Can some one with more wisdom than I explain about the bread and wine representation of the body and blood of Christ? Was this meant literally as in when he turned water to wine, but in this instant bread is his body and wine is his blood

Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and I in him" (John 6:53-56).

Last Supper.  This is my Body.  This is my Blood.  It's that simple, at least for Catholics.  I don't know what Protestant believe.

didn't realize this wasn't GD.

Some believe that the bread actually turns to Jesus's flesh and the wine his blood (transubstantiation). Others believe it is a symbol or a remembrance.

Some background:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist

+1

Thanks guys.

Some of them believe this:

Hebrews 9:24  For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25  Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26  For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Once.....and eternally. Eternal sacrifice.

So, it's kind of like it depends on what you mean by "once". Evidently "once" means Jesus dying on the cross "once", plus Eucharistic sacrifices applied liberally to maintain that "one sacrifice for sin forever".

I believe that it is meant literally and here's why. Just a few lines down in that same chapter of John a lot of people have a REALLY hard time accepting this teaching. So much that in fact people begin to desert Jesus. This is significant enough to get recorded in the Bible and because of that I believe that it was meant to be more than a symbol. You don't have that kind of reaction and lose followers over some symbolic language.

Also the early church fathers also believed in the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine.

"Do this in memory of me."   Some Catholics take communion every day, but minimum of once a week at Sunday mass.

Yes, Christ does become present in a new way under the appearance of bread and wine. Like Christ says in John 6, bread and wine become true food and drink, as opposed to the ordinary food and drink they were.

But why bread and wine? This is important in the fulfillment of the Old Testament that Christ says he has come to do. In Exodus 25:29-30, God instructs that a table be built in the tabernacle that would hold flagons for libations (wine) and bread. In some translations, that bread is called the showbread.  In other translations, (and probably more accurately) it is called the Bread of the Presence. It represents the Presence of God among his people. This bread is mentioned many times throughout the Bible. The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist perfectly fulfills this old type of presence by really becoming present and remaining close to his people.

 

YES

The words in context are undeniable. The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

Some will make the metaphor argument. There are two problems with this line of reasoning context, context, and context.  "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense.

The second problem with this verse, or any other verse in the scriptures is, they were never intended to be interpreted outside the Tradition of The Church. We need to read and understand the scriptures through the lens of the first century.

The bread and wine remain unchanged.

Consuming blood had been banned since the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17), carried over into the New Testament (Acts 15:20 & 29 mention it in the same breath as idolatry and fornication). This is why Jesus' words in John 6 caused the disciples to murmur at this 'hard saying' (v 60-61). The Greek is more descriptive: offensive, intolerable.

Firstly, Jesus being sinless, would not have broken the law.

Secondly, Jesus being a Rabbi (v25) would have not advocated breaking the law. Right out of the gate he tells them not to focus on the physical (v27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth). Jesus is equating phrase "eating his flesh" with believing his word (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47, 63-64, 68-69). The focus is repeated - belief.

The argument that Jesus never clarified what he meant & therefore was speaking literally sounds valid, until we read that Jesus was speaking in the synagogue (v59). Surely a Scribe or Pharisee would have taken issue with what was said?

It did happen in John 3. The most known verse in the Bible, John 3:16, is the spiritual explanation of John 3:3 (Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.). Jesus was speaking figuratively to reveal a spiritual truth. The focus again is belief (John 3:12, 15, 16, 18, 36).

That is actually a misreading of the text, according to Holy scripture, and the historical record. Crackers and grape juice, is a relatively new protestant invention. For over 1500 years, all christians and some pagans, knew that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord. The irony in all of this is, in some protestant worship spaces today, you will see an altar. Why? In order to have an altar you must have a sacrifice. Protestants from the 16th to early 19th centuries, would look on in horror how some protestants today, have started to add Catholic elements back into their worship. Especially when we know from the historical record, that they went to great lengths to remove any and all signs of anything Catholic.

A text without a context is a pretext.


Indeed, Jewish law forbids the drinking of any kind of blood. This is why many followers of Jesus left Him when He spoke of the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. (Jn 6: 60) Because Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, we are no longer subject to it. So we can eat pork and shellfish and cheeseburgers—milk products combined with meat.
In Leviticus God forbids the consuming of any kind of blood. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” (Lev 17: 11) The blood of animals was offered on the altar to atone for sin. Because it was associated with life, it was to be used solely for this purpose. So when the Son of God was sacrificed, His blood supplanted the offering of animal blood. This is the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God. We indeed drink His blood. It is THE blood of the atonement for sin—of which the earlier animal sacrifices where only a sign. It was in anticipation of His blood that the prohibition against the drinking of blood was made.

If Jesus were not speaking literally in John 6 (“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.), He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally.
In John 6:41, the Jews “murmured” about Christ’s teaching precisely because it was so literal. Christ certainly knew they were having difficulty imagining that He was speaking literally, but rather than explain His meaning as simply a metaphor, He emphasized His teaching, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Why would Christ reinforce the literal sense in the minds of His listeners if He meant His words figuratively?
Let’s look at other situations where the Lord dealt with listeners who misunderstood the meaning of His words. In each case, He cleared up the misunderstanding. For example, the disciples were confused about His statement, “I have meat to eat that you know not of” (John 4:32). They thought he was speaking about physical food, real meat. But He quickly cleared up the misunderstanding with the clarification, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, that I may perfect his work” (Matt. 4:34; cf. 16:5-12).
Let's return to John 6. Notice that the Jews argued among themselves about the meaning of Christ’s words. He reiterated the literal meaning again: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you” (verses 53-54). In verse 61 we see that no longer was it just the wider audience but “the disciples” themselves who were having difficulty with this radical statement. Surely, if Christ were speaking purely symbolically, it’s reasonable to expect that He would clear up the difficulty even if just among His disciples. But He doesn’t. He
stands firm and asks, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before” (Verse 62-63)? Did Christ “symbolically” ascend into heaven after the Resurrection? No. As we see in Acts 1:9-10, His ascension was literal.
John 6 is the one and only place in the New Testament where people abandon Christ over one of His teachings. Rather than try to correct any mistaken understanding of His words, the Lord asks His Apostles, “Do you also want to leave” (verse 67)? His Apostles knew He was speaking literally. St. Paul emphasizes the truth of the Real Presence: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord . . . . Whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29).
If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of the Lord’s body and blood, then St. Paul’s words here make no sense. For how can one be “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” if it’s merely a symbol? This Greek phrase for being “guilty of someone’s body and blood” (enokos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kuriou) is a technical way of saying “guilty of murder.” If the Eucharist were merely a symbol of Christ, not Christ Himself, this warning would be drastically, even absurdly overblown.


There is a mountain of evidence from the early Church fathers on the issue of the Real Presence, remember, the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist was a doctrine believed and taught unanimously by the Church since the time of Christ. The Catholic “literal” sense was always and only the sense in which the early Christians understood Christ’s words in John 6. The “figurative” or “metaphorical” sense was never held by the Church Fathers or other early orthodox Christians. This can be proven not just by appealing to the writings of the Fathers, but also by the fact that ancient Christian traditions such as the Copts and the Orthodox Churches also hold and teach the doctrine of the Real Presence, just as the Catholic Church does.

Martin Luther himself admitted that the early Church was unanimous in the literal interpretation of Christ’s
words in John 6: “Who, but the devil, hath granted such license of wresting the words of holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures that my body is the same as the sign of my body? It is only the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men. . .Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke [thus] . . . they are all of them unanimous.”
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Christ intended His words in John 6 to be understood metaphorically or symbolically. Even if this were granted, the anti-Catholic argument still falls apart. Here’s why: The phrases “eat flesh” and “drink blood” did indeed have a symbolic meaning in the Hebrew language and culture of our Lord’s time. You can see this for yourself by reading passages such as Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6,16. In each case, we find “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” used as metaphors to mean “to persecute,” “to do violence to,” “to assault,” or “to murder.” Now, if Christ were speaking metaphorically, the Jews would have understood him to be making an absurd statement: “Unless you persecute and assault Me, you shall not have life in you. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you do violence to Me and kill Me, you shall not have life within you.”
Besides being an absurd understanding of these words, there’s one further problem with the “metaphorical” or “symbolic” view: Jesus would have been encouraging - even exhorting! - His hearers to commit violent mortal sins. If it were immoral, in any sense, for Christ to promise to give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, then he could not have commanded us to even symbolically eat and drink His body and blood. Even symbolically performing an immoral act is of its very nature immoral. (Akin, perhaps, to lust of the eye being the same as adultery?)
You might argue with me that, “After all, Jesus Himself said in John 6:63 that He wasn’t speaking literally: ‘It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’ How do you get around that?”
Well, the word “spirit” (Greek: pnuema) is never used anywhere in Scripture to mean “symbolic.” John 4:24 says God is “spirit” (pneuma). Does that mean He is “symbolic?” Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are “spirit” (pneuma). Are angels merely symbols? Of
course not. More simply, have you ever heard of the Holy Symbolic?

Please see my earlier post. The words Christ chose to use for eat in the greek were, chew, gnaw, and rip. In the greek there are many words for eat, but Christ chose these words because they fit the context and that my friend is the rub. Context, context, context.


You can multiply the examples of the constant use of the word “spirit” as a literal, not figurative, reality. Sarx, the Greek term for “flesh,” is sometimes used in the New Testament to describe the condition of our fallen human nature apart from God’s grace. For example, St. Paul says that if we are “in the flesh,” we cannot please God (cf. Rom. 8:1-14). He also reminds us that, “the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it because it is judged spiritually” (1 Cor. 2:14).
It doesn’t require grace to look at Communion as just grape juice and crackers. It does, however, require faith and “spiritual judgment” to see and believe Christ’s promise that He would give us His body, blood, soul and divinity under the appearances of bread and wine. The one who is “in the flesh,” operating in the realm of mere natural understanding, won’t see this truth.
Another reply from you here might be, “But Jesus says, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.’ I believe this means that coming to Him is what He really means by ‘eating’ and believing in Him is what He really means by ‘drinking.’”
Not so. “Coming to” and “believing in” Christ are definite requirements for having this life He promises, but not the only ones. It would, after all, be a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist without believing (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-29). But this doesn’t erase the fact that Christ repeatedly said, “My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.” This literal dimension of the passage can’t be explained away by appealing to “coming” and “believing.” To do that would be to make the mistake of focusing solely on just one aspect of the Lord’s teaching and ignoring the rest of it.
Now, finally, let's consider your point about drinking blood. Your response to the above might be, “Wait, Chris! Leviticus 17:10 condemns eating blood. There’s no way Jesus would contradict this. He would have been encouraging cannibalism if He really meant
for us to eat His body and drink His blood. That would be immoral.”
Yes, Leviticus 17:10 indeed condemns “eating blood.” But, if we’re going to be consistent with the Levitical Law, then we must also perform animal sacrifices - lambs, pigeons, turtledoves - according to Leviticus 12:8. But as Christians, we are not under the Levitical Law. We’re under the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:2).
Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us the Levitical Law has passed away with the advent of the New Covenant. A New Testament commandment always abrogates an Old Testament commandment. For example, in Matthew 5, the Lord repeatedly uses the formula, “You have heard that it was said (quoting an Old Testament law), But I say unto you . . .” In each instance, Christ supercedes the Old Testament law with a new commandment of His own, such as the commandment against divorce and remarriage, over against Moses’ allowance for it in Deuteronomy 24:1 (cf. Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43- 44).

This is what we see in John 6. The blood prohibition in Leviticus 17:11-12 was replaced by Christ’s new teaching in John 6:54: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.” Eating blood was prohibited in the Old Testament, “Because the life of the flesh is found in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). Blood is sacred and the life of each creature is in its blood. Many pagans thought they could acquire “more” life by ingesting the blood of an animal or even a human being. But obviously this was foolish. No animal or human person has the capacity to do this. But in the case of Christ, it’s different. John 6:54 tells us that our eternal life depends on His blood: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.”

We can also look at the Roman historical record but I think this will suffice for now. If not let me know and I will supply you with the primary sources.

The evidence for water baptism to be saved is even more in depth not only from Our Lord, but The Church, and the historical record. Scripture can't be read in a vacuum, and it can't be read outside the Tradition of The Church who gave us the scriptures. The problem or difficulty arises when someone comes to the scripture and reads selected texts and through a protestant lens. We need to read the scripture the way the Jews read the Old Testament in order to properly exegete a passage, then develop our doctrine.

Pax

John 6
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

These two verses are seem very similar, surely they both can't be literal.

John 6 has to be taken in its context:
25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Now, he just fed 5000 people with a couple loaves and a few fish and that is what they want from him, to be fed. Jesus states that when he says "you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves". They want him to feed them but Jesus isn't talking about satisfying our stomachs, he's talking about eternal life on a spiritual level.

He does clear up the misunderstanding with his disciples in John 6:61-64 61"Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[a] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him."

Luke describes it like this Luke 22:15-20 15 "And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Jesus himself said it was not actually his blood, but wine.
And, the bread that they ate couldn't have been the crucified flesh or the actual blood that was poured out for us because he had not been crucified yet.

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This "became flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union.  This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time and He will forever be God and man.

Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place.  This is the nature of being human.  A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time.  To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time, is to deny the incarnation.  That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man -- since a man can only be it one place at one time.  Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.

The Bible tells us:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, (Heb. 10:10-14).

So, all this tells us that the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice and the bread and wine are a symbol of his flesh and blood.

Let's go back to your first post for a moment.



When reading scripture keep in mind there are four senses of scripture. They are the literal, spiritual, allegorical, and anagogical.  The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal. I think most of this incommensurability we see between Catholic and Protestant views is due to their different points of departure. Protestantism, being a son of (at least early) modernism is not able to understand the subtlety and complexity and richness of reality, and searches for simple and immediate things.
So, when the Bible says that believing in Jesus we have eternal life, and then says that by doing His will we have eternal life, and at other times says that by loving Him we have eternal life, and then, to complicate things further, says that by eating His flesh we have eternal life, the Protestant mind will conflate all of these and end up saying that what is meant is just faith (and of course, its no surprise then that faith becomes either an almost impossible feat or a fuzzy feeling one has).

This is what you did when he compared verses 40 and 54. This is illogical, look at similar verses like baptism, the relation of faith and works, grace and law, etc. The Bible, being the expression of reality, is not composed of autonomous sentences that one combines in simple syllogism. This is poor exegesis.

I dealt with your first objection but you never gave a response, here it is in red.


"Consuming blood had been banned since the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17), carried over into the New Testament (Acts 15:20 & 29 mention it in the same breath as idolatry and fornication). This is why Jesus' words in John 6 caused the disciples to murmur at this 'hard saying' (v 60-61). The Greek is more descriptive: offensive, intolerable.

Firstly, Jesus being sinless, would not have broken the law.

Secondly, Jesus being a Rabbi (v25) would have not advocated breaking the law. Right out of the gate he tells them not to focus on the physical (v27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth). Jesus is equating phrase "eating his flesh" with believing his word (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47, 63-64, 68-69). The focus is repeated - belief.

The argument that Jesus never clarified what he meant & therefore was speaking literally sounds valid, until we read that Jesus was speaking in the synagogue (v59). Surely a Scribe or Pharisee would have taken issue with what was said?"



Indeed, Jewish law forbids the drinking of any kind of blood. This is why many followers of Jesus left Him when He spoke of the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. (Jn 6: 60) Because Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, we are no longer subject to it. So we can eat pork and shellfish and cheeseburgers—milk products combined with meat.
In Leviticus God forbids the consuming of any kind of blood. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” (Lev 17: 11) The blood of animals was offered on the altar to atone for sin. Because it was associated with life, it was to be used solely for this purpose. So when the Son of God was sacrificed, His blood supplanted the offering of animal blood. This is the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God. We indeed drink His blood. It is THE blood of the atonement for sin—of which the earlier animal sacrifices where only a sign. It was in anticipation of His blood that the prohibition against the drinking of blood was made.

Even though consuming blood is banned (even to us), that is plainly not why Jesus' audience was outraged. After all, there is absolutely no parallel to the only occasions Jesus was accused of breaking the law, viz., the Sabbath issue and blasphemy: on those occasions the Jews were not surprised, but were either enraged or tried to use it against Him. But in this occasion they are just perplexed at the sheer absurdity of the teachings: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

You state correctly that Jesus was speaking in the synagogue. But then you add, "surely a Scribe or Pharisee would have taken issue with what was said?" This begs the question. If that is your position then why is it not in the text? Furthermore St. Mark 4:34 tells us Jesus always explained his peculiar figures of speech to His befuddled Apostles. "And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples."  You have assumed too much. I have repeatedly said, if one insists reading the scripture, with a preconceived doctrine or dogma then one does violence to the text.

And of course, verses 61-64 are really not private explanations of the sort we find elsewhere (e.g., the private explanation of the parable of the soils), after all, how the phrase “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” is an explanation of what was said, or even connects with what was said earlier? The only possible connection I see is a sort of consolation for their offense: after seeing the Son of Man, the incarnate God, ascend they will both know that what He says is both true and possible and that the flesh He speaks of is not the ordinary flesh. It is no “simple” spiritualization or the confirmation of a shallow symbolism, after all, Jesus sees that the disciples were still offended and asks if they will leave Him also, and Peter, grasping the full awful truth, just humbly professes faith: “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” This is not a Gnostic Peter, possessor of some private knowledge about spiritual realities, some magic symbolism, but its a Peter that is as offended as the crowd, but who believed.


You state:

It did happen in John 3. The most known verse in the Bible, John 3:16, is the spiritual explanation of John 3:3 (Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.). Jesus was speaking figuratively to reveal a spiritual truth. The focus again is belief (John 3:12, 15, 16, 18, 36).
[/red

I will continue with the passage to help better understand the context. Jn. 3:4-36

Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother' s womb, and be born again? [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[5] Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.

[6] That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. [7] Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.] The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [9] Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done? [10] Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?

[11] Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. [12] If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things? [13] And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

[18] Is not judged: He that believeth, viz., by a faith working through charity, is not judged, that is, is not condemned; but the obstinate unbeliever is judged, that is, condemned already, by retrenching himself from the society of Christ and his church.

[19] The judgment: That is, the cause of his comdemnation.

[21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God. [22] After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized. [23] And John also was baptizing in Ennon near Salim; because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized. [24] For John was not yet cast into prison. [25] And there arose a question between some of John' s disciples and the Jews concerning purification:

[21] He that doth truth: that is, he that acteth according to truth, which here signifies the Law of God. Thy law is truth. Psa. 118. 142.

[26] And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. [27] John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. [28] You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. [29] He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom' s voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. [30] He must increase, but I must decrease.

[31] He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all. [32] And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony. [33] He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true. [34] For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God doth not give the Spirit by measure. [35] The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.

[36] He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jesus was astounded that Nicodemus did not know that water baptism saves us after all Jesus says, " Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?" Nicodemus knew the O.T. by heart yet he missed the foreshadowing of baptism. Ezekiel 36: 25-27 "25 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them."

Jn.3 In context is about water baptism, and if you continue on, chapter 4 continues with the context of water and baptism.


Concerning the “flesh profit nothing” issue, it is enough to quote the great St. Augustine on his commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Tractate 27):

"What is it, then, that He adds? "It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing." Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him?" Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means "the flesh profits nothing"? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that "the flesh profits nothing," in the same manner as it is said that "knowledge puffs up." Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means "Knowledge puffs up"? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, "but charity edifies." Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, "the flesh profits nothing," only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation."

It is not the simple eating of His flesh, cut in pieces, what Jesus meant and what the Church teaches about the Eucharist. The crowd was offended by Jesus: as St. Agustine further explains, they did not understand because they did not believe:

"But," says He, "there are some among you that believe not." He said not, There are some among you that understand not; but He told the cause why they understand not. "There are some among you that believe not," and therefore they understand not, because they believe not. For the prophet has said, "If you believe not, you shall not understand."

And really, this, as St. Thomas says and as St. Peter gave us his example, is a matter of faith. Even though it is quite awesome to think how the Lord of the Universe gives himself to us, by sheer grace and love, for us to eat Him, to be absorbed by Him, it is something that must be believed because Jesus could not be clearer, and the Church, that Jesus promised not to abandon, always taught it.


You state: Jesus himself said it was not actually his blood, but wine.  Where does Jesus say this in the Gospel of St. Luke that you reference? Jesus says, "This is my blood."


So, all this tells us that the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice and the bread and wine are a symbol of his flesh and blood.

The burden of proof is on you to support your opinions.

The scripture does not support your assertion. The christians for 1500 years, know nothing of this symbolism to which you read into the text. The historical record does not support your assertion.

Once again you are reading what you want into the text. Read the text then exegete the text if you are honestly seeking The Truth.

Remembrance in the greek= ANAMNESIS in LXX and Patristic Greek is not a mere mental remembrance, but an actually making present of that which is commemorated.






Your last objection: Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place.  This is the nature of being human.  A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time.  To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time, is to deny the incarnation.  That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man -- since a man can only be it one place at one time.  Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.



The burden of proof is on you, to prove that the nature of a human being means they can only be located in one place at a time. We have documented cases of this phenomena. I don't think you should dismiss it out of hand. The Good Lord knows the answer, and He is mighty in His saints. Just as in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, there is no contradiction in saying that One Body can be in more than one place at the same time. It is a miraculous mystery.  Perhaps philosophy can help explain, not the mystery of course (or there’d be no mystery), but that the miracle, which surpasses nature, is still reasonable in the sense of not being a contradiction.

This does not violate the incarnation. In fact if you took a poll and asked most christians what is the defining moment in christianity, the overwhelming response would be the crucifixion. When in fact it's the Incarnation. The Church has spilled more ink over this mystery of The Faith then any other. Jesus was both human and divine. Therefore he could be in two places at one time and not violate the incarnation. God the Son did not raise Lazarus with His Human Nature. Now the saints who have been bilocated by a divine miracle are finite creatures, whereas the Body and Soul of Jesus are hypostatically united to a divine and eternal Person, who can do all things. So, could He do for a creature what He does in every consecrated Host? Could He bilocate Padre Pio? Or, as the Franciscan missionaries believed, could He bilocate Blessed Maria d’Agreda? When the mystic nun was asked by Franciscan missionaries who had returned from the New World to Spain if she had been transported to evangelize the Indians in the New Mexico area, she answered “Yes.” That is a miracle! At the same moment she was in her monastery, she was also teaching the Indians in America.

What about the soul? Where is the soul in cases of bilocation, since the soul is the principle of life in one material and animate being. The more common opinion is that the soul would have to be vivifying the body of a saint, like Padre Pio, where the saint was acting, thinking, speaking, and moving. Such would have to have been the case where, among so many Padre Pio stories, there was the one where he was seen hearing a confession in Saint Peter’s basilica. To hear a confession validly, he would have to have been physically with the penitent in his body. An intellectual vision could not effect a sacrament. By the way, Pope Benedict XV (I think, it was) and Cardinal Merry Del Val were once very opposed to believing the reports coming to Rome about a young Capuchin stigmatist named Padre Pio. That was until a holy man, Don Orione, told Del Val and the Pope that he saw Padre Pio praying in Saint Peter’s crypt at the tomb of Pius X. So did the keeper of the keys who let Don Orione into the crypt.

Where the saint is active, the soul is active. Contrary to the opinion of the priest I referred to above — namely, that the vision of the bilocated one is merely intellectual — the body of the saint, I believe, is actually bi-located. But, while active in one place outside the monastery, the body that is at the monastery is, so to speak, sleeping, perhaps with just the sensitive part of the soul enlivening the body, whereas the spiritual, or intellectual part of the soul, is with the “other” acting body. Or else the inactive body is just soulless, but preserved from death, and in a state of in-animation, trance-like. If the latter is the case, then there is the question of the heart beating and the lungs breathing.


A perfect example of demonstrating the reasonableness of an event that is preternatural can be found in employing Aristotelian physics to demonstrate that two bodies occupying the same place at the same time is not a contradiction.  We can use the Philosopher’s teaching on the accident of quantity to demonstrate that the impassability of the glorified bodies of the saints, after the resurrection, is not contradictory to the natural law that two bodies cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Impassibility is an attribute of the glorified body that surpasses the natural physical laws, but it does not contradict them. Impassibility is the inverse miracle of that which we believe is the case with bi or multi-location.  The glorified body of Jesus and Our Lady are physical bodies that have, among other glorious attributes, impassibility. The body of Jesus passed through walls after His Resurrection. And, at times, even before His death and resurrection, He displayed the glory and impassibility of His human body. The first such manifestation, of course, was His being born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, and passing through her womb like light through a glass. Another occasion was when He “passed through” the angry mob in Nazareth when His enemies sought to throw Him off a cliff.  In His Transfiguration, Our Lord was glorified, too, exhibiting both His physical clarity (resplendence) and subtlety (dominion over the heaviness of gravity).

How does Aristotle’s teaching on quantity lend itself to defending the reasonableness of the miracle of con-occupancy of two bodies in one place simultaneously? Well, first we must understand what quantity is. Quantity is an accident of a physical substance. It answers the question: How much? Quantity can be measured in weight, volume, mass, or circumscriptive extension. When Jesus passed through a wall with His glorified Body, something had to give; the lesser physical body had to surrender something to the Greater Body. What was surrendered? The substance of the wood or rock? No, the substance of the wall remained; it did not cease to be. But, the accidental quantity of the wall, its extension into space, had to move over, cease to be, so that the extended Body of Christ could pass through.

In the Holy Eucharist, the Body of Christ is substantially present, but without its quantity, in an un-extended state, without weight, mass, or volume. The accidents, however, of the bread and wine with their respective quantity and dimension exist in the Eucharist miraculously, without inhering in any substance. After the consecration at Mass, the substance of the bread and the wine in the chalice cease to exist, only the accidents remain. Substance changes into Substance, bread and wine into the Incarnate God.

Perhaps, first, it might help to look at what is called the “multiplication” of the loaves and fish. I read a commentary once that argued that what Jesus did, based on the exact inspired language, was “multilocate” the five loaves and two fish, rather than multiply them by creating new bread and fish. He did this by way of a prefiguring of the Eucharist, where His one Body is in countless places. The five thousand were fed on the five loaves and two fish (Matt. 14:19) and the four thousand with seven loaves and a few fish (Matt. 15:36) as Christ’s members are fed by the one living Body of Jesus.



Miracles cannot be explained by natural laws or they would not be miracles. Miracles defy the natural physical laws without presenting a contradiction. Miracles are from God; they are the effect of His direct interference for His own holy purposes with the physical law He created. In giving some exceptionally holy men and women the power to work miracles, He gives them a share in His Omnipotent Providence and Goodness. In distinguishing between problems and miracles, Father Feeney once quipped that problems are in need of solutions; miracles are for contemplation.

This sort of objection is born out of ignorance a by product of the protestant revolt. I DO NOT use the word ignorance in the pejorative sense so, this is not aimed at you. Ignorance in this sense means one simply does not know. Please don't be offended. But this sort of objection betrays how one does not fully grasp the teaching of the Church on the Real Presence.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Why is transubstantiation (not the word, but the actual process) never clearly stated by any of the apostles?  Turning water into wine was one of Jesus's miracles, wouldn't turning bread and wine into his flesh and blood be another miracle that Jesus performed?  You can take John 6 literal if you want to, but I do not. Even the early church fathers had differing opinions of communion and whether it was symbolic or truley turning bread to flesh and wine to blood. What the significance of eating his actual flesh and drinking his actual blood would be, I don't know. But he said to do it remembrance of him, which is his sacrifice, which would mean a symbol. It doesn't need to be complicated any further than that.

Even the early church fathers had differing opinions of communion and whether it was symbolic or truley turning bread to flesh and wine to blood.

I will address this question first. Show me one early Church Father in the first 500 years, that did not believe in The Real Presence using primary source documents. In fact, if you can show me one early Church Father in the first 1000 years, that did not believe in The Real Presence, I will buy you a box of ammo and send you a gift card to Outback Steak House. If you can't all I ask is you revisit your position. Fair? Your statements of "I" reveal much about the Protestant mindset especially the America Protestant. Americanism is a heresy and the idea of autonomy runs contrary to the teaching of God.


Example:  "You can take John 6 literal if you want to, but I do not."

2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning). One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. "Meaning" is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers. Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text). Only by objective methodology can we bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the biblical writers. Indeed, our method of interpreting Scripture is valid or invalid to the extent that it really unfolds the meaning a statement had for the author and the first hearers or readers.



According to a common rule observed in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, we must always take the words in their literal signification, unless we have some special reason which obliges us to accept them in a figurative meaning. Anyone who take the study of scripture seriously know the literal sense is the first sense we must seek and I mention the four senses of scripture in the previous post. This is the same principle the Jewish people of the Old Testament applied.

Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34, Mark 10:6), Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27), Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and the account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).

Jesus affirmed the Bible's divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43), its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18), its infallibility (John 10:35), its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10), its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37), its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25). Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).

I don't blame you for your "I will believe this, or I will choose this, or I etc.." This is a by product of the Protestant revolt and "The Enlightenment" We don't choose when or what we are born into, but we do have a choice to always be open to The Truth.


Other than Berengarius of Tours in 1088 who was not a father of The Church all of Christendom was unanimous until the Protestant revolt some 1500 years later. This is a new and novel idea in the history of Christendom. But here the Protestant burden begins. Only a few years after the early Protestants had reject The Catholic doctrine of The Eucharist no fewer than one hundred meanings were given to these words: "This is My body." It is far easier to destroy than to rebuild.



I have used Protestant scholars and primary sources, who admit the Early Church Fathers unanimously believed in The Real Presence. These man were not Catholic and some were even hostile to The Faith but had the integrity and humility to state the obvious.

1) Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:

The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.
2) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:

By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the 'Catholic' view were already at hand by 253.
3) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .
In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim......

[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

Note: Schaff had just for two pages (pp.498-500) shown how St. Augustine spoke of symbolism in the Eucharist as well, but he honestly admits that the great Father accepted the Real Presence "at the same time." This is precisely what I would argue. Catholics have a reasonable explanation for the "symbolic" utterances, which are able to be harmonized with the Real Presence, but Protestants, who maintain that Augustine was a Calvinist or Zwingian in his Eucharistic views must ignore the numerous references to an explicit Real Presence in Augustine, and of course this is objectionable scholarship.

Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion 'verissimum sacrificium' of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers ('immolat') to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]
4) J.D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:

The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.
5) F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:

That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as 'symbols' or 'antitypes' there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ's Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .
It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, 'covenant,' 'memorial,' 'poured out,' all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

Berengar is the first Christian of any prominence at all that we know of who denied the Real Presence. In the subsequent period we have the Cathari and Albigensian heresies who did the same, and John Wycliffe, whose view was similar to Calvin's. Hardly notable exceptions to the extraordinary unanimity of all the other great Christians up to 1517!
But - I note in passing - anti-Catholics like Dave Hunt will go to the amazing extent of embracing the Albigensians as Christian brothers, in order to find a Christian "church" which runs counter to the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church in this period. These heretics were Manichaean-type dualists who believed that flesh and material creation were evil and that "Christ was an angel with a phantom body who, consequently, did not suffer or rise again." They rejected the sacraments, hell, the resurrection of the body, and condemned marriage. (Ibid., p.31) Yet Dave Hunt is ready to accept them as Christian brothers before he will offer the right hand of fellowship and the title of "Christian" to a Catholic like myself! A prime example of irrational anti-Catholicism if ever there was one!

6) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:

By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term 'sacrifice' to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the 'pure offering' commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .
The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

. . . the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .

Yet it does seem 'express and clear' that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .

The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .

Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of 're-presentation,' just as the bread of the Eucharist 're-presented' the body of Christ . . . the doctrine of the person of Christ had to be clarified before there could be concepts that could bear the weight of eucharistic teaching . . .

Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . 'At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.' [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them.

7) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 447, provides this statement on the heels of Augustine's Ennar 98:

One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.
8) Carl Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:

Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.
9) Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1975, 173:

Finally, John Chrysostom and Augustine explore the social connotation of participation in the Eucharist: the body of Christ is not only what lies on the altar, it is also the body of the faithful.


Now from Our Lord and the early christians.

THE BIBLE

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

THE DIDACHE

The Didache or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

"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

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME  (Alt)

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices."

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH  (Alt)

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR  (Alt)

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."

"Dialogue with Trypho", Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-"Dialogue with Trypho", [41: 8-10]

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS  (Alt)

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

[Christ] 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 to our bodies."

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. "For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection."

-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis". Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA  (Alt)

St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He 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. O incredible mystery!",

-"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE  (Alt)

St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,

"So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: 'In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.' The flesh of Christ and the Lord's sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.",

-"The Unity of the Catholic Church". Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,

Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.

"Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord's blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!",

-"The Lapsed" Ch. 25, circa 249-258 A.D.,

"The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.",

Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,

"There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord's holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord's sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.",

-"The Lapsed" Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,

As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: 'Give us this day our daily bread.' This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say 'Our Father,' because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say 'our Bread,' because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: 'I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.' Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.' And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.",

Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord's Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,

APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE

Not much biographical information has been left about Aphraates. It is known that he was one of the Fathers of the Syrian Church. It is speculated that he was made bishop late in his life.,

He is thought to have been born ca. 280 A.D. and to have died ca. 345 A.D.,

"But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, 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; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.",

- "Treatises" [12,6] inter 336-345 A.D.,

SERAPION  (Alt)

"'Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.' Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.,

To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, 'Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.' On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church.,

We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, 'Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.' For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!,

For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: - after the mentioning of their names: - Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.",

-"The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice" [13],

ST. EPHRAIM  (Alt)

St. Ephraim was one of the great authors of the Syrian Church. Because of his beautiful writings, he is sometimes referred to as the 'lyre of the Holy Spirit'. He studied under James, Bishop of Nisbis. In 338 A.D. he aspired to the diaconate and remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.,

"Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.,

And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: 'Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.' But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.",

-"Homilies" 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,

"After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: 'This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.",

-"Homilies" 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,

"'And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.' … This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.",

-"On Joel 2:24", Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 252 of the Assemani edition.

ST. ATHANASIUS  (Alt)

St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,

"'The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:' You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'And again:' Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.",

-"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" ante 373 A.D.,

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM  (Alt)

St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.,

"`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]'. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

"Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]

"Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]"

"9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:

"Then upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over the propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need."

"Mystagogic Catechesis [23: 5-7]

"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out."

-Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 10]

"After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, 'Taste and see that the Lord is good.' Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate - no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ."

-"Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D

"Keep these traditions inviolate, and preserve yourselves from offenses. Do not cut yourselves off from Communion, do not deprive yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries."

-"Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 23]"

ST. HILARY OF POITERS  (Alt)

St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.

"When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: 'My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.' As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God."

-"The Trinity" [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT  (Alt)

St. Basil is recognized as the founder of Eastern monasticism. He was ordained Bishop of Caesarea in 370 A.D. He defended the Catholic Church against two waves of Arian attacks. The first movement denied the divinity of Christ. The second denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is considered one of the greatest saints of the Oriental Church.

"What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for 'he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.' What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again."

-"The Morals" Ch. 22

"He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord."

-"Concerning Baptism" Book I, Ch. 3.

"To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: 'He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.' Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint."

-"Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria" [93] ca. 372 A.D.

ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS  (Alt)

"We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: 'This is really Me.' And He gave to His disciples and said: 'This is really Me.' And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, 'This is really Me.'; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior."

-"The Man Well-Anchored" [57] 374 A.D.

ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ  (Alt)

St. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Sasima in the year 371 A.D and was a friend of St. Basil for most of his life.

"Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword."

-"Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium" [171] ca. 383 A.D.

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA  (Alt)

"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh."

-"The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]"

"He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and 'Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.' When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM  (Alt)

From 386-397 A.D. St. John Chrysostom served as a priest in the main church of Antioch. He soon became renown for his preaching and writing skills. In 397 A.D. he succeeded St. Gregory of Nazianz as Bishop of Constantinople.

"When the word says, 'This is My Body,' be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, 'I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!"

-"Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew" [82,4] 370 A.D.

"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy," 2,4, c. 397 A.D.

"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:

"'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?' Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: 'What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.' He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us."

-"Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians" [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN  (Alt)

"You perhaps say: 'My bread is usual.' But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament."

-"The Sacraments" Book 4, Ch.4:14.

"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.' [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body."

-"On the Mysteries" 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

"His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And 'rich' is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints."

-"The Patriarchs" Ch. 9:38

"Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it."

-"Letter to Horontianus" circa 387 A.D.

EGERIA

"Following the dismissal from the Martyrium, everyone proceeds behind the Cross, where, after a hymn is sung and a prayer is said, the bishop offers the sacrifice and everyone receives Communion. Except on this one day, throughout the year the sacrifice is never offered behind the Cross save on this day alone."

-"Diary of a Pilgrimage" Ch. 35.

Describes a Mass held in front of Mt. Sinai.

"All of the proper passage from the Book of Moses was read, the sacrifice was offered in the prescribed manner, and we received Communion."

-"Diary of a Pilgrimage" Ch. 3.

AURELIUS PRUDENTIUS CLEMENS  (Alt)

"Such is the hidden retreat where Hippolytus' body is buried. Next to an altar nearby, built for the worship of God. Table from which the sacrament all holy is given, close to the martyr it stands, set as a faithful guard."

-"Hymns for Every Day" Hymn 170.

ST. JEROME  (Alt)

"After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood."

-"Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew" [4,26,26] 398 A.D.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS

"A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he offers the Sacrifice"

"Apostolic Constitutions [8, 28, 2:9]"

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA  (Alt)

"Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): 'This is My Body,' and "This is My Blood," in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ's Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ."

Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:

"We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice."

Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Catecheses," 22, 9; "Myst." 4; d. 444 A.D.:

ST. AUGUSTINE  (Alt)

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."

-"Sermons", [227, 21]

"He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer 'Amen'".

-"Second Discourse on Psalm 32". Ch. 4. circa

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth."

-"Apocriticus" [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.

ST. LEO I  (Alt)

"When the Lord says: 'Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,' you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, 'Amen,' who argue against that which is received."

-"Sermons" [91,3] ante 461 A.D.

ST. CAESAR OF ARLES  (Alt)

"As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ."

-"Sermons [13 (265), 3]

ST. FULGENE OF RUSPE  (Alt)

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine … In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in the present it is announced that He has been killed for the impious."

-"The Rule of Faith [62]"


I apologize for the long post in advance.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Clement of Alexandria:
Paedagogus Book 1

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”

So what are the Catholic Church’s issues with Clement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Clement of Alexandria) In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols.

The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

Origen:
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

Tertullian of Carthage
They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Well, which is it? Did Old Testament animal sacrifices atone for sin, or were they only a sign?

If they were a sign, then Old Testament believers were saved by grace through faith in Jesus too. Same as today. They were looking forward for the Messiah, and we, when partaking of the Lord's supper, look back and remember.

Were there chapter & verse divisions in the original text? No. So, after John 6 is... John 7:1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews (Greek Ioudaioi -Jewish religious leaders) were seeking to kill him. So, yeah. It's in the text.

Boy, that's true.

Used four times in the Bible. Not once does it mean anything other than remembrance.

ledslngr:


Here is the reply to the rest of your post. I will reply to the Clement passages this evening after my niece's ballgame.

If Jesus did't explain the metaphysics of turning water into wine, why would he need to explain the metaphysics of transubstantiation? They had faith. If your faith is lacking you have an intellect. Faith and reason do not contradict each other.

If you understand history, and especially Church history, The Church has never explained a Dogma or doctrine unless some question arises to the validity. For example the Blessed Trinity, the word Trinity is not found anywhere in Holy Writ. Do you think the apostles had a developed understanding of The Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Beatific Vision, The Holy Eucharist, etc.? I dare say not, save St. John. You would know nothing of the Trinity or The Nicene Creed today, if it were not for Holy Mother Church. The Arian Heresy almost wiped out The Church. It was St. Nickolas who struck the heretic Arius in the face at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. With Scripture alone, and no other traditional or doctrinal presumptions, one cannot decisively end up with the orthodox understanding of the Trinity as defined in the Council of Nicea. One, in fact, can come up with any number of explanations of how God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit coexist and relate. However, beginning from the Council’s decisive definition of the Trinity, one can return to Scripture and see how this dogma is clearly illustrated in the truths of Scripture. Anyone who claims otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

The argument that, The Scripture is "the simple word of God" is foreign to the scripture. Are we to assume we are more educated than the Ethiopian eunuch? He was humble enough to recognize he needed a teacher to understand the scriptures.

My friend the only reason you can take John 6 figuratively is because you are looking through a protestant lens. The context is clear.

If it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.

Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word.

If Jesus was speaking in purely symbolic terms, his competence as a teacher would have to be called into question. No one listening to him understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Contrast his listeners’ reaction when Jesus said he was a “door” or a “vine.” Nowhere do we find anyone asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” Or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” When Jesus spoke in metaphor, his audience seems to have been fully aware of it.

When we examine the surrounding context of John 6:53, Jesus’ words could hardly have been clearer. In verse 51, he plainly claims to be “the living bread” that his followers must eat. And he says in no uncertain terms that “the bread which I shall give . . . is my flesh.” Then, when the Jews were found “disput[ing] among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” in verse 52, he reiterates even more emphatically, “Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Compare this with other examples in Scripture when followers of the Lord are confused about his teaching. In John 4:32, Jesus says: “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” The disciples thought Jesus was speaking about physical food. Our Lord quickly clears up the point using concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (see also Matthew 16:5-12).  

Moreover, when we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretation—however disturbing—becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.

Then, in verse 61, it is no longer the Jewish multitudes, but the disciples themselves who are having difficulty with these radical statements of our Lord. Surely, if he were speaking symbolically, he would clear up the difficulty now among his disciples. Instead, what does Jesus do? He reiterates the fact that he meant just what he said: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (61-62). Would anyone think him to have meant, “What if you were to see me symbolically ascend?” Hardly! The apostles, in fact, did see Jesus literally ascend to where he was before (see Acts 1:9-10).

Finally, our Lord turns to the twelve. What he does not say to them is perhaps more important than what he does say. He doesn’t say, “Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically.” Rather, he says to them, “Will you also go away?” (v. 67). This most profound question from our Lord echoes down through the centuries, calling all followers of Christ in a similar fashion. With St. Peter, those who hear the voice of the Shepherd respond: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v. 68).

John 6:63  After seeing the Jews and the disciples struggling with the radical nature of his words, our Lord says to the disciples and to us all: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Protestants claim Jesus here lets us know he was speaking symbolically or “spiritually” when he said “the spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” See? He is not giving us his flesh to eat because he says “the flesh is of no avail.”

1) If Jesus was clearing up the point, he would have to be considered a poor teacher: Many of the disciples left him immediately thereafter because they still believed the words of our Lord to mean what they said.

2) Most importantly, Jesus did not say, “My flesh is of no avail.” He said, “The flesh is of no avail.” There is a rather large difference between the two. No one, it is safe to say, would have believed he meant my flesh avails nothing because he just spent a good portion of this same discourse telling us that his flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51, cf. 50-58). So to what was he referring? The flesh is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace.

For example, Christ said to the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mk 14:38). According to Paul, if we are in “the flesh,” we are “hostile to God” and “cannot please God” (cf. Rom 8:1-14). In First Corinthians 2:14, he tells us, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” In First Corinthians 3:1, Paul goes on, “But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ.” It requires supernatural grace in the life of the believer to believe the radical declaration of Christ concerning the Eucharist. As Jesus himself said both before and after this “hard saying”: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn 6:44, cf. 6:65). Belief in the Eucharist is a gift of grace. The natural mind—or the one who is in “the flesh”—will never be able to understand this great Christian truth.

3) On another level very closely related to our last point, Christ said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” because he wills to eliminate any possibility of a sort of crass literalism that would reduce his words to a cannibalistic understanding. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world. A human body, even a perfect one, apart from the power of the Spirit could not accomplish this.

4) That which is spiritual does not necessarily equate to that which has no material substance. It often means that which is dominated or controlled by the Spirit.

One thing we do not want to do as Christians is to fall into the trap of believing that because Christ says his words are “spirit and life,” or “spiritual,” they cannot involve the material. When speaking of the resurrection of the body, Paul wrote: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). Does this mean we will not have a physical body in the resurrection? Of course not. In Luke 24:39, Jesus made that clear after his own Resurrection: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

The resurrected body is spiritual, and indeed we can be called spiritual as Christians inasmuch as we are controlled by the Spirit of God. Spiritual in no way means void of the material. That interpretation is more gnostic than Christian. The confusion here is most often based upon confusion between spirit—a noun—and the adjective spiritual. When spirit is used, e.g., “God is spirit” in John 4:24, it is then referring to that which is not material. However, the adjective spiritual is not necessarily referring to the absence of the material; rather, it is referring to the material controlled by the Spirit.

Thus, we could conclude that Jesus’ words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” have essentially a twofold meaning. Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle.

His language is not susceptible of any other interpretation. If the Eucharist were just commemorative bread and wine as you claim, then you have a problem to solve. Instead of it being superior, it would really be inferior to the manna; for the manna WAS supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a natural, earthly food. Please explain this to me? The Jews understood it to be his flesh because the text says so. You still have not addressed why Jesus let them go? You are implying Jesus condemned a multitude to hell over semantics. If that is the case Jesus is not who he claims to be.



For the Eucharist to be a symbol not only to you have to overcome the texts above but what do you do about St. Paul?  Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

As I said earlier, remembrance in the greek= ANAMNESIS in LXX and Patristic Greek is not a mere mental remembrance, but an actually making present of that which is commemorated. The actual word used in Scripture is anamnesis, which carries a stronger connotation than the English "in memory". Anamnesis has a meaning more akin to "make real again" or "make present again". In Platonic philosophy, for example, anamnesis is when the eternal soul "remembers" knowledge that it has always had, and in Judaism the Passover Seder is an "anamnesis" in which the people celebrating are actually really present with the Hebrews preparing to leave Egypt. The speaker Jesus was a Jew, his audience were Jews and trying to read scripture without taking this into account the time period, audience or customs of the day is insanity as you can see. You are reading the english meaning of the word remember into the text and it does not have the nuances in the original greek, nor is it intended to because you are reading a translation of a translation. The word anamnesis in the greek means to actually make present.  “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” — a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage.


Are you going to reply to any of my questions? I'm taking the time to address yours, as time permits that's what makes a dialogue fruitful.

Proof texting is not exegesis.

Pax,
Tarpeian

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding you have with the Catholic Fathers and The Real Presence. Included below are the errors protestants make either by mistake, or out of pride. I have said before some of the best and brightest scholars from within protestantism have admitted The Catholic position. Notice how they stress that many protestants don't take into account the jewish customs of the time or the meanings of the words.

The Mass makes the Lord’s Sacrifice of Calvary really present (anamnesis) before us on the altar at Mass from which the Body and Blood of the Lord is really partaken of in the form of a sacramentum by the priest and the faithful. This is what Catholics and the Eastern Churches believe happens at Mass and while the first reaction of Protestants is to claim that it is "unbiblical"; in reality it is far from the case as we will detail in the following section. Hopefully this will once again crystalize in the minds of all Christians the exhortation of the Apostle Peter of how the Scriptures are easily twisted by the unlearned and unstable to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:14-17). Protestants do this constantly and perhaps in no area is this maxim best illustrated then when it comes to the topics of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist.

The renowned Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly in his book "Early Christian Doctrines" wrote the following about the understanding of the Eucharist in the early Church:

[T]he eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1:10-11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies he term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist ...it was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped up in the sacrificial atmosphere with which Our Lord invested the Last Supper.  The words of institution, 'Do this' (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, 'Offer this.' . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered 'for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,' a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord's body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. [1]
Calvary is re-enacted at every Mass: the concept of which takes us outside of time before the Lord to whom Calvary is a constant occurrence (because the past, present, and future are simultaneous to Him). The concept is Jewish in origen and takes on the form of the Passover which the rabbis teach that every Jew must personally experience to be Jewish. This was relayed to the children of Israel in the book of Exodus:
Exodus 12:
3 Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. 4 But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. 5 and it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year: according to which rite also you shall take a kid 6 And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce. 9 You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire: you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof. 10 Neither shall there remain any thing of it until morning. If there be any thing left, you shall burn it with fire…
14 And this day shall be for a memorial to you: and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord in your generations with an everlasting observance. 15 Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread: in the first day there shall be no leaven in your houses: whosoever shall eat any thing leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall perish out of Israel. 16 The first day shall be holy and solemn, and the seventh day shall be kept with the like solemnity: you shall do no work in them, except those things that belong to eating. 17 And you shall observe the feast of the unleavened bread: for in this same day I will bring forth your army out of the land of Egypt, and you shall keep this day in your generations by a perpetual observance…
21 And Moses called all the ancients of the children of Israel, and said to them: Go take a lamb by your families, and sacrifice the Phase. 22 And dip a bunch of hyssop in the blood that is at the door, and sprinkle the transom of the door therewith, and both door cheeks: let none of you go out of the door of his house till morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through striking the Egyptians: and when he shall see the blood on the transom, and on both the posts, he will pass over the door of the house, and not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses and to hurt you. 24 Thou shalt keep this thing as a law for thee and thy children for ever. 25 And when you have entered into the land which the Lord will give you as he hath promised, you shall observe these ceremonies. 26 And when your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this service? 27 You shall say to them: It IS the passover sacrifice of the Lord, when he passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, striking the Egyptians, and saving our houses. And the people bowing themselves, adored. 28 And the children of Israel going forth did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron…
42 This is the observable night of the Lord, when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: This night all the children of Israel must observe in their generations. 43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the service of the Phase: No foreigner shall eat of it. 44 But every bought servant shall be circumcised, and so shall eat. 45 The stranger and the hireling shall not eat thereof. 46 In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof. 47 All the assembly of the children of Israel shall keep it. 48 And if any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord, all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner: and he shall be as he that is born in the land: but if any man be uncircumcised, he shall not eat thereof. 49 The same law shall be to him that is born in the land, and to the proselyte that sojourneth with you. 50 And all the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. 51 And the same day the Lord brought forth the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their companies. [2]
Like the Jews, the Church does not allow "foreigners" to partake of the Eucharist who have not been entered into the covenant. They must be "circumcised" in the spirit much as in the old covenant circumcision of the flesh was required. Also, notice the perpetual remembrance of the Passover as expounded in Exodus. The rabbis taught that this participation was no mere symbolism but a real partaking of the exodus experience from Egypt by all who underwent the Passover in every generation. Or to quote the Mishnah on the subject of the Passover Haggadah:

In every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has gone forth from Egypt, since it is said, "And you shall tell your son in that day saying, It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt" (Ex. 13:8). Therefore we are duty-bound to thank, praise, glorify, honor, exalt, extol, and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these miracles. He brought us forth from slavery to freedom, anguish to joy, mourning to festival, darkness to great light, subjugation to redemption, so we should say before him, Hallelujah. [3]
The Hebrew understanding of time is not that it is a fixed point which recedes into the past but instead it is eternally present. This is how the Church understands the Mass which was first promulgated by Our Lord at the Last Supper in the context of the Passover remembrance. Our Lord made the command that all in the New Covenant were to partake in the covenant of Our Lord’s blood offered in sacrifice at the Last Supper and shed for the remission of sins on Calvary. From the Sacrifice of the Mass flows the infinite merit of the Cross from which they are applied to people of every generation for all time until the Lord returns to judge the world. The Apostolic view is one that discards time barriers and views Calvary as God does. This is why the Mass is a true Sacrifice and is not a "recrucifying of Christ" as many Protestant apologists claim. As we will see, this is the witness of the Fathers and Protestants who seek to manufacture a consensus for an opposing view or claim that no consensus for this view exists in antiquity are only deceiving themselves.
There are many unbiblical and unfounded Protestant presuppositions concerning both the nature of the Mass and also how the doctrine of the Eucharist appears in the writings of the early Church. Having already addressed the erroneous and unbiblical "recrucifying of Christ" canard, I will now address the errors in how Protestants understand the Fathers in a moment. These errors in understanding are based on an unbiblical and un-Hebrew Protestant dichotomous mindset which was alien to the Jews, the early Church, and the Fathers. This error is Hellenistic in origin and is a corruption of the manner in which the Bible and Christianity are properly understood. This is why almost all Protestants grossly err in their understanding of the Sacrifice of the Mass. They fail to understand the Hebrew nature of Catholicism and how the Incarnational concept permeates our worldview. I intend to write on this subject eventually but understanding the Incarnational concept is the "key" to unlocking Catholicism in all of its teachings. (And the way our Eastern brethren understand their worship also which they do not call the Mass but instead "The Divine Liturgy" applies here as well.) The Apostolic concept is the same and is heavily suffused with Hebrew themes especially ones of the covenantal relationship between God and man. This relationship is universal (Gk. Katholikos) in scope. The same kind of defects impair the understanding of Protestants of the writings of the Church Fathers on numerous topics including the Eucharist.

The Fathers looked at the Eucharist in many ways. While primarily the Eucharist was seen in realist means (as a sacrifice and as the literal body and blood of Our Lord) some Fathers also entertained other means of viewing this mystery. Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and even at times Augustine of Hippo were more allegorical in their approach and some Protestant apologists point to the symbolism used in the writings of these Fathers (and a few others) and claim that these Fathers did not take the realist view. However this is a serious error in anachronism because what we call a symbol or figure today is not what the ancients held it to be. As the liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack (who was never fond of the Catholic Church) noted in his work History of Dogma, what we nowadays understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it represents. This is markedly different from the way the ancient Church understood the concept. To paraphrase Harnack: "At that time, ‘symbol’ denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies." This point was also emphasized in the writings of the aforementioned J.N.D. Kelly, considered one of the greatest Protestant early church hsitorians of the twentieth century:

Occasionally these writers [the Fathers] use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.'
Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make present.'
All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. [4]
This point is also amplified by the Anglican scholar Rev. Darwell Stone:
To suppose that 'symbol in Clement of Alexandria or 'figure' in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is gravely misleading. [5]


The key misunderstanding above (referred to by Rev. Stone as "grave") is why Protestant apologists are so far off base when they try to appropriate Fathers who were more allegorical then literal in their theological approaches  as believers in the Real Presence different to what Catholics, the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans hold to. (Among those popularly appealed to include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine.) What we now call "symbol" is something completely different from what was so called by the ancient Church. This is why the failure to understand time periods, languages, customs, and thought patterns of the ancients will get one in a whole heap of trouble when they try to determine according to modern meanings of terms what the ancients meant by using the same terms.
A contemporary example of words undergoing a change in their usage is what has happened with the word "gay." Compared with its usage only fifty years ago, the meaning is night and day different. This is the same with the concept of "symbol" or "figure" in what it means now and what it meant fourteen hundred plus years ago. A little common sense is in order here: if the Divine Scriptures can be twisted as to their meaning by the unlearned and unstable among us (2 Pet. 3:14-17), why would anyone be naïve enough to think that the non-inspired writings of the Fathers are less suseptable to being misunderstood then the very Word of God is??? The problem lies in a seriously flawed methodology that were utilized by the "reformers" and of which their spiritual descendants unfortunately have adopted: the error of false dichotomization. This error will be addressed in the next section.

Part V - Dichotomies and Antiquity

The primary problem as we noted in the previous section is the profound misunderstanding of covenant, hebraism, and incarnationalism as the triune threads interwoven throughout the tapestry of all Catholic doctrines. Protestantism for the most part in compensating for these glaring defects seeks to dichotomize and mysteries that cannot be so reduced to simplistic formulas. When it comes to the Fathers, the Protestant apologist will read a Father who speaks in one passage in a more symbol-laden manner and say "see he did not believe in the Real Presence the way 'Roman' Catholics do." In the process of doing this, the apologist either ignores other passages by the same Father where he speaks in a realist fashion or they interpret the realist passages by way of their gross misunderstanding of the symbol-laden passage. (On account of being ignorant of what the ancient Church meant by types and symbols.) It is a common mindset among Protestants: a constant "either/or" mentality that is alien to the Hebrew worldview of the Jews, that was alien to the views of the Fathers, and which is alien to the views of the Catholic Church today (and the Eastern Churches also).

The Catholic Church like the Fathers and like the Scripture authors (and like Our Lord) constantly takes a "both/and" viewpoint. The Eucharist is but one of countless examples of this viewpoint. It is both the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and also a symbol of His body and blood. It is both a solemn sacrifice for sin offered on an altar (Heb. 13:10) and a community banquet which is a participation in the body and blood of Our Lord (1 Cor. 10:17). Our Lord called it His body and thus the Eucharist IS His body. The Church has pondered this great mystery for 20 centuries and has proposed a diversity of means of better comprehending this unfathomable mystery. She accepts all possible explanations that do not seek to contradict the primary understanding of the Eucharist that has always been held from the earliest of days: that the Eucharist is the literal flesh and blood of Our Lord offered in sacrifice to God in restitution for our sins and the sins of all men. There is a reason why St. Paul admonished the Corinthians so harshly in his first Epistle because of Eucharist abuses. There is a reason why he told them "Whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord…for he who eats and drinks unworthily, without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment unto himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). The reason is because the Eucharist is the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which is blessed is a sharing of the Blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Thus, those who do not discern what (or Whom) they are eating when they partake of the Eucharist bring judgment upon themselves for profaning the very Body and Blood of the Lord.  


To again cite Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly on the matter:
Ignatius roundly declares that...the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body...Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity...
Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally. [6]


You have at least five areas to overcome.

One the plain meaning of the text.

Two the unanimity of all of Christendom for the first 1500 years. (Except for Berengarius of Tours)

Third some of the most respected Protestant scholars plainly see and accept that The Catholic Fathers were unanimous on this doctrine. They understand hermeneutics and apply the rules regardless of the outcome because they wist to remain credible. Just as an aside some of the best and brightest Catholic converts in the last one hundred years are protestant scholars and ministers. One common thread among them, when you read or listen to their journey, back to Holy Mother Church is, they all read their way into The Faith. It was the writings of The Catholic Church Fathers that opened their eyes.

When you look inside the numbers the stated reasons for protestants Coming home to Rome is they do so on account of their reason, The Church is the only institution that negates our base culture on issues of morality and they finally have The Fullness of Truth. Contrast that to the Catholics that leave or quit practicing The Faith it was based either on emotion, very telling indeed.

See article here:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0252.html


http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/a-deeper-look-at-the-many-evangelicals-turning-catholic

Fourth the historical record. How do you explain church historians and secular historians? "Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator.His writings shows no sympathy towards Christians, or knowledge of who their leader was. His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism by Christians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Finally why would The Catholic Church declare someone a Father of The Church and declare them a Saint, if they denied Church teaching? Now if you fail to see how absurd that position is I'm not sure there is much left to discuss.

I will let the OP decide which case is possible, plausible and probable. The Catholic position meets all three of the criteria, it is the most reasonable and logical, not based on emotion or lack of exegesis.

You missed my point when I commented on you coming to the scriptures and reading through a protest an lens. Of course I read the Scripture through The Catholic lens. She gave us the scriptures. There is no other way to read scripture except through the Tradition of The Church. Anything else results in 20,000 different protestant denominations all claiming the authority of the bible yet preaching 20,000 different meanings.

You may or may not find this interesting but our founding fathers all recognized the pluralism in protestantism. Under the guise of "separation of church and state" the founders recognized in time people would worship The State and not The Church. And the Protestants and sadly most Catholics fell for it hook line and sinker. "Separation of Church and State" means State worship. Jefferson knew religious pluralism was a check against church power, get faith out of the public square, and relegate it to individual autonomy. I don't know the faith tradition that you come from but where is the Protestant voice in the public square? Reading scripture in isolation is what caused Martin Luther to say, " I tried to get rid of one Pope and I have created millions." But I digress.

I hope this gives you a little more clarity on the Church Fathers but your evidence is not there. You really need to sit down and read The Catholic Fathers in totality, the same way scripture needs to be read.


When did the disciples recognize Our Lord on the road to Emmaus? Our Lord  explained the entire OT prophecies  prefiguring Him, and they still did not recognize Him? Well we know Our Blessed Lord has a sense of humor:)

Luke 24:30-31, 33, 35 - "When he was at table with them, he took bread,
blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them.
Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight...
That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem;
and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together...
Then they told what had happened on the road,
and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread."

It was in the breaking of the bread, The Eucharist is when their eyes were open.

A symbol?



How would you explain this prophecy below if The Eucharist is just a symbol? Every second of every day somewhere around the world this prophecy is fulfilled in the Catholic Church.  According to Is 66:21, the new sacrifice, or “pure offering” will be carried out by a priesthood not solely Jewish.

Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."



Now I have to get back to finding me a 308/7.62:))

Pax,
Tarpeian

Great summary.  

The fact that the meaning of a word, anamnesis, has to be changed in order to get to the conclusion that the bread and wine turns into flesh and blood shows how the doctrine is in error. There's no where that I can find that anamnesis means anything other than remembrance.

But I am willing to go out on a limb and say that 'real presence' is different than transubstantiation. Real presence meaning in spirit not flesh and blood. But then again, the Holy Spirit is with us at times other than the communion.

I think we have both stated our positions and we will have to disagree.

I suppose I've always been a little confused by this debate.  Is the hypothesis that when someone takes communion, there exists human muscle tissue and blood in their digestive system with a genetic encoding different from their own (specifically the genetic sequence of Jesus), and that different genetically encoded flesh would be present within each communion taker everywhere through all human history since the sacrifice of Jesus?

Yes. The technical term is transubstantiation. Real presence was the term used by some early church fathers, but I think they are two different things.

ledslngr,

I think but I will have to double check a non Catholic coined the term "The Real Presence."

I must say you have debated better than most I have encountered:)

I will send you the ammo and gift card because you did so well, but not because The Fathers believed anything different. I knew that going in, I feel bad that I set you up. Now I have to go to confession:) LOL

Pax,
Tarpeian

I'm not sure who came up with the term 'The Real Presence', but Catholics claim it now.

You didn't set me up, I know they were not all in agreement on the subject, though you claim differently. The examples I gave you showed in plain speak that they called them metaphorical and a symbol. If John 6 is read literal, why wouldn't this be?  Have you read all these church fathers writings in context, or just excerpts?  Any passage or verse can be taken out of context and made to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

By the way, neither one of us won the debate because neither is convinced of anything else than what we started with. Which is pretty much always the case, which is why people debate-they have different views. I debate so that people on the fence might see both sides. Therefore, no ammo or gift is necessary.

The meaning is not changed. Unlike the single phrase prooftexts offered so often here, the 'proof' of transubstantiation spans the new testament, the belief of the apostles and the patristic fathers.
 

I do not think that is correct. I think the arguments stretches in to arguments on substance and essence.



 

Yes, this is what I hear, but I cannot find. Anamnesis does not mean to make present. Show me in a non religious text where the word has been used to mean 'to make present'.

Substance and essence being what?

There's a lot of Aristotle I have little use for and perhaps this is one of those cases.  
Matter editation being one of Jesus's fundamental, even defining, capabilities I would never suggest he could not perform such an action as described by the hypothesis, but I also would not be suprised if blood sugar analysis on multiple subjects demonstrated results consistent with carbohydrates and sugars being digested rather than protiens...  
So rather than actual molecular/atomic rearrangement, is the concept then defined not in terms of physical transmutation but in terms of reassignment of epistemological identity?  Or is it something else.  E.g. a person who joins "the Body of Christ" is not a litteral part of Christ's corporeal body, but rather, has assumed a new identity and definition"?
I was taught that the bread is bread, the wine is wine, they are representative of the body, and that Christ is present in communion.  This would square with the last supper where Jesus served bread, wine, identified them representatively as body and blood, and these were consumed.  I suppose one could assume those were actually hunks of meat they ate if one assumes Jesus is incapable or not apt to use metaphor or representative speach without warning, though he also calls himself a door and a vine yet no hinges or leaves are present.
I've always regarded it possible these point to things unseen and not fully discernable this side of the veil, but have definate and clear meaning understandable within the kingdom of God.
In terms of "essence" and all the Aristolaleanism, or Cartesian angst about melted wax, I draw a pretty clear line between thought and matter.  Where Descartes may have wondered "where did the spoon go" when one is melted in a fire, I might echo "the Matrix" by suggesting "there never was a spoon in actuality Renee, only in your thoughts did it exist".   (As an interesting aside, this is precisely the issue many NFA questions revolve around... When is a shoulder stock not a shoulder stock, or when is a shoe string a machine gun...)
So all that aside.  When the scripture talks about having one's mind in order about the body and blood at comunion, is the thought that one should be clear that this is not just eating bread and wine like at dinner, but, rather accepting union with Christ and the rest of the body by partaking what he has been defined in thought as his body and blood and in his sight?  Or what other interpretations?  
I'd like to make sure I understand the concept directly from those who might hold a different view so it isn't biased by interpretation.  If we're not talking direct matter editation and restructure, what is meant appart from what I suggested.



ETA: if you have a link you feel well addresses the question I'd be glad for it.
 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM



http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm



http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_17042003_ecclesia-de-eucharistia_en.html

I am not in anyway implying I "won" the debate. I do maintain the Fathers of The Church are all in agreement. I have four sets of books on the Early Church Fathers.  Catholic and Protestant and yes I have read all of them. I have around 3000 books on religion, philosophy, and history. I am an armchair theologian only. I don't dispute your point that some of the fathers used symbolic language, I don't dispute they used metaphors and allegory. However to deny their writings were also literal is a misreading. They used all forms of literary devices to communicate Truth.


Symbolic here?

St. Clement of Alexandria:

Now, the blood of the Lord is twofold: one is corporeal, redeeming us from corruption; the other is spiritual, and it is with that we are anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to participate in His incorruption. Yet, the Spirit is the strength of the Word in the same way that the blood is of the body. Similarly, wine is mixed with water and the Spirit is joined to man; the first, the mixture, provides feasting that faith may be increased; the other, the Spirit, leads us on to incorruption. The Union of both, that is of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist, a gift worthy of praise and surpassingly fair; those who partake of it are sanctified in body and soul, for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Christ The Educator, Bk. 2, Chap. 2


"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 [Instructor of Children 1:6 9c. A.D. 197]

It's both and not either or.



Pax,
Tarpeian



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

This was explained early on in the discussion but I will repost if you would like?

Pax,
Tarpeian

One needs to remember John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and John 1:14, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."  The Word was God and became flesh, but what is it that's important?  Is it the flesh or the Word, full of grace and truth that is?  If you go beyond the John 6:53-56 you posted to John 6:58, "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”; one can see that the Word, full of grace and truth is the Bread.  If one goes on further to John 6:63, it becomes clear; "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and are Spirit and life."  The Bread represents the Word that is the Spirit that became flesh, but note that flesh is just manna and "counts for nothing" and eating it ends in death.  The words God had spoken counts for life, because they are Spirit and life.  The representation might be thought of as the parable of, "you are what you eat".  When those words God spoke are consumed and become one's own words, because those things that God values become one's values per their own choice.  That is the nature of the draw mentioned in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on hte last day."  The draw is an attraction or value for the words, ideas and concepts one hears, nothing more, nothing less and incorporating and holding the same values leads to eternal life.  

If one looks at the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels,  the meal represented by the bread and wine, done "in remembrance of Me" is going over the teachings, as elaborated in John 13 through John 17.  It is not some magical mystery meal of flesh hidden in wheat and blood hidden in wine.

I can never resolve the disparity of thought between 'the earth was created in 6 days, because it says so in the Bibile' and 'Its not really flesh and blood, even though it says so in the Bible.'

Genesis is parable and "flesh and blood" is an analogy, which God Himself made crystal clear, when He said, "the flesh counts for nothing".  Of course the meaning is that the flesh itself has no spiritual value whatsoever.

Perhaps you'd prefer miraculous supernatural unfathomable mystery meal.  Those are the words the Catholic Church uses to describe it.   I don't believe in unfathomable mysteries that exceed the knowing power of a finite intelligence, and the illogic of transcendent intelligence and the supernatural.   Per the parable of Genesis 1, God made man in His image and likeness, not in any inferior image and likeness whatsoever.  So plain, simple meanings and understandings always apply.   When God explains the analogy and includes the absolutely unambiguous statement, "the flesh counts for nothing".  That statement, which can be understood by little children, is truth.  The rest of the nonsense, that can't be understood by anyone unless they abandon logic completely, is not truth, because truth is a logical condition.

edit in red...

Leaving aside the Catholic baiting in the rest of the post, the bolded portion is interesting.

The whole spirit/body dualism inherent in such a statement could be described with a certain word.  

Out of concern for some sensibilities, the word itself will remain unwritten - it has caused considerable dissension here recently.  However, the firm good/evil dualism in your 'the flesh counts for nothing' statement is - familiar.  

Keep in mind that God created the flesh, so the idea that part of His creation 'counts for nothing' is debatable, at best.  

It was "Jesus" that said the flesh counts for nothing. Maybe you should have a debate with Him. John 6:63
I wish more people would read scripture as a whole rather then talking a verse and making doctrine out of it.


53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

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

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them

I already know this will be howled at by the usual suspects, but here goes.

According to Aquinas, sin rests in the defective will and not the flesh.  Article 3. Whether the sin of the first parent is transmitted, by the way of origin, to all men?



From Augustine:



If the flesh was truly 'worth nothing' then how could Christ have taken the substance (not form, mind you, but substance ) of a human individual?  

And, more than that, how could the death (real death, mind you) of Christ have served as a expiatory offering for human sinfulness?  After all, 'flesh counts as nothing'...  

As Pope Francis so ably put it:



How can someone be be 'a real person' if 'the flesh counts as nothing'?  

But again, I already know that the usual suspects will take issue with this explanation.  I only offer it so that the faithful (or potentially faithful) will be able to see error properly refuted.  

So what did Jesus really mean when he said that?

So It was Jesus's flesh that saved us?  Jesus became flesh to be the perfect sacrifice, to live the life we can't live and die the death we should die.  His flesh was broken and his blood poured out so we could have eternal life.  But, it didn't stop with just that act.  He became what God hates, sin.  He became sin and then died with that sin.  If it stopped there it would be useless, but it didn't.  He then was raised from the dead defeating sin.  It's this act that gives us eternal life.