"Of course John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me."
I've never even mentioned John 6. I've been discussing Matthew 26: 26-28.
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."; And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
This same teaching is presented four times in the Scriptures. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Scripture clearly tells us so. There is no support in Scripture for the assertion that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. It is a doctrine asserted against the clear meaning of Scripture by those who do not have faith in Scripture.
"The fact is there was no doctrine of transubstantiation until the 1200's and the reading of the early church Fathers does not indicate they had a belief in it.'
Completely incorrect, RnMomof7. The term transubstantiation was coined in the 1200's to understand the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, but the doctrine of the Real Presence is the clear witness of Scripture and the Universal witness of the Church fathers.
"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." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans", 110 A.D.
This statement was written by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, on his way to be martyred in Rome. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. The Protestant contention is that the Catholic Church fell away from Christ at some point (which they never specify,) and taught false doctrine. Ignatius KNEW the Apostle John, he is writing perhaps within less than 20 years of the writing of the Book of Revelation. Do you really want to argue that the Church had apostasized by this point??
"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." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians", 110 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."; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
As I'm sure you are aware, we can cite dozens of quotes from Church authorities from the early Church that show that the Early Christians clearly understood the Scriptures to mean exactly what they say. I'll just give you one more from St. Augustine.
"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])
RnMomof7, Scripture clearly says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Historical tradition is unambiguous, the Church has always understood the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
"I find it interesting that you used a scripture text to prove tradition is correct :)"
No, I am using tradition to demonstrate that Scripture is correct. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are completely consistent.
"Transubstantiation was never at any time accepted by any part of the Church Universal ,whether Early-Patristic, Post-Nicene, Greek, Roman, or Proto-Protestant (alias Culdee or Waldensian etc.) until specifically the Roman Church proclaimed it dogmatically as an article of her own changing faith, at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215."
This is a load of baloney, where did you get this cut and paste? , I've just proved the author of that statement to be incorrect. I'm sure you've had dozens of other quotes from the Fathers quoted to you previously, and it should be quite evident what the Early Church believed regarding the Eucharist.
The Point of justification by Grace through Faith is that we must believe God. Scripture says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Doctrine on the Eucharist is that it is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. None of your quotes demonstrate otherwise.
""Of course John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me."
Johh 6 emphatically underscores the other four instances in Scripture where Jesus identifies the Eucharist as his Body and Blood. You cited John 6 after I had cited Matthew 26, indicating that you are quite aware of the significance of John 6.
While it's quite likely true that the Lord's supper is merely a memorial in those communities which are based upon the teachings of men from the 16th century, the Eucharist within the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Faith is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, just as Scripture and tradition tell us.
I've been lurking, and reading some very good dialog, however something in your last response hit me.
RnMomof7 did a very good job of pointing out scripture and what scripture says. Your response is word dancing...
"There is no support in Scripture for the assertion that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist."
(Yeah, and the Bible doesn't say that dogs can't baptised as a member of a family either. You learn that be reading other parts and comparing.)
and what "St." Ignatius, Justin the Martyr, and Augustine have to say.
Then you repeat this...
"Scripture clearly says that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ."
Just saying it, doesn't make it so. RnMomof7 used Scripture to clearly show that communion is symbolic. You didn't refute those Scriptures, or show how other Scriptures prove that communion is a physical meal of Jesus' flesh and blood. Since Scripture doesn't contradict Scripture, you can't have John saying one thing and Matthew saying another completely different thing.
Your response just shows where you place your faith and where RnMomof7 places her's.
Does one literally die and be resurrected in Baptism ?
Does a man and woman literally become one person in marriage?
Sacraments are SIGNS of spiritual reality
“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).
To confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine, weakness, bondage and error.