What Do You Think About Pope Leo XIV?

Context of 1 Corinthians 11: Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist occurs in a corrective context, addressing abuses in the Corinthian community (1 Cor 11:17-22). His emphasis on “remembrance” and “proclaiming” does not exclude the Real Presence or salvific effect but focuses on proper participation. The subsequent warning about unworthy reception (1 Cor 11:27-29) confirms the Eucharist’s sacred and salvific nature, as it involves encountering Christ Himself.

*****

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,...

It's essential to understand this. Paul received this from the Lord. It's not his opinion. It's straight from the Lord Himself.

IF, as Rome claims, the Lord's Supper, as Paul calls it, is essential for salvation then either the Lord or Paul neglected to say that. And I know neither neglected that part.

It is Rome that's misunderstood this issue, much as the unbelieving Jews did.

Btw, Ealgeone , you haven’t read the Bible so you definitely haven’t read any of th early church fathers, have ye? And excerpts don’t count. The ecgsconsistently teach that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, involving a real transformation of the bread and wine. Below is a survey of key Fathers, demonstrating their alignment with the concept underlying transubstantiation.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD):
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1: “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius explicitly identifies the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh, not a symbol, and connects it to His redemptive sacrifice. His warning against those who “abstain from the Eucharist… because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior” (Smyrnaeans 6:2) implies a real transformation, as a mere symbol would not provoke such controversy.

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD):
First Apology 66: “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these… but the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word… is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” Justin describes a change in the bread and wine, such that they are no longer “common” but Christ’s body and blood, aligning with the concept of a substantial transformation.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD):
Against Heresies 4.18.5: “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ… our bodies, being nourished by it, are deposited in the earth and will rise again in due time.” Irenaeus explicitly states that the bread and wine “become” Christ’s body through the Eucharistic prayer, a clear precursor to transubstantiation. He further ties this to salvation, as the Eucharist nourishes believers for resurrection.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD):
Catechetical Lectures 22.6: “Under the appearance of bread and wine, you taste the body and blood of Christ.” Cyril uses language akin to “accidents” (appearance) versus substance, teaching that the bread and wine are truly Christ’s body and blood after consecration, consistent with transubstantiation’s core idea

Ambrose of Milan (c. 390 AD):
On the Mysteries 9.50-52: “Before the words of Christ, it is bread; when the words of Christ have been added, it is the body of Christ… Before the consecration, it was not the body of Christ, but after the consecration, I say to you that it is now the body of Christ.” Ambrose explicitly describes a change in the substance of the bread, directly supporting the concept of transubstantiation.

John Chrysostom (c. 400 AD):
Homilies on 1 Corinthians 24.4: “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? He did not say ‘participation’ in a sign, but in the body itself.” Chrysostom affirms the Real Presence and rejects a merely symbolic view, emphasizing the reality of Christ’s body in the Eucharist.

Augustine of Hippo (c. 400 AD):
Sermon 272: “What you see is bread and a cup; this is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith demands is that the bread is the body of Christ and the cup is the blood of Christ.” While Augustine often uses symbolic language, he affirms the Real Presence, noting that faith perceives the true substance (Christ’s body) beneath the appearances. In City of God 21.25, he connects the Eucharist to Christ’s sacrifice, implying a transformative reality.

Other Fathers: Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.2), Gregory of Nyssa (Great Catechism 37), and Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on Matthew 26.27) similarly affirm the Eucharist as Christ’s true body and blood, often describing a change in the elements through consecration.

Transubstantiation is the Catholic doctrine that, at the consecration during Mass, the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even though their appearances (or “accidents”) remain unchanged. This teaching is rooted in Scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, where St. Paul recounts Jesus saying, “This is my body... This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The Church understands these words literally, meaning the substance of bread and wine is transformed into Christ's glorified, resurrected Body and Blood (1 Cor 15:42-44; John 20:27). The Council of Trent clarified this mystery, affirming that the change is real though not visible (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1376-1377). Thus, the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence of Christ.

It's explanations/quibbling/weasel wording that cause the problems here. You readily admit the appearance of the bread and wine do not change, that they are "not visible", yet you assert it is LITERALLY the flesh and blood of the glorified body and "true presence" of Jesus Christ! Do you even hear yourselves???

The Apostles followed the example Jesus gave them at the Last Supper and they taught that communal observance to their believers for a remembrance and a statement of faith. By the eating of the bread, which represented His body broken for them, and the drinking of the wine, which represented His shed blood for sins, we do SHOW our faith in Him until He returns. NONE of them taught there was a LITERAL change in those elements. Paul also taught that the loaf of bread represented the body of believers:

Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf. (I Corinthians 11:16,17)

This is what Paul passed down:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper He took the cup, 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 this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (I Cor. 11:23-26)

So, that is what we do when we join with fellow believers in celebrating the Lord's Supper/Communion. We are proclaiming our faith in the Lord's death and resurrection for our salvation and we are acknowledging each other as being one loaf/one body of Christ. Just like the first Christians:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42)

We trust in Jesus' promises ALSO recorded in the Gospel of John chapter 6:

John 6:40
For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47
Truly, truly, I tell you, he who believes has eternal life.

Eagleone, your interpretation of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:26 misrepresents Christian teaching and overlooks the biblical, contextual, and historical evidence supporting the Eucharist as both a literal and salvific reality.

Your Claim	My Response
Catholics adjust exegesis mid-stream in John 6, mixing literal and metaphysical interpretations, and spiritualize "hunger and thirst" while taking the rest literally, negating the necessity of believing in Christ (John 6:26-29).	Catholic exegesis is consistent, not contradictory. John 6:26-29 emphasizes belief in Christ as the foundation of salvation, which Catholics affirm (Catechism of the Catholic Church 161). Belief leads to participation in the Eucharist, the "true bread" (John 6:32). The "hunger and thirst" in John 6:35 are both spiritual and eschatological, fulfilled through the Eucharist, which nourishes believers for eternal life (John 6:54). The Jews' misunderstanding (John 6:30-34) parallels your symbolic view, as they sought physical bread, while Jesus offered His literal flesh (John 6:51-58, Greek trōgō, "to chew"). Catholics hold belief and the Eucharist together, not in opposition.

The Jews and Catholics err by thinking Jesus discusses "actual bread" (John 6:30-34).	The Jews misunderstood Jesus as offering physical bread like manna (John 6:31), but Jesus clarifies He is the "true bread" giving life to the world (John 6:32-33). Catholics recognize this as the Eucharist, not ordinary bread, based on Jesus’ explicit words: "The bread that I will give is my flesh" (John 6:51). The Fathers, like Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1), affirm this as Christ’s real body, not a symbol. Your symbolic reading aligns with the Jews’ initial error, not Jesus’ teaching.

John 6:35-40 identifies Jesus as the bread of life, promising eternal life and security to believers, which Catholicism denies.	Catholics affirm that Jesus, the bread of life, grants eternal life through faith (John 6:35, 40). The Eucharist is the sacramental means by which believers abide in Christ (John 6:56). The "security" in John 6:37-39 refers to God’s fidelity, not an absolute guarantee of perseverance, as free will remains (CCC 162). Paul warns of falling away (1 Cor 10:12), and Catholics uphold both God’s grace and human cooperation. The Eucharist strengthens this union, fulfilling John 6:35’s promise of no hunger or thirst.

1 Corinthians 11:26, per Paul’s revelation from the Lord, excludes transubstantiation and salvation, as it’s about proclaiming Christ’s death, not salvation, and is for believers only.	Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11:26 ("proclaim the Lord’s death") do not exclude salvation or transubstantiation. The Greek kataggellō ("proclaim") implies a participatory act in Christ’s sacrifice, not mere remembrance. 1 Cor 10:16 confirms the Eucharist as a real participation (koinōnia) in Christ’s body and blood. The warning against unworthy reception (1 Cor 11:27-29) implies a real presence, as one cannot profane a symbol. The Eucharist, for believers, applies Christ’s salvific sacrifice (CCC 1365-1367). Transubstantiation, articulated later, explains the change described by Paul and the Fathers (e.g., Ambrose, On the Mysteries 9.50).

Your reading of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 reduces the Eucharist to a symbol, ignoring Jesus’ literal language (John 6:51-58), Paul’s teaching on real participation (1 Cor 10:16), and the unanimous testimony of the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, First Apology 66). Catholic theology consistently integrates belief and the Eucharist as Christ’s real body and blood, fulfilling His promise of eternal life.

Ealgeone This is the only passage with this.. Not quite

Eagleone, your assertion that John 6 is the only passage about eating and drinking Christ’s Body and Blood, and that Rome takes it out of context, misrepresents the New Testament and Catholic teaching. Below is a succinct Catholic response.

Your Claim	Catholic Response
John 6 is the only passage discussing eating and drinking Christ’s Body and Blood.	John 6:51-58 is not isolated but complemented by other New Testament texts. The institution narratives (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25) explicitly state, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” linking the Eucharist to Christ’s flesh and blood. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 10:16 (“The bread we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”) and 1 Cor 11:27-29 (warning against unworthy reception) confirms the real presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, aligning with John 6.

Rome takes John 6 out of context in relation to the rest of the New Testament.	Catholic exegesis integrates John 6 with the broader New Testament. Jesus’ words, “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55, Greek trōgō, “to chew”), are literal, not symbolic, and fulfilled in the Eucharist instituted at the Last Supper. The Passover context (Ex 12:1-14; 1 Cor 5:7) ties the Eucharist to Christ’s sacrifice, which John 6:51 (“the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world”) anticipates. The Early Church Fathers, like Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1) and Justin Martyr (First Apology 66), unanimously affirm this as Christ’s real Body and Blood, consistent with Catholic teaching (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1374-1376).

John 6 is not an isolated passage but harmonizes with the Synoptics, 1 Corinthians, and apostolic tradition, affirming the Eucharist as Christ’s true Body and Blood. Catholic teaching faithfully reflects this New Testament context, not a distortion of it.

Ealgeone you did....you have to read back into the passage what you want it to mean. IF your exegesis is consistent you'd have to answer in the affirmative to my questions of becoming hungry or thirsty... Not quite

Eagleone, your response misinterprets John 6 and the New Testament, accusing Catholics of reading into the text while ignoring the broader biblical and historical context. Below is a succinct Catholic response addressing your points.

Your Claim	Catholic Response
Catholics read into John 6, and consistent exegesis would mean affirming hunger/thirst in eternal life.	Catholic exegesis of John 6:35 (“he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst”) is consistent: the Eucharist, as Christ’s Body and Blood, fulfills spiritual hunger and thirst, nourishing believers for eternal life (John 6:54; CCC 1391). This is eschatological, not earthly, satisfaction, as seen in the promise of resurrection (John 6:40). Your literal interpretation of hunger/thirst ignores the metaphorical language common in John (e.g., “living water,” John 4:10).
Catholics ignore the necessity of believing in Christ, emphasized in John 6:29 and the NT.	Catholics affirm belief in Christ as foundational (John 6:29; CCC 161). John 6 integrates faith and the Eucharist: belief leads to eating Christ’s flesh (John 6:51-58). The Eucharist is the sacramental expression of faith, not its replacement, as Jesus teaches that both are necessary for life (John 6:56-57).
John 6 is the only passage mentioning eating/drinking, and the unbelieving Jews, like Rome, misunderstood it as literal.	John 6:51-58 is not isolated. The institution narratives (Matt 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25) and 1 Cor 10:16 confirm the Eucharist as Christ’s literal Body and Blood. The Jews’ misunderstanding (John 6:52) was not about literal eating but about how it could be done, which Jesus clarifies through the Eucharist. The Early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 7:1; Justin, First Apology 66) unanimously affirm this literal interpretation, contrary to your symbolic view.
Rome’s view of John 6 should be the NT’s consistent message, but it’s absent elsewhere (e.g., woman at the well, Pentecost).	The NT consistently links salvation to Christ’s sacrifice, which the Eucharist applies (1 Cor 10:16; 11:27-29). Jesus’ varied teachings (e.g., John 4:10 to the woman at the well) emphasize different aspects of salvation (faith, grace), but the Eucharist fulfills John 6’s promise. At Pentecost, Peter’s call to baptism (Acts 2:38) implies initiation into the Church, where the Eucharist was central (Acts 2:42, “breaking of bread”). The NT’s diverse contexts do not negate but complement the Eucharistic teaching.

Catholic teaching on John 6 aligns with the NT’s emphasis on faith and the Eucharist as Christ’s real Body and Blood, fulfilling His promise of eternal life. Your symbolic reading ignores the literal language of John 6:51-58, the institution narratives, and the Fathers’ consensus, misrepresenting the NT’s unified message.

Ealgeone Not. One.. Not quite

Eagleone, your claim that none of the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, Holy Orders) relate to salvation misrepresents New Testament (NT) teaching and Catholic doctrine. .

Your Claim

Catholic Response

Not one of the sacraments deals with salvation; Rome’s view is incorrect and based on reading the NT in isolation.

Catholic teaching on the sacraments is rooted in the NT, read in context, and affirmed by the Early Church Fathers. The sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer grace, which is essential for salvation (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1129). Below are NT foundations for each sacrament’s salvific role:
- Baptism: “Baptism… now saves you” (1 Pet 3:21; cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). It forgives sins and incorporates believers into Christ (Rom 6:3-4).
- Confirmation: The gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17; 19:5-6) strengthens faith for perseverance in salvation (Heb 6:4-6).
- Confession: Christ gave the apostles authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23), restoring grace lost through sin (1 John 1:9).
- Eucharist: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (John 6:54; cf. 1 Cor 10:16; 11:27-29). It unites us to Christ’s sacrifice (CCC 1365).
- Anointing of the Sick: “The prayer of faith will save the sick person” (James 5:14-15), offering healing and forgiveness for salvation.
- Marriage: Reflects Christ’s union with the Church (Eph 5:25-32), sanctifying spouses for eternal life (CCC 1601).
- Holy Orders: Christ’s mission continues through ordained ministers (Luke 10:16; 1 Tim 4:14), guiding the faithful to salvation.
The Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 7:1 on the Eucharist; Cyprian, Letter 72 on Baptism) confirm their salvific role. Your claim isolates texts like John 6:29 (faith) from those linking sacraments to grace, ignoring the NT’s holistic teaching.

The sacraments, instituted by Christ, are biblically grounded means of grace for salvation, not Rome’s invention. Your view dismisses clear NT evidence and the Fathers’ consensus, misrepresenting Catholic exegesis as isolated when it integrates the full witness of Scripture

You've already shown a flawed exegesis in trying to understand these issues.

You had to read back into John 6 a metaphysical "spiritual" answer to my questions of do you get hungry or thirsty.

You steadfastly refuse to understand the overall context of the passage from John 6 in relation to what John wrote in his gospel and the overall NT.

You steadfastly refuse to understand the true meaning of the Lord's Supper even though Paul clearly articulated the purpose.....we proclaim the Lord's death....not for salvation.

You steadfastly ignore the message Peter preached at Pentecost. When asked what they must to do be saved what was his reply? Participate in the Lord's Supper to be saved? Nope.

What was Peter's reply when Jesus asked if they wanted to leave after the unbelieving disciples had left?

68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

He didn't say we've eaten/drunk you blood....but no....rather we have believed.

Which captures what Jesus began the passage with and is what Romans completely miss.

Here's one. The concept of unanimous consent is negated by just this one quote from Clement.

There are others which I'm sure you and Hahn and the other at Catholic Answers are aware of.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) writes, “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith.

The Catholic Church does not claim that every doctrine, including transubstantiation, requires explicit, verbatim agreement from all ECFs.

Yet it does. You know it does. To say otherwise is for you to commit a mortal sin.

your comment: “It’s explanations/quibbling/weasel wording that cause the problems here. You readily admit the appearance of the bread and wine do not change, that they are “not visible”, yet you assert it is LITERALLY the flesh and blood of the glorified body and “true presence” of Jesus Christ! Do you even hear yourselves???”

You reject the words of Jesus and follow protestant heresy.

You reject that God is capable of turning bread and wine into His Body and Blood without changing the appearance or taste.

How can you have Faith in Jesus and not believe that His Word is the Truth?

Your misdirection is obvious. Other words or verses in the Bible do not CHANGE THE WORDS OF Jesus AS THE TRUTH.

When one rejects Jesus, His Truth and the Eucharist, then they can forfeit their salvation. Jesus may declare that “I never knew you, depart from me, you evildoers.” Mt 7:23

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.