Posted on 06/19/2022 12:12:52 AM PDT by Cronos
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Many Protestants attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he 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” (ibid., 197–98).
“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” (ibid., 211–12).
Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Tertullian “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus “We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it . . . but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself.” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
What it seems to most Biblical scholars in discussing the import of a scripture passage is advanced by employing the elements of exegesis--leading the meaning out of the scripture passage--by applying the tools of interpretation.
Daniel B. Wallace is one of the finest Greek grammarians who, like William D. Mounce, is well-recognized in every English-speaking theological seminary today. Mounce published the widely-used textbook "Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar" prevalent for today's university students studying in the New Testament; and Wallace authored "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics" (both of which textbooks I have).
Understanding the Greek of the New Testament, In which language The Holy Spirit speaks to mankind for informing their spiritual understanding and growth, is essential to the person who wants to discuss the deeper things of the Spirit that are not immediately obvious to one who is getting his information from a translation in another language.
Reflecting on this, and remembering that Martin Luther's translation was separated by only a few years from Desiderus Erasmus' publishing of the first Byzantine/Majority New Testament Greek Textform, you should be a little wary of how accurately Luther's Bible was, as well as the presuppositions made that carried over from his theology oriented toward reforming the Roman Catholic religion, rather than out=and-out abandoning it and its unscriptural catechism.
If, contrary to my suppositions, you are not at all familiar with the names of scholars that I drew to your attention, names that almost any New Testament Greek scholar/teacher ought to be quite familiar with, it may not surprise me anymore that perhaps rather than "would not," perhaps you "can not" understand the nature of the next question that I proposed in Post #181:
o What makes you think that Paul's language here is not figurative-literal?To start answering this question , it is absolutely necessary that the person guilty of the body and blood of the Lord must have personally have had ysed his hand in whipping, beating, stabbing with sharp thorns, hammering nails into Jesus' hands and feet, and/or piercing his side to puncture His peritonium and poke into His pericardium to expunge the mixed blood and edema of His greatly enlarged, tortured heat. Did this "unworthy" person actually do that? And was this person alive when the violence was done?
Well, obviously, the answer to bot questions was "No." So was the language of this portion of the verse plain=literal, or was it figurative=literal?
What would be your answer to that?p> Why would the perpetrator be guilty of these substances? Wouldn't be guilty in the figurative=literal sense? And the, why?
Do you have answers for that?
If that person is ingesting these substances from the Memorial meal, why was it permitted? If he was not saved, was he not still under the condemnation of original, unforgiven sin? But if indeed he was saved on the basis of faith in Christ, with all his sins, ALL, pardoned and totally abandoned, forgotten by the Mighty Judge, and declared "Not guilty!"?
How them could he held once again guilty of the body and blood? Did the Father revoke His "cleansing from all unrighteousness"? Did he "lose" his salvation?
Blessed John says that he could not sin:
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him" (1 Jn. 2:4-5 AV).How can this person be saved a member of Jesus' church, consuming the memorial tokens of bread and wine, (which to your thinking actually contain components of Jesus Risen Body, which has no blood, but in which life is in the spirit?)."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 Jn. 3:9 AV),
Luircin. it seems as though your doctrine has a lot of holes in it if this person is saved, is habitually engaged in unrepentant sin. and still consuming the literal composition of the body of Jesus Who is presently real, fully human. fully Deity, and sitting at the right hand of His Father, Who had to be completely resident in heaven before His Spirit could be sent to earth in His absence (Jn. 16:7).
Your consubstantiation makes a lot of unsolvable problems, Luircin, whatever the Lutheran confession claims.
So put my objective, lucent, logical, spiritual mind and spirit at rest, by answering this question using Scripture alone, because it ALONE is reliable.
Eh?
What would fit is if this "unworthy" person would actually be a professing, but unsaved person, who somehow had slipped tough the examination of his behavior and enthusiastic but not valid profession of commitment to Christ, but was implementing Achan's sin (Joshua 7:1-26), bringing sickness and death to the whole congregation because of the inability of the examining board of the church to discern his shortcomings in the faith category. These unworthy fail to discrn their effect on the physical and spiritual health of their surrounding camp of true believers, the local body of believers of Christ, which are the body mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:29. The body in that verse is NOT the Body of the Risen Christ which is now resident in the spiritual dimension of God's Heaven, no pieces of it being sent back into the earthly temporal realm, as some imaginative religious humans have invented without any scriptural support.
Paul discussed this problem in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, where he identifies two groups exhibiting carnal (habitually sinful) behavior, the one being professors who were not fully committed into Christ's care, still unsaved, and thus unable to cease from sinning without repentance; and the other group of new birth which have already been forgiven, but have not yet conquered their old habits. The first group is unworthy and will be judged, but the babes are worthy like real infants who fill their diapers, but are cleaned up and tolerated, continually pampered until they get control of their bowels with proper coaxing.
MM and SC, it has been MANY decades since I got my confirmation. I can’t remember the significance of it. I seem to vaguely remember, it was like taking the oath of allegiance, to become part of the Lord’s Army. That’s all I can remember, and it may, or may not even be right. Since I am an ex Catholic, and will NEVER belong to the OTC again, I am less than desirous, of researching it. I already know what I believe, and why I believe it. 😀😃👍
That’s cool, Mark. I was just trying to figure out if the RCC was supposedly in control of dispensing the Holy Spirit of God somehow. I got a positive answer on that.
It’s a sad thing to see that people think an organization can grant them the Holy Spirit of God. Reminds me of an encounter in the “Book of Acts” to be quite honest. The RCC does not have the power to direct God the Holy Spirit, confirmation or no confirmation. What a con game.
Ah yes, I remember hermenutics...
Hoo boy, a full year of taking a steamroller to my brain and rebuilding it from scratch.
So yes, I would say that I am prepared in that sense.
1 Corinthians 11:20 - Douay-Rheims version of The Bible - 1752 version
When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
I've seen this splatter in all directions when finally pressed for an answer to ANY Catholic doctrine!
Well, one way - according to the Book Rome has assembled...
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus.
There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
There were about twelve men in all.
(Acts 19:1-6)
Too bad for the RCC that Peter is their Apostle ... going totally against Scripture, but whatever.
That there is some DIRECT stuff all right!!
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” (direct question)
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (direct answer)
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
The above is direct along with some ASSURANCE added.
And once again, you are assuming my position and accusing me of things I don’t believe. Strawman fallacy ahoy!
That’s why I spent so much time elaborating on my answers to you, because I wanted to keep exactly this from happening.
And it seems I am vindicated, because you took my simple answer and stretched it far beyond anything I actually said!
That’s not a very kind thing to say to someone who just posted that he agrees with you.
What about Mary?
GOD's Mother??
1 Corinthians 7:4-5 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
?
maybe a bunch had dried before wrapping.
Mary didn’t birth God, she birthed the baby Jesus. She gave a fleshly body for God to inhabit, but in reality if one really wanted to get down to it, she didn’t do that either because God had to give her life and a body so that she could birth another body.
NO. She isn’t God’s mother, and would be highly insulted that someone should claim such.
I know you’re playing around, but He would have been cleaned prior to being wrapped in burial cloth.
I said that hearing and believing the Word of God brings salvation.
Just because the message sometimes comes with a physical element doesn’t mean that hearing and believing changes at all.
No, I don’t believe I did. You claimed that the “unworthy” partaker of the Remembrance Supper was saved, although still engagng in deliberate unrepentant sin. Didn’t you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.