Just got done reading this article about The Wobbly and Heretical Evolution of Rome's Doctrine of Real Presence. Interesting how that what the Catholic Church now claims to believe was once considered BY the Catholic Church as heresy. We learn:
By the end of the sixth century this Greek concept, which could have served the interests of a more balanced theology of the Eucharistic sacrifice, was no longer present to the Western tradition. At the same time the tendency of the Western theology of Eucharistic sacrifice toward postulating a complete disjunction between the historical sacrifice of the cross and the Eucharistic sacrifice received additional support from Pope Gregory the Greats saying that (Christ) in the mystery of the holy sacrifice is offered for us again (iterum) [from Dialogorum libri iv 4.58 (PL 77.425CD). This text is one of the earliest that refers to Christ being newly offered. Supported by the authority of Gregory it became an important proof text for the notion that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated in each Mass in an unbloody way (19-22).
Thus we have come full circle: here we have papal affirmation (and its Pope Gregory The Great!) of the very opposite of what the Scripture teaches, in which Christ died once for all, and is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Modern Roman Catholicism has tried to play down that embarrassing repeated in an unbloody way language, and have made the effort to re-adopt the re-presentation of the one sacrifice imagery; but modern Roman Catholics should know that is a Greek concept that Rome once rejected.
For those Roman Catholics who think that Romes doctrine of the Eucharist is somehow the Eucharistic doctrine of the Lords Supper that was held by the earliest church, you are just simply deceived. You are putting more faith in the vascillating traditions of the Roman church, than you are in either the genuine early traditions of the church, or the clear teachings of Scripture on this matter.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
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? Pauls comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
well, no wonder....if Paul Hoffer, who was undoubtedly present in the first century, said it, that who is the Catholic church to deny HIM?????