Tertullian, in about 200 AD, wrote (Against Marcion IV. 40): "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, 'This is my body,' that is a 'figure of my body.' On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." Can you start to see how their arguments were not FOR a certain doctrine so much as against one that denied a physical, human-bodied Christ?
The Eucharist is the fullfillment of His PROMISE to be with us always, even to the end of the world.
No, the promise of Jesus to be with us always was the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit - and He will never leave or forsake us. He is the earnest of our inheritance until we take possession of eternal life in heaven. That is why we can KNOW we HAVE everlasting life.
LOL, some make the mistake of believing because they can’t find a word for a particular doctrine before a certain point in history, that that means the doctrine was not believed or known before that time. In reality, it means just the opposite! the best example of this is Jehovah Witnesses claiming that Jesus Christ was made God at the Council of Nicea and before this no one believed He was God. Totally FALSE! It is when a doctrine or belief is challenged that the Church feels the need to defend it or to explain it more fully. Same thing can be said for the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century, the doctrine of God as One BEING in three persons ( btw, the Holy Spirit is not the Lord Jesus Christ, you haven’t been reading Ellen G White have you?? )was attacked and the Church defined the Trinityn formally.
so anyone who believes that “transubstantiation” was first believed in the 13th century, must explain how the Coptic Church and the Chaldean Orthodox Church, both of which broke from the Catholic Church in the 5th century believe it? hmm, isn’t that interesting? let’s look at the Greek Orthodox Church which went into schism in the 11th century, they believe it. how can that be if the belief came in the 13th century?
you bring up Tertullian quote, but even that qote says “he made it his own body” did you read that? the bread was made into his own body. lest you doubt that, here are more Tertullian quotes:
Tertullian’s The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:
The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.
Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord’s prayer “give us this day our daily bread.” In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.
Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;
Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.
while i am at it, i will throw in a bonus quote from Justin Martyr written to the Roman Emperor explaining Christian belief in his Apology:
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.’’ Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone
notice his statement that they were taught after the “change” is the “flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh”.
what i love about the writings of Ignatius, Justin and Tertullian is they show what the Catholic Faith was in the 2nd century, 1,300 years before the world even heard of a Protestant.
i am sorry if you feel i am repeating myself, but the doctrine of the Eucharist is a central doctrine of the Christian Faith, one that is so important that Jesus Christ Himself delivered it to Paul ( 1 Corinthians 11:23 )
i will leave you with a new thought to pray over. In 1 Corinthians 11:27 Paul says “whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD.
how can someone be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the Lord aren’t present??