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my blood,' but, 'This is my blood'; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

MahogonySnail · Jun 13, 2009

It's not the true flesh. Otherwise you'd be a cannibal heheh. You come up with some mystical airy fancy fancy pancy description on how it changes substance or something like that, when no scientific exists to prove that. So it's just all in your mind and imagination. I have read and studied a lot of early church writings. The Difficulties of Romanism by Faber is a very good work, a bit long to read but makes very good points. In these early church writings, the bread and wine is often referred to as a symbol, a figure, an anti-type, all pointing to their symbolic nature of the flesh and blood of Christ. This destroys the arguments of the Catholic , that they are something more. Whilst it is true that in their writings against gnostisicm, they emphasise the fact that it is the flesh and blood of Christ, this is not to be understood literally. The early church writers emphasise this, not because they are trying to prove that they take upon a literal meaning, but because their opponents, the gnostics, did not believe Jesus actually came in the flesh. These early church writings are often misinterpreted to mean something they do not say. Catholics and Protestants alike need to realise that the dogma of the Catholic church is based upon faulty misinterpretation of historical writings. For example, the following quote:

6:8 THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ABSTAIN FROM EUCHARIST AND PRAYER,
6:9 BECAUSE THEY (who hold strange doctrines) ALLOW NOT THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, WHICH FLESH SUFFERED FOR OUR SINS, AND WHICH THE FATHER OF HIS GOODNESS RAISED UP."

Is in reference to the gnostics who did not partake in the eucharist because they did not believe Jesus came in the flesh. Now whether the bread and wine was believed to be actually the flesh of Christ, or merely symbolic, these passages mean exactly the same when read in context. It offers no proof that the early church believed the Eucharist was actually the flesh of Christ. Whether it was symbolic or literally believed to be so, cannot be drawn from these passages.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

It is one thing to say "the bread is the flesh of Christ", fully recognising its symbolic nature, as much as Christ said "I am a vine"... now..it's very simple to prove that Christ meant the bread and wine to be taken symbolically, not literally.
Because Christ called himself, the vine. Therefore the fruit of that vine, is the wine. Unless Jesus literally said he was a vine, then he must also have literally meant the wine was actually his blood. But since it makes no sense that Jesus would think he was a literal vine, we know the fruit of the vine must also be symbolic in nature, and never to be taken literally.

Further proof , is that after offering the cup to his disciples, declaring it is His blood, Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as the fruit of the vine, proving that Jesus did not literally think that what was in the cup, was his blood.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.

kujo313 · Jun 14, 2009

We can't count on quotations from Saint "Iggy" nor anybody after him because none of the origional disciples were alive to confirm or dispute their teachings. Afterall, if you want to know the truth, you have to go back to the SOURCE. In this case, Christ and all who were alive then.

If I was to sit 20 people in a line and whisper something to the first person and told him to pass it on, it would definately not be my message when it got to the end. Instead, each of the 20 should come to ME and ask ME just what I said and THEN pass it on to the next guy.

We need to go back to the SOURCE: Jesus. Until then, we simply cannot accept other's teachings their interpretations.

Finally, I have to say that if we agree that the bread IS the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine IS the actual blood, then Jesus is also a gate and a vine as well. Also, you'll have to pluck out eyeballs and cut off hands, literally, just as you accept the "body" and "blood".

My recommendations: let it go. Just preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations.

I'm tired of man-made religions. It's time to all believers to focus in the Head of the Body and not individual parts and their own beliefs and interpretations.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

Paraphrased from “The Difficulties of Romanism” By George Stanley Faber, Jean François

Ireneus, in a fragment preserved by Ecumenius, see the language employed by the martyr Blandina

The Greeks, having apprehended the slaves of those who were questioned, attempted to learn from them, through the medium of torture, some secret respecting the Christians. Whereupon, not having any thing to speak satisfactory to their torturers, those slaves, inasmuch as they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the blood and body of Christ, fancying that it was really blood and flesh, gave this account to the examiners. But they , forthwith taking it for granted that this was done in the secret ceremonial of the Christians, communicated this information to the other Greeks: and they then proceeded, through tortures, to attempt to wring a confession from the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina. To them, however, Blandina boldly and aptly replied: How can those persons endure to perpetrate such deeds, who, through escetic severity, indulge not even in permitted flesh?
Blandina’s answer, is implicative denial that Christians in the celebration of communion eat the flesh and drank the blood of Christ.

Tertuillian,
We must not call our senses in question, lest we should doubt respecting their fidelity even in the case of Christ himself. For, if we question their fidelity, we might peradventure be led to say: that Christ falsely beheld Satan precipitated from heaven; or false heard the voice of his Father testifying of him, or was deceived, when he touched Peter’s mother-in-law; or smelt a different odour of the ointment, which he received for his sepulture; or tasted a different flavour of the wine, which he consecrated in memory in his own blood.

Cyprian;
When Christ says, I am the true vine: the blood of Christ is not water, but wine. His blood, by which we are redeemed and vivified, cannot be seen in the cup, when wine, by which the blood of Christ is shewn, is wanting to the cup: for, by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures, that blood is declared to have been poured forth.
Because Cyprian’s use of “I am the true vine” is obviously figurative, then Cyprian , by comparison, must also have thought “This is my blood” to be figurative also.

Theodoret.
Jacob called the blood of the Saviour the blood of the grape. For, if the Lord be denominated a vine, and if the fruit of the vine be called wine, and if from the side of the Lord fountains of blood and water circulating through the rest of his body passed to the lower parts: well and seasonably did the patriarch say; He washed his garments in wine, and his raiment in the blood of grapes. As we, then, call the mystic fruit of the vine, after its consecration, the blood of the Lord: so Jacob called the blood of the true vine the blood of the grape – Our Saviour, indeed, interchanged the names: for to his body he gave the name of the symbol, while to the symbol he gave the name of his body; and, having thus called himself a vine, he applied the appellation of his blood to the symbol – but the scope of such language is perfectly familiar to those who have been initiated into the Mysteries. For our Lord require: that they, who partake of the divine Mysteries, should not attend to the nature of the things which they see: but that, in the change of names, they should believe that change which is wrought by grace: inasmuch as he, who called his own natural body wheat and bread and who further bestowed upon himself the appellation of a vine, honoured also the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood; not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature.

Theodoret teaches us the reason why Christ denominated the wine as his own blood, this was because he had previously denominated himself a vine. So if Christ is figuratively a vine, then the juice of the vine should also be figuratively the blood of Christ. It would be a strange doctrine for them to hear a teaching that though the vine is figurative, then the blood, the fruit of that vine, is actually literal?
He also assures us that the language, which says the doctrine of only a sacramental or moral change in the elements, was familiar to all those who had been initiated into the Mysteries, and then he declares that by virtue of consecration, no change takes place in the nature or physical substance of the elements.

than lovers of God, -inasmuch as they are unholy in body and in spirit, neither eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink his blood. Concerning which he himself speaks: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.

Transubstantiation says, that all communicants, whether holy or unholy, eat and drink bread the consecrated bread and wine. But Jerome says the body and blood of Christ are not received by the unholy. So Jerome cannot have believed in Transubstantiation.
<o

></o

>
Augustine:
Persons of this description must not be said to eat the body of Christ, inasmuch as they are not to be reckoned among the members of Christ – when he said; Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, he remaineth in me, and I in him: he shewed, what it is to eat the body of Christ and to drink his blood, not merely so far as the sacrament is concerned, but verily and indeed: for this is to remain in Christ, that Christ also should remain in him. For he thus speak it, as if he should say: Whoso remaineth not in me, nor I in him; let not that person assert or imagine, that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.
To believe in him is to eat the living bread. He who believeth in him, eateth – We also today receive visible food: but a sacrament is one thing; and the virtue of a sacrament, another. How many receive from the altar and die: may die, even by the very act of receiving – The true recipient is, he who eats internally, not he who eats externally: he who eats in his heart, not he who presses with his tooth – He who remaineth not in Christ and in whom Christ doth not remain, beyond all doubt neither spiritually eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, although carnally and visibly he may press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ : but he rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation .

Then there are statements where the consecrated elements are said to be types or antitypes or figures or symbols or images or representation of the body and blood of Christ:

Ireneus taught that the elements which had been offered and consecrated by prayer, became antitypes or figures of Christ’s body and blood. The meaning of antitype cannot be doubted, because Paul in Hebrews (which was cited by Ireneus in his same passage), said: Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the antitypes of the true holy places: but into heaven itself. (Heb 9:24).
Therefore, as Ireneus and the early church believed, the bread and wine when consecrated by prayer, are antitypes or figures of Christ’s body and blood, just as the Levitical holy places were antitypes or figures of the true holy places, even of the sanctuary of God in heaven.
Then we have the ancient Clementine Liturgy, which was used prior to communion. This harmonises strictly with Ireneus in his statement that he bread and wine are to be viewed as an oblation or Eucharistic sacrifice only antecedently to their being consecrated. And after being consecrated, he pronounces them to have become antitypes or figures:

We moreover give thanks, O Father, for the precious blood of Jesus Christ which on our behalf was poured out, and for his precious body: of which also we celebrate these elements as the Antitypes, he himself having commanded us to set forth his death.

So the idea that the bread and wine after consecration were antitypes of Christ’s body and blood was not foreign to Ireneus or the early church. Instead, it was the doctrine of the primitive church.

Cyril of Jerusalemen, in his character of a public Catechist, he explains to the Catechumens the true character of the consecrated elements:
While eating, the communicants, are commanded to eat, not bread and wine, but the Antitype of the body and blood of Christ. With all assurance, let us partake, as it were, of the body and blood of Christ: for in the type of bread, the body is given to thee, and in the type of wine, the blood is given to thee: in order that thou mayest partake of the body and blood of Christ, becoming with him join body and joint blood.

Cyril clearly means, that they are commanded not to eat mere bread and wine, or simple bread and wine to which no spiritual grace has been superadded by consecration, but holy bread and wine by which the body and blood of Christ are now antitypically or figuratively represented.

Macarius says the same thing:
In the Church are offered bread and wine, the antitype of Christ’s flesh and blood: and they, who partake of the visible bread, eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually.

Gregory of Nazianzum:
Knowing, then, that no person is worthy of the great God and sacrifice and high-priest, who has not first offered himself unto God a living and holy sacrifice, performing a reasonable and acceptable service, and sacrificing unto God the sacrifice of praise and a broken spirit which is the only sacrifice required at our hands by him who gives us all things: how could I dare to offer to him the external sacrifice, the antitype of the great Mysteries?

Clement of Alexandria:
The scripture has named wine a mystic symbol of the holy blood.

Tertullian
God in your Gospel has so revealed the matter, calling the bread his own body, that you may hence understand how he gave the figure of bread to be the figure of his own body: whose body, conversely, the prophet has figuratively called bread, the Lord himself being afterward about to interpret this sacrament.
Christ reprobated, neither the water of the Creator with which he washes his people, nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the fellowship of honey and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor the bread by which he represents his own body: for, even in his sacraments, he needs the beggarly elements of the Creator.

Eusebius of Cesarea
Christ himself gave the Symbols of the divine economy to his own disciples; commanding , that the imagine of his own body should be made.

Ambrose of Milan:
In the Law was the shadow: in the Gospel is the image, in heaven is the reality. Formerly , a lamb was offered, a calf was offered: now Christ is offered, Here he is in an image, there he is in a reality.

Augustine:
The Lord, when he gave the sign of his body, did not doubt to say: This is my body.
In the history of the New Testament, so great and so marvellous was the patience of our Lord, that, bearing with Judas, though not ignorance of his purpose, he admitted him to the banquet, in which he commended and delivered to his disciples the figure of his own body and blood.
These (namely the water, and the blood) are sacraments, in which, not what they are, but what they shew forth, is the point to be always attended to: for they are the signs of things, being one thing, and signifying another thing.

Theodoret:
The mystic symbols, after consecration, pass not out of their own proper nature – Place, then the image by the side of the archetype; and thou wilt see the similitude: for it is meet, that the type should be similar to the reality.

The author of the Word of the Sacraments, which in his days were used in consecration of the elements:
Dost thou wish to learn the form of consecration? Hear, then, its very words. The priest says: Cause this our oblation to be reasonable and acceptable; because it is the Figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pope Gelasius, in his judicial decision says:
Assuradely, the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

In conclusion:
When the doctrine of a substantial presence of the Lord’s physical or material body and blood in the Eucharist began to be adopted and patronised: the primitive eccelesiastical language, which described the consecrated elements as being antitypes or figures or symbols or images or similitudes, would inevitable appear altogether inconsistent with the new and more fashionable system of sacramental theology. For, if , by consecration, the elements literally and physically and substantially became the material body and blood of Christ; those elements, thus miraculously changed in their nature or substratum, could no longer be truly said to be only and image of Christ’s body and blood, when they had actually become Christ’s body and blood their own proper and literal selves: inasmuch as the very name of image imports, that the image is one thing, and that the matter represented by the image is another thing.

In the 8th century, the doctrine of the substantial presence was rapidly gaining ground until at length in the year 787 it was formally ratified by the second Nicene Council: we find the ancient phraseology of the Church, which ill suited the favourite novelty, rejected with a high hand and with a most astonishing degree of intrepid effrontery.

The theologians of Nice, in their zeal against the Council of Constantinople which in the year 754 had rightly determined the Eucharist to be an image of Christ’s body and blood, appear to have unaccountably overlooked the circumstance that the ancients called the consecrated bread and wine images. Rather, the Fathers of the second Nicene council, cursed all who would, after the manner of the ancients, presume to say that the consecrated bread and wine are an image or figure or similitude of the body and blood of Christ.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

Augustine, in opposition to the fancy of those Jews who imagined that our Saviour offered to give his own literal flesh and blood as necessary aliment for his disicples:

Christ instructed them, and said unto them: It is the spirit that quickenth the flesh profiteh nothing. The words, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if he had said: Understand Spiritually what I have spoken. You are not about to eat this identical body, which you see; and you are not about to drink this identical blood, which they who crucify me will pour out. I have commend unto you a certain sacrament: which, if spiritually understood, will vivify you. Though it must be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly.

Walafrid Strabo in 860:
Christ, in the supper, which before his betrayal, he had celebrated with his disciples after the solemnisation of the ancient Passover, delivered to the same disciples the sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of bread and wine:- and taught them, that they ought to pass, from things carnal to things spirtitual, from things earthly to things heavenly, from images to truth.

To summarise:
the ancient Christians were taught that the symbols were but images, or antitypes of Christ’s body and blood.

Finally, the ancient Christian authors agree with what I and most protestants interpreted of John 6:, complete as I have stated before, that allusions that to "eat" Christ's body is to believe in Him....and that while Christ did say to eat His flesh literally, this was not His purpose - they lacked the spiritual understanding of His statements. Much like Roman Catholics today?

Tertullian:
If Christ declares that the flesh profiteth nothing.; the sense must be decided from the matter of the saying. For, because the Jews deemed his discource hard and intolerable, as if he had truly determined that his flesh was to be eaten by them: in order that he might discipose the state of salvation toward the spirit, he promised; It is the spirit that quickeneth. And thus he subjoined: The flesh profiteth nothing, namely, to quicken. There follows also what he would have us to understand by spirit: The words ,which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life – Appointing, therefore, the word to be the vivifier, because the word is spirit and life; he called the same likewise his own flesh: for, since the Word was made flesh, it was thence to be sought for the purpose of life, and was to be devoured in the hearing, and was to be ruminated upon in the intellect, and was to be digested by faith. Hence, he had shortly before pronounced his flesh to be also heavenly bread.

Cyril of Jerusalem, while instructing his Catechumens in the scriptures:
Christ, once conversing with the Jews, said: Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have not life in yourselves. They, not having spiritually understood the things which were spoken, being scandalised, went back; fancying, that he exhorts them to flesh-eating – In the new Covenant, heavenly bread and the cup of salvation sanctify the soul and body. As bread corresponds to he body, thus also the word is fitting to the soul –When David says to God; Thou hast prepared a table before me: what means he else , than the mystical and intellectual table which God hath prepared before us?
On the account also, Solomon, enigmatising this grace, says, in the book of Ecclesiastes: Come, eat they bread in cheerfulness, namely the spiritual bread; and come (he calls with a saving and beatifying vocation) , drink thy wine in a good heart, namely the spiritual wine – Strengthen, then, they heart, partaking of this bread as spiritual: and make joyful countenance of they soul.

Athanasius:
Both these matters, the flesh and the spirit, he said respecting himself: and he distinguished the spirit from the flesh, in order that, believing both the visible and the invisible, they might understand his sayings to be not carnal but spiritual. For to how many persons could his body have sufficed for food: so that it might become the aliment of the whole world? But, that he might divert their minds from carnal cogitations, and that they might learn the flesh which he would give them to be supercelestial and spiritual food: he, on this account, mentioned the ascent of the Son of man to heaven. The words, said he, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if he had intimidated: My body shall be exhibited and given as food for the world; so that the food shall be given to each one spiritually, and shall to all be a preservative to the resurrection unto life eternal.

So the writings of Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril , Tertullian all support that in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we do not eat and drink the literal body and blood of Christ, but that the words of the Lord were intended by Christ, and are to be understood by us, spiritually.

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

"Figura" is an ancient philosophical term which does not mean "figure". This confusion, particularly when reading what Augustine wrote on the Eucharist, has tripped up a lot of people. Suggest you re-research the topic of the Real Presence, you will find, if you objectively examine the topic, that the Church has always believed, the Early Church Fathers believed, that Jesus was not speaking symbolically.

Since when does Faith need scientific verification? Especially, when Jesus spoke so clearly in John 6? The Early Church had no doubt about what Jesus meant. Neither did the Jews to whom he spoke. The Eastern Orthodox along with the Catholics and smaller apostolic denominations like Chaldean, Armenian and Syrian, all believe in the Real Presence. What does that tell you?

Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Apostolic Christians thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many Protestants today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding
. Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

kujo313 said:

Well, we have the SOURCE. And we have the reactions of those to whom the Source spoke. We have the beliefs of the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers who taught them. Funny, how the early christians and their Churches up to today: E. Orthodox, Cathollic, Armenian, Chaldean, etc. all believe in the Real Presence.

Jesus spoke literally, and the context that literalness was meant, is clear in John 6. Your other examples of vine, etc., do not have contexts which support literalness.Moreover, the audience to whom Jesus spoke interpreted it literally.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

It is claimed by Catholics that the Church has always believed in transubstantiation as if it is a direct fact of history. Yet an analysis of historical writings, early church writings and others, show this is simply not the case. It pays to take a look at the possible origins of this doctrine of transubstantiaion which was really only defined in the 15th centuary, fairly late!! even by Catholic standards.

Delineation of the Roman Catholicism, drawn from the Authentic and Acknowledged Standards of the Church of Rome: namely, her creeds, catechisms, decisions of councils, papal bulls, roman catholic writers, the records of history, etc, etc.. By Rev Charles Elliot.

The doctrine of transubstantiation seems to have originated in the heresy of Eutyches, who believed that in Christ there was but one nature, that of the incarnate word; and that the human nature was changed into the substance of the divine nature. Availing himself of the phraseology of the ancient liturgies, though abundantly explained aso to their real meaning, he made this the premises of his doctrines, which is well expressed by Theodoret by the following declaration of his Eranistes, the spokesman for the doctrine of Eutyches:
"As the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before their consecration by the rpiest, but after their consecration are physically changed, and become quite another thing ; so the material body of the Lord, after its assumption, was physically changed into the divine essence. "
The heresy of Eutyches was met by Theodoret and Pope Gelasius in the fifth century, and by Ephrem of Antioch in the sixth.

The seventh general council, held in Constantinople in the year 754, maintained that "Christ chose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnation by but the sacrament, which he delivered to his ministers for a type and effectual commemoration; commanding the substance of bread to be offered, which did not any way resemble the form of a man, that so no occasion might be given of bringing in idolatry.". This council decreed against images. But the second Council of Nice, in 787, decreed that the sacrament is not the image or antitype of Christ's body and blood, but is properly his body and blood. So that the doctrine of the corporeal presence in the sacrament was first introduced to support image worship. Still, however, though the doctrine received the sanction of a general council, and that, too, in direct contradiction of another general council, it was still in a rude and undigested state.

In the 9th centuary, a warm contest arose in the church concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the sacrament. The sentiments of Christians on this point were various and contradictory, nor had any council determined it with precision.
In 831, Paschasius, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise,..the doctrine advanced may be expressed by the two following propositions: First, that after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord's suppoer, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were locally present. Secondly, that the body and blood of Christ, thus present in the eucharist, was the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered on the cross, and was raised from the dead. This new doctrine, excited the astonishment of many. Charles the Bald, ordered the famous Bertram and Johannes Scotus, of Ireland, to draw up a clear and rational explictation of that doctrine.

In this controversy,
Bertram maintained that the bread and wine as symbols or signs, represented the body and blood of Christ. Scotus however, maintained that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the absent body of Christ. All the other theologians seemed to have no fixed opinions on these points.

One thing is certain: that none of them were properly inducted into the then unknown doctrine of transubstantiation, as the worship of the elements was not mentioned. It was an extravagence of superstitation too gross for even the ninth centuary.

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Apostolic Christian understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "poured out" in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.
Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the "breaking of the bread") to fulfill Jesus' command "do this in remembrance of me."

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to "feed" the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to "do this," that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that apostolic we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and "pitched His tabernacle" among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed" His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

1 Cor. 12:13 - we "drink" of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or "ecclesia" (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn't come to Jesus' sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.
Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

It is true that Jesus spoke literally. His purpose was to cause disgust in those who followed after Christ according to their stomach, and not their hearts, in a sort of humorous shock-horror tactic that Jesus sometimes used.
Joh 6:25 And when they had found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, Rabbi, when did you come here?
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, You seek Me not because you saw the miracles, but because you ate the loaves and were filled.

Jesus explained to his disciples the spiritual nature of his statements afterwards:
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.
So the Catholic is partly right that Jesus spoke literally. But what is important is not just what Jesus said, but what He meant. Jesus did not mean that the bread and wine actually become his flesh and blood, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Jesus wanted them to believe in Him, not simply follow Him because He filled their stomachs:

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who is the one betraying Him.

The symbolic nature of Christ's words are clear - to "eat" His body and drink His blood is to have faith in Him, to Hear and obey and trust in the words that He speaks, which are spirit are life.
Note..He does not say the bread or the wine, is spirit and life, nor his flesh or his blood. It is His Words.

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

Jesus' Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten

Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed
and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - "sacrifice of praise" or "toda" refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase "the cup of blessing" refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus' Sacred Heart
.
Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means "house of bread."
Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a "manger" (which means "to eat"). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

It is claimed by Catholics that the Church has always believed in transubstantiation as if it is a direct fact of history. Yet an analysis of historical writings, early church writings and others, show this is simply not the case. It pays to take a look at the possible origins of this doctrine of transubstantiaion which was really only defined in the 15th centuary, fairly late!! even by Catholic standards.

Delineation of the Roman Catholicism, drawn from the Authentic and Acknowledged Standards of the Church of Rome: namely, her creeds, catechisms, decisions of councils, papal bulls, roman catholic writers, the records of history, etc, etc.. By Rev Charles Elliot.

The doctrine of transubstantiation seems to have originated in the heresy of Eutyches, who believed that in Christ there was but one nature, that of the incarnate word; and that the human nature was changed into the substance of the divine nature. Availing himself of the phraseology of the ancient liturgies, though abundantly explained aso to their real meaning, he made this the premises of his doctrines, which is well expressed by Theodoret by the following declaration of his Eranistes, the spokesman for the doctrine of Eutyches:
"As the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before their consecration by the rpiest, but after their consecration are physically changed, and become quite another thing ; so the material body of the Lord, after its assumption, was physically changed into the divine essence. "
The heresy of Eutyches was met by Theodoret and Pope Gelasius in the fifth century, and by Ephrem of Antioch in the sixth.

The seventh general council, held in Constantinople in the year 754, maintained that "Christ chose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnation by but the sacrament, which he delivered to his ministers for a type and effectual commemoration; commanding the substance of bread to be offered, which did not any way resemble the form of a man, that so no occasion might be given of bringing in idolatry.". This council decreed against images. But the second Council of Nice, in 787, decreed that the sacrament is not the image or antitype of Christ's body and blood, but is properly his body and blood. So that the doctrine of the corporeal presence in the sacrament was first introduced to support image worship. Still, however, though the doctrine received the sanction of a general council, and that, too, in direct contradiction of another general council, it was still in a rude and undigested state.

In the 9th centuary, a warm contest arose in the church concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the sacrament. The sentiments of Christians on this point were various and contradictory, nor had any council determined it with precision.
In 831, Paschasius, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise,..the doctrine advanced may be expressed by the two following propositions: First, that after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord's suppoer, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were locally present. Secondly, that the body and blood of Christ, thus present in the eucharist, was the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered on the cross, and was raised from the dead. This new doctrine, excited the astonishment of many. Charles the Bald, ordered the famous Bertram and Johannes Scotus, of Ireland, to draw up a clear and rational explictation of that doctrine.

In this controversy,
Bertram maintained that the bread and wine as symbols or signs, represented the body and blood of Christ. Scotus however, maintained that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the absent body of Christ. All the other theologians seemed to have no fixed opinions on these points.

One thing is certain: that none of them were properly inducted into the then unknown doctrine of transubstantiation, as the worship of the elements was not mentioned. It was an extravagence of superstitation too gross for even the ninth centuary.

When a doctrine is promulgated does not define when the belief and practice began. Even the NT itself provides incontrovertible proof of the Eucharistic practice. So do the earliest of the Church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, see thread. No offense, Mahogony, but claiming the belief in Real Presence began in the 15 or 16th century, simply is not credible.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

Transubstantiation is very similar to gnostic thought. While the Gnostics claimed the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ on the cross was different than what it appeared to be, so too the church began to claim that the bread and juice were not what they appeared to be. Transubstantiation, therefore, is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both false doctrines claim that "things are not what they appear".

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus' One Eternal Sacrifice; it's Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

1 Cor. 10:16 - "the cup of blessing" or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Apostolic
priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul's usage of the phrase "table of the Lord" in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase "table of the Lord" to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase "table of the Lord" in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

Much study has been that shows the claims by catholics are simply not true. This idea that "they have always believed this way", is not correct. If you do your own study and research of early church writings, instead of quoting catholic apologetics that merely support yoru view, you might see the truth. The root of your blindness is that Catholics are allergic to criticism, and think they are always right no matter what. "The Church can never ever be wrong". That is a common trait in most cults/sects.

MahogonySnail · Jun 14, 2009

That the Eucharistic elements themselves are the type of sacrifice, is not true. While Justin and Ireneus connected Malachi to communion, the sacrifices prophesied in Malachi are the spiritual sacrifices of praise and worship and thanksgiving. This is the very meaning by which the word Eucharist implies.

Justin said "prayers and thanksgiving, offered up by the worthy, are the only sacrifices acceptable to God: Christians have been taught to offer these alone in the commemorative celebration of the Eucharist". Ireneus connects the praise and worship , prior to the consecration of the bread and wine on the table.

The Eucharistic elements themselves are a memorial of Christ's once and for all sacrifice (Heb 10 )and the praise, worship, thanksgiving in association with the Eucharist are the only sacrifices to be offered.

Psa 54:6 I will freely sacrifice unto thee: I will praise thy name, O LORD; for it is good.

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

Christ is the "image" of the Father. Yet, we know he is of similar substance and nature; He is everything the Father is. Image, Figure, are philosophical terms in Aristotelian metaphysics. Do not ascribe a laymen's definition to them. Augustine, Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian, Origen all believed in the Real Presence. They may not use the exact terminology of Transubstantiation. That is to be expected. The main reason for defining the doctrine was to priovide uniformity in explaining or discoursing on the Eucharist. You only need to read the Church Fathers to know they all believed in the Real Presence, which is the foundation of Transubstantiation. Orthodox believe it, Catholics believe, Armenians believe it, all the earliest Apostolic Churches believe it and have made it the CENTER of their Faith.

eric51 · Jun 14, 2009

MahogonySnail said:

Irenaeus is best known for refuting Gnostic heresies.

"The bread over which thanks has been given is the body of their Lord and the cup His blood ..."Against Heresies, 4,18, 4, NPNF, v.1, p486

"but our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.
for we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and the 'spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; we also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity." Ag Heresies, 4,18,5, NPNF, v.1, p.486

Opponents often attempt to use the above quote to claim that Irenaeus believed more in a view of consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation.The former term in vogue during the Reformation, posits that the body and blood of Christ is present with or alongside the bread and wine but that the substance of bread and wine are not eliminated. The editor of NPNF series adds a footnote to this effect: ("But, note, we are only asking what Irenaeus teaches. Could words be plainer,--"two realities,"--1. Bread; 2. spiritual food? Bread but not common bread: matter and grace, flesh and spirit. In the Eucharist, an earthly and heavenly part."NPNF, p.486, f.2) It is a wonder just what the editor's view of the Eucharist is, since he is somewhat vague in his conclusion. However, it is obvious he is suggesting that Irenaeus did not believe in the Catholic interpretation of the elements.

First, these types of editorial suggestions are highly inappropriate, since NPNF[Protestant compilation) is supposed to be an unbiased translation of Irenaeus' words, not an attempt to discredit Apostolic interpretations. Such comments are also disingenuous, for it is apparent from this quote that Irenaeus believed a dramatic change occurred at the invocation as opposed to the views of the editors who made a concerted effort to discount any notion of transubstantiation among the Fathers. Beginning in 17:5, Irenaeus has already stated his belief that the bread becomes the body of Christ: "He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, "This is My Body." Again, in 18:4 he states "...the bread over which thanks has been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood..." Hence, when he comes to 18:5 [the section in question] he does not have to prove his belief in the substantial presence, for he has already stated it in this context and many others.

Irenaeus' context thruout Chapters 15-18 is largely concerned with proper offerings to God, specifically, offering back to God part of his creation. In 18:1 he speaks of offering our first fruits, to the Lord. In 18:2 he points out various kinds of offerings. In 18:3 he speaks of offering with a pure heart. In 18:4, Irenaeus speaks of offering back to the creation. Thruout this section, Irenaeus is concerned with those who do not offer to God, claiminng either that the Father is not the Creator and therefore one does not have to give back created things; that offering makes God appear covetous; or that the things one is to offer back originate from apostasy, ignorance, and passion. Irenaeus wonders how such protestors can claim the bread becomes the body of the Lord if they are not willing to admit that the Lord is the creator of the world. In his final argument in section 5, which leads up to the above quote in question, Irenaeus wonders how these same people can say that the flesh of man is consigned to corruption (i.e., no resurrection, which is proven by his last statement in section 5: ("...having the hope of resurrection to eternity"), if they believe that the flesh is "nourished with the body of the Lord and with His Blood" (18:5). Irenaeus demands that they either change their view (i.e., believe that the Eucharist nourishes the flesh so that it will see the resurrection) or stop offering the Eucharist altogether.

Until then, Irenaeus says that "we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit." The "announcing" refers to the Eucharistic sacrifice of which Irenaeus introduced in 18:1 ("the oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered thruout all the world...) and 18:4 ("inasmuch, then as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God"). the "flesh" would have to refer the same "flesh" mentioned in the beginning of 18:5 ("the flesh which is nourished with the body of the Lord"), while the "Spirit" coincides with the" invocation of God" in the next sentence (i.e., the Epiclesis). In other words, in taking the Eucharist into our bodies, the flesh (man) and the Spirit are united in fellowship. Irenaeus' point is that the bread because it is united with the Spirit, is no longer common bread but is supernatural and thus enlivens the flesh when consumed.

Irenaeus' reference to "two elements, the earthly and the heavenly" should not be misconstrued as an attempt to teach the metaphysics of the Eucharist. Rather, "earthly" refers to the gifts originating from the earth, which Irenaeus speaks of thruout the context,so as to given back to God part of the creation He has given to us. Irenaeus simply does not elaborate on the nature of teh exchange or mixture of the earthly and the heavenly, and thus it is futile to speculate he is supporting or denying one view or the other. From the passages, however, it is obvious that Irenaeus believes the created things called "bread" and "wine" actually become the body and blood of the Lord. Irenaeus, as cited in the previous quote, has made his belief clear in this context and also in other contexts.

THE EUCHARIST

Banned

Banned

Banned

kujo313

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned