Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
This two-part post is intended to provide an initial response to such assertions.
The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also 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.
In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?
In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.
Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 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).
Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).
Irenaeus again: “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?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).
Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).
Origen (182–254): “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’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).
Augustine (354–430): “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).
How should we think about such statements?
Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.
But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?
In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:
* * * * *
1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.
Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).
In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
* * * * *
2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.
We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.
At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:
The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).
Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).
Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).
And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).
A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.
At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.
Next week, in part 2, we will consider whether or not the church fathers regarded the Lord’s Table as a propiatory sacrifice (as the Council of Trent defines it) or as simply a memorial offering of thanksgiving.
Do you understand the miracle of the sufficiency of the cross?
Catholics still making Jesus a sinner by breaking the law against eating blood.
“It is nothing more than a ploy to get people into bondage...A means to collect cash and property...”
“A means to collect cash and property” is why about 98% of the R.C. fol-de-rol was created in the first place. Same as any other cult.
Of course, Christ died for our sins.
But we are all sinners and fall into sin again and again. What do we do then?
Not any more.....
No, we're not all sinners. Born again believers are saints. We're saints who sometimes sin.
If we sin, we confess it and move on.
God has known our every sin from the moment of our birth until our final breath.. When He hung on that cross He saw all of them...and forgave them and satisfied the wrath of God ,acted as a propitiation for the sin and gave us right standing with God.. ..His cross is totally sufficient ..there is nothing to add to it.
That is the peace that passes all understanding ...He has forgiven us even before we ask ..
The Lord also did not say "this is turned into my body and body," while using this hermeneutic then you much regard statement as "I am the door" as literal, as well as those by others such as David who plainly stated the water was the blood of men.
I am fighting a cold and am not posting much but will supply some of what i have written in the past on this. Which usually centers on Jn 6, and which we see examples of the Lord,
speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)
And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..
And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, in which Nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. And as such it must exclude all who deny the physical interpretation of this section of Jn. 6.
For as in John and elsewhere, souls obtain spiritual and eternal life by believing on the Lord Jesus as the Divine Son of God, being born of the Spirit in conversion in believing the gospel message, not by consuming the Lord's Supper. Which is nowhere preached in Acts or elsewhere is the means of regeneration.
And then they live by Christ by desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God as means of grace, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them., (Col. 3:16) Which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as again, Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)
In contrast, nowhere is the Lord's supper described as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves.
Rather, the Lord's supper in its only manifest description in the life of the church with any detail, is that in which "discerning the body" refers to recognizing each member as part of the body of Christ by showing considerate care for each other by that communal meal which is supposed to "show," declare," "proclaim" the Lord's sacrificial death, rather than to "shame them that have not" by not even waiting for the others but going ahead and filling their faces while others were hungry. As shown and explained more here. .
Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc
For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
And when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.
That is the problem of relying on CA, whose specious polemics have been refuted time and time again, while if these erroneous interpretation of Scripture are not official ones, then they could be contradicted by other Catholic teaching, as some are. And is contrary to the goal of apologetics, which is to try to convince evangelicals by Scripture to trust in the assured veracity of Rome for determination and assurance of Truth.
Meanwhile, how can you be consistent with your literal interpretation of the unequivocal imperative "verily, verily" statement of Jn. 6:53, that one must believe and consume the Lord's body in order to have spiritual and eternal life, without allowing that those who reject this interpretation cannot?
Does that mean that you can commit adultery, murder, lie, steal, etc. and still be saved?
What a falsehood that is!
[17] Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
[18] For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
[19] For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
[20] When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
[21] For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
[22] What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
[30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
[31] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
[32] But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
[33] Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
[34] And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
So we see that Paul was chasticing them for turning a gathering of the bretherin into a drunken party, and for not recognizing that Yeshua's body was broken for their healing.
. So much for pagan sun god cookies replacing the bread and wine of the Melek Zedek!
.
We all adultery, murder, lie, steal, etc.. Every single one of us does it in our hearts.
Jesus equated lust with actual adultery and hate with murder.
And yes, redeemed children of God do fall into sin. We give in to temptation in moments of weakness. But that doesn't mean we aren't saved.
Peter in 2 Peter, calls Lot *righteous Lot*.
Now, I'm not sure if you are familiar with Lot's behavior in the OT, but it is hardly something that I would consider a righteous lifestyle, and yet the Holy Spirit called him *righteous*.
Not only that, but your standards would exclude form salvation the likes of Moses, King David, and the apostle Paul.
What a falsehood that is!
On the contrary, THAT is GRACE.
And thanks again for displaying the fact that Catholics believe in a works based salvation. What a falsehood that is!
Clearly Jesus used allegory and symbolism to make his point clear while teaching.
But Christ was giving instructions at the Last Supper.
At the Last Supper, He held the Eucharist in His hands and said “This IS my body”, “This IS my blood”. Then He gave explicit instructions “Do this in memory of Me”.
I am able to make the distinction between teaching and instructions. Jesus gave several other instructions; they too were missing symbolism:
“Love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 13:34).
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)
If you’re going to give instructions on how to do something or how to perform specific actions, it is best to be as literal as possible.
If you mean, Did they eat bleeding, gory flesh, tearing into his muscles and shedding his blood on the floor? the answer is No.
Jesus said, holding a piece of bread in his hands, “This is my body.” Similarly with the chalice of wine, which he said, “This is the chalice of my blood.”
The flesh and blood Jesus gave them in the sacrament was the same flesh and blood physically present to their eyes, ears, and touch. It was given to them in such a manner that they could obey his command to eat and drink in a non-bloody, non-horrific way.
Since this was done at the Passover, where eating the lamb was essential to the ritual under the Old Covenant, and since Jesus was the Lamb about to be sacrificed (He carried his cross at the same hour as the lambs were being slaughtered all over Jerusalem.) it makes perfect sense that eating the Lamb would be an essential part of the ritual in the New Covenant. St. John in particular emphasizes that Jesus is replacing the old Passover with a new Passover, the old lamb with the Lamb of God (himself), the old sacrament with a new sacrament.
The Old Covenant existed precisely to prefigure and prepare the Jewish mind for the New Covenant.
Exactly! And it is a shame that some don't seem to understand this. We live in a broken world and are broken ourselves. It is our failings that we need to confess to the Father/Son/Holy Spirit so that we can turn and be healed.
Today some would simply like to ignore sin and just talk about the love of God when the power is in confessing our sin.
“I am”
You bring up an interesting point. Is it really so important what happens in the Eucharist as what the intended purpose of the Eucharist is? It doesn't confer grace. It helps us to remember that this practice comes directly from the Lord and for Him we remember.
IOW, it's a SYMBOL.
The Methodist Church says about Communion “something happens”.
You have to love it. My daughter takes the Communion bread home so she and her roommates can eat it. One of them is Catholic.
Kinda weird.
Clarification: leftover Communion bread.
We feed our leftover bread to the birds.
But the blood of the Passover Lamb was NEVER consumed.
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.