Posted on 01/05/2014 1:56:06 PM PST by Steelfish
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes. 2:15)
"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2)
INTRODUCTION
Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration.
The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well.
Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ's presence at the celebration of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.
The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn't even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D. Following are the results of my search.
(Excerpt) Read more at therealpresence.org ...
I am a former weekly serving RC, and have lived in a heavily RC area for over 60 years, and in addition have abundance of statistics , and the reality is that it is evangelical faith that effects manifest regeneration, while deadness and liberalism reigns where Rome does. Or blind zeal.I remember going to see Rick Santorum in Glendale Heights, IL, and the crowd was mostly evangelicals, and they were a good group to be around, yes, very much alive in their faith, but the problem I see with your deduction regarding Catholics is the word "weekly." In order to see the true zeal available to the Roman Catholic, you must participate in the Sacraments more than once a week.
Because they actually though he was speaking literally, as they were carnally minded, and consuming human flesh and blood is forbidden. But the contrast btwn the carnal and the spiritual is what John is always engaging it. Thus Nicodemus though "born again" meant physical birth, and the Lord did not spell it out to him what He meant.
But as in parables, the Lord spoke enigmatically so that true disciples would seek the meaning, and thus after the carnally minded left the Lord revealed that He would actually no longer be present in the flesh, but in Heaven, yet the words He spoke are spirit are life.
And unlike physically eating in order to have life within and eternal life, and live by Jesus, to gain life within, and possess eternal life by first believing the gospel is what is consistent with John and Scripture.
If not, and the RC literalism is true, then you MUST conclude that one must believe (in the Real Presence) and receive the Eucharist in order to have life in them, and eternal life,as perr Jn. 6:53,54.
But which is another example of RC private interpretation in trying to support a tradition of men. You need more study in exegesis.
Invoking some secluded monk will no do for an argument or an answer.
**false doctrine.**
The Lord’s Supper is in the Bible. It is NOT false doctrine.
Invoking some secluded monk will no do for an argument or an answer.Oh, it is not one secluded monk, there are many. And they have daily Mass for the public on their beautiful grounds in Ireland, too. If you want to measure zeal, you must read the works of those Catholics who have it. Ignoring they exist does nothing for your ability to learn. It is the fervent Catholic who brings others to the faith. What are you afraid of?
I assume, had He really meant the Apostles to eat His flesh, that He certainly was capable of stripping off pieces of Himself and handing them out (and healing Himself afterward).
He did not.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
Evangelicals believe that Jonah was in the belly of a whale, but don’t believe God is present in the Eucharist.
Go figure.
“..blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 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 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“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?” (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. 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’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“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 [A.D. 411]).
...
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
“Evangelicals believe that Jonah was in the belly of a whale, but don’t believe God is present in the Eucharist.
Go figure.”
Catholics don’t believe in the Bible, but believe they’re eating Christ’s kidney during mass. Go figure:
From the Vatican website commentary on just the first few chapters of Genesis. The Bible, according to them, filled with “myths,” written by multiple authors (not actually Moses, etc), contradictions, stories are “imaginative” explanations, non-literal, or legends designed to excuse atrocity committed by Jews.
First, a suggested denial of the authorship of Moses for Genesis:
“This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4.HTM
“Mythology” placed into the text, as well as alleged error, according to the footnotes:
“[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.” [6:5- 8:22] The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.”
” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark ( Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood...
“Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM [1-32]
Scripture non-historical, based on “ancient traditions” instead:
“Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late “Priestly document,” it is based on very ancient traditions... its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam’s line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain’s line. The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P7.HTM
Myths created to justify atrocities, so claims the footnotes:
“[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PB.HTM
The tower of babel an “imaginitive” story:
“[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man’s increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name “Babylon.””
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PD.HTM
The decay of Protestantism is the refusal to belief in the Eucharist., this we call the primacy heresy, and there is no way to spin it. Simply holding hands and doing a kumbaya with rock’n background music, and scriptural readings by another who calls himself a reverend, with folks clapping, dancing, and leaping to their feet (a la Rev. Jeremiah Wright) with coffee and doughnuts for the ladies makes for a nice time. At the end its simply entertainment.
There is no reason to extend any authority to Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton than one would provide for Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and Jim Jones and David Koresh.
They each read the same Scripture and breezily interpret it the way “they” see it. There sis no authority. Only one such authority, and it was exclusive given in the Great Commission to Peter and his apostles so that the unerring truth of Christ will be preserved to the end of times. One truth, one Church. It cannot be any other way.
Denial of the Eucharist is all heresy and explain why leading theologians from a number of Protestant denominations have abandoned their “Protestant” beliefs and converted to Catholicism to say nothing of the stigmatists,St. Padre Pio, At. Teresa of Avila); the saints, the artists, the astronomers, nobel laureates, sculptors, and philosophers of every strip.
However, most of all, the Apostles themselves not only understood the words of Christ literally but all practiced it in the early rituals we now come to call the Mass or what St. Thomas Aquinas called Pange Lingua, the “Bread of Angels.” Anyting and everything else is pure “meeting” not unlike a large gathering of corporate stockholders. This is what the mega-churches have become. In a word: cheap entertainment.
__________________
Here’s how we Catholics explain this. Note the point in the essay how when the Apostles understood Jesus to mean literally what he says, He made no attempt to correct them. Any of these so-called “Protestant” services, are simply vapid recitation of scripture. From Benedict to the lonely widow at the back of the Church, the Living Christ is in the Eucharist.
Read carefully.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
Oh, so that's it. Which likely constitutes about 5%. Less 25% even go weekly. Sorry, i don't buy it.
Certainly not of them, as it is because i am learned that i know that even zeal does not make something right, and which is not what consistutes Scriptural regeneration.
Salvation in the NT church did not begin with being formally justified by interior holiness attained via sprinkling morally incognizant (often) souls in recognition of proxy faith, then gaining spiritual life by consuming human flesh and blood, administered by a man distinctively titled "priest ," or praying to the departed , with a demigoddess mother , and (usually) ending up in "purgatory" to atone for sins and become good enough to enter Heaven.
Meanwhile it is RCs who are not to objectively examine the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of official RC doctrine. What are you afraid of?
I am being sincere when I say this. I usually read these threads because I want to understand the Eucharist.
So does this boil down to the belief that a priest, a mortal that attended seminary, can convert bread and wine into the body of Christ? If so...how so?
I am not being disrespectful of the Catholic church or any other religion. I really want to understand.
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
And these kosher Jewish apostles were unquestioningly consuming Jesus, then He was both in their stomach and sitting before them. But which unique type of miracle is simply not what Scripture teaches, or even sanctions, but is pagan.
That is simply an obscure poorly documented Italian medieval story that cannot be tested.
Catholicism is a fascinating, fulfilling, and flawless faith
That is the manner of cultic assent that isrequired,
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
“..The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...
Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)
Which submission is based upon the premise of a perpetual infallible (conditionally) magisterium, and is not the basis upon which the church began, but which was upon Scriptural substantiation, in dissent from those who, like Rome presumed of themselves above that was written.
“The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).”
Here is what follows immediately after the provided quote:
“Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support and harked back, as we have seen to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was also given a renewed lease of life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine.” (J.N.D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, Pg. 440)
Kelly though attempts to claim that Augustine held that, though he did not believe in transubstantiation, that he still believed that one must eat the Eucharist in order to eat Christ, albeit in a “spiritual way.” He quotes Augustine in this way:
“Why make ready your teeth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten” (Qted in pg.449)
But Kelly is trying to pull a fast one, as if the eating of the bread and wine is still effecting a “spiritual’ figurative eating. However, the quote concludes with the word ‘already’:
“Why ready teeth and stomach? Believe and you have eaten already.”
If one has already ‘eaten’ ALREADY at the moment of belief, then Kelly is pulling a fast one and cannot say that the Eucharist is necessary for the eating of Christ even spiritually, but is, as Augustine says elsewhere, though it needs be visibly performed, yet it must be “spiritually understood,” and its benefit is in the “memory” and in the spirit, etc.
So Kelly is not your friend in transubstantiation, but he tries too hard to maintain a view which is not supported by the words of Augustine.
Again, there is a profound difference between the “Real Presence” and ‘Transubstantiation.’ In the latter, as Kelly observes, it is a ‘new’er innovation, and is NOT the product of a divinely held tradition that was passed down from the Apostles.
Now for Ignatius, et al:
Clement of Alexandria — Anti-Transubstantiation
Clement on John 6 – Eating of flesh and blood figures for faith.
“And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I)
(See Augustine on John 6, “Why dost thou ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”)
The Word figuratively described by a multitude of elements, including wine.
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I)
Wine the symbol of the sacred blood
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book II)
Ignatius – Anti-transubstantiation
“Not that I know there is anything of this kind among you; but I put you on your guard, inasmuch as I love you greatly, and foresee the snares of the devil. Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ. Let no one of you cherish any grudge against his neighbour. Give no occasion to the Gentiles, lest by means of a few foolish men the whole multitude [of those that believe] in God be evil spoken of. For, Woe to him by whose vanity my name is blasphemed among any. Isaiah 52:5” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians)
Justin Martyr – Anti-transubstantiation
The Eucharist is bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ.
“The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, “that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypo, CHAPTER LXX)
Irenaeus – Anti-Transubstantiation
Consubstantiation (Two realities at once, rather than one reality of Christ in the wine and bread).
”But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18)
The Cup of the Covenant drank with the Apostles not the blood of Christ, but, instead, is the fruit of the vine.
“Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of [His] sons; as David says, He who has renewed the face of the earth. He [Christ] promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples [Matt 26:29], thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his [disciples] above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:33:1)
Against the misunderstanding that the bread and wine is actually flesh and blood:
“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?’” (Fragment 13)
Tertullian – Anti-Transubstantiation
On John 6, Flesh and Blood of Christ digested through faith. No literal enjoinment to eat Christ’s flesh.
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: ‘The flesh profits nothing.’” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chpt. 37)
The bread and wine the figure of Christ’s body, against those who deny that Christ did not have a body.
“Having taken bread and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own Body by saying, ‘This is My Body’ — that is, the ‘figure of My Body.’ A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there was in truth a body. Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure. Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain! Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jeremias: ‘They have devised a device against Me, saying, “Come, let us throw wood onto his bread,”’ — the cross, of course, upon His Body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:30:3)
Origen – Anti-Transubstantiation
Against understanding John 6 “to the letter”
“If ye are the children of the church, if ye are well embued with the mysteries of the Gospel, and if the Word made flesh dwelleth in you, acknowledge what I say, because it is of the Lord, lest, not knowing it, you may not be known by him. Acknowledge that some things written in the holy books are figures, and therefore examine and understand the things which are said, as spiritual men : for if you receive them as carnal men, they injure you. There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him who does not understand spiritually the things which are said. For if you take this according to the letter, Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, this letter killeth” — (Origen, Homily 7, on the 10th chap, of Leviticus)
The Bread and Wine are types and symbols
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
The bread and wine are images, symbols, commended as a memory to his disciples:
“But if, as these affirm, he had neither flesh nor blood, of what flesh and of what body and of what blood are the bread and cup which he delivered the images ? by these symbols he commended his memory to his disciples.” (Origen, The third Dialogue against the Marcionites)
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.