Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Hard Sayings in One Day – Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood
ADW.org ^ | 22 August 2021 | Msgr Pope

Posted on 08/23/2021 12:49:38 AM PDT by Cronos

Hard SayingsThe readings this Sunday feature two “hard sayings,” one on the Eucharist, the other on marriage. One is hard because it defies our sensibilities, the other because it is out-of-season and politically incorrect. This is a long reflection. What I present here is really two separate sermons, but both merit some attention.

The first “hard saying” is Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood. He says that we must eat His true Flesh and drink His true Blood as our true food, as our necessary manna to sustain us on our journey through the desert of this life to the Promised Land of Heaven.

We have examined this teaching extensively in previous weeks and it is clear that the Lord is not speaking figuratively or symbolically. His listeners understand Him to be speaking literally; He is insisting that they eat His flesh, really, truly, and substantially. The severe reaction of His listeners can only be explained if they believe that Jesus is speaking literally. The listeners scoff and murmur, but Jesus only doubles down, insisting that unless they gnaw (trogon) on His flesh and devour His blood they have no life in them (cf Jn 6:53-54).

This leads to the crowd’s response: This saying is hard; who can accept it? The Greek word translated here as “hard” is Σκληρός (skleros) and does not mean hard in the sense of being difficult to understand. Rather, it means hard in the sense of being violent, harsh, or stern. It describes a position (or person) that is stubborn and unyielding; it describes something (or someone) that won’t bend or submit.

Despite every protest, Jesus will not back down. He will not qualify what He said or in any way try to minimize its impact. So essential is the food of His Flesh and Blood that He will not even hint that there is some way out of this “hard saying.”

The upshot is that many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Knowing this and seeing it, Jesus still sticks to His teaching. He poses this question: Do you also want to leave?

The Eucharist remains a “hard saying” because it goes against our senses. Of the five senses, four are utterly deceived, for the Eucharistic elements still look, taste, smell, and feel like bread and wine. Only the sense of hearing is safely believed: “This is my Body … This is my Blood … The Bread that I will give is my flesh.”

Yes, it is hard; will you leave? Maybe you won’t leave, but will your faith in the Eucharist be tepid, the kind of faith that is not devoted? Will you drift away from regular reception of the Eucharist? Where do you stand on this “hard saying”?

How consoled the Lord must have been by Peter’s words: 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. How joyful He must be hearing your “Amen” each Sunday as you are summoned to faith: “The Body of Christ.” Yes, you stand with Christ.

Sadly, others leave. Only about a quarter of Catholics today go to Mass. Further, many others reject the dogma of the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist even though Jesus paid so dearly to proclaim it to us. In light of the recent scandals and the loss of trust, I am immensely grateful that many of the faithful can look beyond the mess and still find Jesus. He is still here and some live beautifully this old saying: “Don’t leave Jesus because of Judas.”

Is it a hard saying? Yes, but say Amen anyway! Stand with Jesus!

The second “hard saying” is hard for a different reason: it is (way) out-of-season and politically incorrect. It insists not only on headship within marriage but male headship. The Holy Spirit and the apostles apparently never got the memo that this teaching is a “no go” in our modern, “enlightened” age. Indeed, the text Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord is like a stick in the eye to most moderns. Talk about a hard saying!

There are cultural and worldly notions that underlie the rejection by many Catholics and Christians of the biblical teaching on the headship of the husband. This concept is unpopular in our culture, which usually gets pretty worked up over questions of authority in general, but that is because the worldly notion of authority usually equates it with power, dignity, rights, and being somehow better than someone else.

That is not the biblical view of authority. Consider what Jesus says about authority:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority and make their importance felt. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:41-45).

Jesus sets aside the worldly notion of authority, wherein those in authority wield their power by “lording it over” others using fear and the trappings of power. In the Christian setting there is authority (there must be), but it exists for service.

Consider a classroom teacher. She has authority; she must, so that she can unify and keep order. However, she has that authority in order to serve the children, not to berate them and revel in her power over them. The same is true for a police officer, who has authority not for his own sake but for ours, so that he can protect us and preserve order.

Having authority in a Christian setting does not make one person better than another, for authority is always exercised among equals. Our greatest dignity is to be a child of God, and none of us is more so just because we hold a position of authority.

Worldly notions of authority do affect Christians. Many harbor resentments against authority because they think of it in worldly ways. Further, many who have authority (and most of us have some authority in some capacity) can fall prey to these worldly notions and abuse their leadership role.

The key to understanding the authority of a husband and father within the home is to set aside worldly notions of authority and see the teaching in the light of the Christian understanding of authority: that it exists for love and service, to unite and preserve.

With that in mind, let’s turn to the highly unpopular and politically incorrect notion of wives being submissive to their husbands. The teaching is found in several places in the New Testament: Ephesians 5:22ff (today’s text); Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1. In all these texts, the wording is quite similar: wives are to be submissive to, that is under the authority of, their husbands. In each case, however, the teaching is balanced by an exhortation that the husband is to love and be considerate of his wife.

The most well-known of these passages is today’s text from Ephesians 5: Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is Head of the Church … so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything (Eph 5:20-21, 23).

This may grate on your nerves, but don’t just dismiss what God teaches here. One of the great dangers of this passage is that it is so startling to modern ears that many people just tune out after the first line and miss the rest of what God has to say. There is text that follows. And before men gloat over the first part of the passage, or women react to it with anger or sadness, they should pay attention to the rest of the text, which spells out the duties of a husband.

You see, if you’re going to be the head of the household there are certain requirements that must be met. God is not playing around here or choosing sides. He has a comprehensive plan for husbands that is demanding; it requires them to curb any notions that authority is about power and to remember that, for a Christian, authority is always given so that the one who has it may serve. Before we look at submission we might do well to look at the requirements for the husband:

Love your wife – Pay attention, men! Don’t just tolerate your wife. Don’t just bring home a paycheck. Don’t just love her in some intellectual sort of way. Love your wife with all your heart. Beg God for the grace to love your wife tenderly, powerfully, and unconditionally. Do you hear what God says? Love your wife! He goes on to tell husbands to love their wives in three ways: passionately, with a purifying love, and with a providing love.

Passionate love – The text says that a man is to love his wife even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her. The Greek word παραδίδωμι (paradidomi), translated here as “handed over,” always refers in the New Testament to Jesus’ crucifixion. Husbands, are you willing to give your life for your wife and children? Are you willing to die to yourself and give your life as a daily sacrifice for them? God instructs you to love your wife (and children) with the same kind of love He has for His Bride, the Church. That kind of love is summed up in the cross. Love your wife passionately. Be willing to suffer for her. Be willing to make sacrifices for her and for your children.

Purifying love – The text says of Christ (and of the husband who is to imitate Him) that He wills to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Now a husband cannot sanctify his wife in the same way that God can, but what he is called to do is to help his wife and children grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ. First, he is to be himself under God’s authority, thus making it easier for his wife and children to live out their baptismal commitments. He ought to be a spiritual leader in his home, praying with his wife and children, reading scripture, and seeing to it that his home is a place where God is loved and obeyed, first of all by him. His wife should not have to drag him to Mass. He should willingly help her to grow in holiness and pray with her every day. He should become more holy himself as well, thus making it easier for his wife to live the Christian life. He should be the first teacher of his children, along with his wife, in the ways of faith. In too many American homes, the man does not act as the spiritual leader of his household. If anyone at all is raising up the children in the Lord, it is usually the wife. Scripture has in mind that the husband and father should be the spiritual leader to his wife and children. Scripture says, Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Fathers and husbands need to step up and not leave all the burden on their wives.

Providing love So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it. Husbands, take care of your wife in her needs. She needs more than food, clothing, and shelter. These days, she can get a lot of that for herself. What she needs more is your love, understanding, and appreciation. She needs for you to be a good listener. She needs an attentive husband who is present to her. Like any human being, she needs reassurance and affirmation. Tell her of your love and appreciation; don’t just assume that she knows. Show care for your wife; attend to her needs just as you do instinctively for your own. Encourage her with the children. Confirm her authority over them and teach them to respect their mother. Show her providing love by taking up your proper role and duty as a father who is involved with his children. That is what God is teaching here.

So, scripture does teach that a wife should submit to her husband, but what kind of husband does Scripture have in mind? A husband who really loves his wife, who is a servant-leader, who makes sacrifices for his wife, who is prayerful and spiritual, who submits to God’s authority, and who cares deeply for his wife and her needs. The same God who teaches submission (and He does) also clearly teaches these things for the husband. The teaching must be taken in its entirety, but all that said, there is a teaching on wives submitting (properly understood) to their husbands.

There is just no way around it. No matter how much the modern age wants to insist that there doesn’t need to be headship, there does. Every organization needs a head. Consider your own body. With two heads you’d be a freak; with no head you’d be dead. The members of your body need a head to unify the parts, otherwise there would be disunity, decay, and decay. Every organization needs headship. It needs an ultimate decision maker, a person to whom all look when consensus on a significant issue cannot be reached. The Protestants have tried to have a “Church” without a head, without a Pope, and behold the division. Even this country, which we like to call a “democracy,” is not actually a pure democracy. There are legislators, judges, law enforcers, and many other people and mechanisms that exercise local, state, federal, and final headship and authority.

Thus, in a family, where consensus and compromise may often win the day, there nevertheless must be a head, a final decider to whom all look and submit, in order to resolve conflicts that cannot otherwise be worked out. Scripture assigns this task to the husband and father. Headship just has to be, but remember to shed your worldly notions of it when considering the teaching of Scripture. Headship (authority) is for love and service; it is for unity and preservation not for power, prestige, or superiority.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholicpromo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: daniel1212; Cronos

Some artwork to go along with David's equating well-water with the blood of his soldeirs.

2 Sam 23:16 "So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David.

Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the LORD;

17 and he said, “Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this.

Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?”

Therefore he would not drink it."

41 posted on 08/23/2021 7:46:41 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"Enough of your plagiarizing prevaricating profuse propaganda."

When he was about 4 years old, my son called this, "a little raisin".

It took mom and me a LONG time to figure out what he was talking about!

He turned out to be an excellent author, reader, and person.

42 posted on 08/23/2021 7:54:45 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

There were many from the 1300’s onward who rejected the mass.


43 posted on 08/23/2021 7:55:10 AM PDT by lurk ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Also, "met a fours" were not difficult for the four-year-old's mind to comprehend.

He came to Christ after hearing and understanding Jn 3:14.

Since he understands illustrations, he neither believes that snakes nor bread has anything to do with imputed righteousness.

44 posted on 08/23/2021 8:08:52 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
What the heck is an RCC? We're not Italians living in Roma.

Are all of THESE in Rome? Italy? Europe?

Are their signs out of date?

Enlighten me.

Until then, I will continue use the abbreviated label "RCC" and everyone will know what I mean.

I use it to distinguish it from the Church.

45 posted on 08/23/2021 8:59:18 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; Elsie
" 2 Sam 23:16 "So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the LORD; 17 and he said, “Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” Therefore he would not drink it." "

There you have it: David plainly refers to this as blood, using the very word for blood that is used for the blood that is forbidden to drink as it makes atonement for the soul, (Lev 17:10,11) and thus pours it out unto the Lord, (cf. Num 28:7) showing that this is to be literally understood as the first example of transubstantiation. For you see when David called the contents "blood" then the water ceased to exist, becoming the true blood of the men who risked their lives for it, while yet retaining the "accidents," the appearance of water.

And of course David also declared that the Canaanites were bread for the Lord's people, (Num. 14:9) and likewise such wanted to eat David, (Ps. 27:2) while Jeremiah ate God's words. (Jer. 15:16)

But despite these and other such examples you Bible Christian refuse to accept such literal use of language!

46 posted on 08/23/2021 9:01:38 AM PDT by daniel1212 ( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save + be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Not surprised this scripture stirred up a hornet’s nest, but thank you for posting and defending anyway! These folks may not be ready to hear but other lurkers on this thread might.


47 posted on 08/23/2021 9:32:59 AM PDT by viewfromthefrontier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: viewfromthefrontier

Pfft.

I’m not willing to listen because it’s piss-poor exegesis, and I actually believe that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus.

You can get all the proof you need about the Holy Supper being the true body and blood of Christ from 1 Corinthians and you don’t even have to resort to assuming that Jesus is talking about the Lord’s Supper long before he actually instituted it.


48 posted on 08/23/2021 12:59:47 PM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
The Protestants have tried to have a “Church” without a head, without a Pope, and behold the division.

Don't kid yourself, Monsignor, there are plenty of divisions in the Catholic church even with a Pope! Jesus Christ is the head and His holy word is the User Manual.

49 posted on 08/23/2021 3:45:33 PM PDT by boatbums (Lord, make my life a testimony to the value of knowing you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lurk; daniel1212; Cronos
There were many from the 1300’s onward who rejected the mass.

Even before then there was NOT consensus on what "real presence" meant. From:

THE EUCHARIST Its Historical Development and Roman Catholic Teaching

The Roman Catholic position on the Eucharist was first given dogmatic expression at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. when the Church formally set forth the teaching of transubstantiation as the official teaching of the Church. This was further affirmed by the Council of Trent which also dogmatically asserted the nature of the Lord’s Supper as being that of a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. So there are two primary elements of the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist that are of supreme importance—transubstantiation, which guarantees the real presence of Christ and the mass, in which Christ, thus present bodily, is re-offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. And the eucharist as taught and practiced by Rome is, according to Rome, necessary for salvation. The following are the authoritative statements from the Council of Trent:

    Canon I. If anyone denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

    Canon II. If anyone saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

    Canon III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1941, 1978), p. 149).

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that when the priest utters the words of consecration the elements of the eucharist are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. He is then offered to God on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. And the Church is quite explicit that this is a real sacrifice for the Council of Trent states that ‘in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross…’ This is the Church’s teaching but it is quite evident that just as with the case of the other major doctrines of the Roman Church there is no such thing as a unanimous consent of the Fathers on the nature of the eucharist. Transubstantiation is a particular way of expressing belief in the Real Presence and the mass a particular way of expressing the nature of the eucharist as a sacrifice but these are not the only views that have been expressed in a consistent and dominant way in the history of the Church. It is true that from the very beginning the Fathers generally express their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist in that they identify the elements with the body and blood of Christ. But this does not mean that they unanimously teach the concept of transubstantiation. They also refer to the eucharist as a sacrifice, but as with transubstantiation, this does not mean that their views are the same as those of the Council of Trent.

The fact is, there is much difference of opinion among the Fathers on the nature of the Real Presence and on the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The early Fathers were far from unanimous in their teaching on the Lord’s Supper. The dogmatic statements of the 4th Lateran Council and the Council of Trent took many centuries and much conflict before they were finally formulated in an authoritative way by the Roman Catholic Church. The impression given by some Catholic writers that the statements of the Council of Trent have been taught and believed by the Church from the very beginning with very little contradictory opinion cannot be supported by the facts of history. An objective analysis will reveal is that the views of the Fathers are very consistent with the differing views represented by the Roman Catholic Church and those of the Protestant Reformers. Some of the Fathers taught that the elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and that his presence is spiritual, while others maintained that the elements are changed into Christ’s body and blood and that his presence is physical. The writings of the Fathers of the first four centuries reveal this diversity of opinion.

The following statements by Church historians demonstrate that the Church’s views of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper did not find unanimous consent among the fathers and was a process of long historical development. Many of the most prestigious of the Fathers and at least one pope deny the teachings of the Council of Trent:

    The Ancient Church produced no dogma of the Lord’s Supper. Two methods of presenting the subject are found side by side without any attempt at discrimination. They are commonly spoken of as the metabolic and symbolic views. Pope Gelasius I taught that ‘the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist, although the elements, the Holy Spirit perfecting them, pass over … into a divine substance, as was the case with Christ himself. And certainly the image and likeness … are honored… in the observance … of the mysteries.’…The theologians of the Carlovingian period, as Augustinians, were fond of emphasizing the symbolical character of the ordinance, presenting it as a memorial and a symbol … On the other hand, as a result of the growing religious materialism, which found in visible miracles the characteristic trait of religion, and of the widening influence of the sacrificial idea, the conception of a transformation of the elements became more and more clearly defined (Reinhold Seeburg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume Two, p. 34).

    The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy and ecclesiastical action until the time of Paschius Radbert, in the ninth century … Hence the doctrine of the ancient church on this point lacks the clearness and definiteness which the Nicene dogme of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian Christology, and the Augustinian anthropology and soteriology acquired from the controversies preceding them. In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a consensus patrum, than in the doctrine of the holy Supper (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), Volume 3, p. 492).

We now want to trace the development of the eucharistic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church through the writings of the Church Fathers on their views of the nature of the Real Presence and the sacrifice.

The Real Presence

All of the Fathers teach some concept of the Real Presence in that they identify the elements with the body and blood of Christ. But, as we have pointed out, there is conflicting opinion over the exact nature of the Real Presence. Some teach that the elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and that his presence is spiritual, while others teach that the elements are changed into Christ’s body and blood and that his presence is physical. These two views were the subject of two major controversies in the 9th and 11th centuries. But before dealing with these we want to trace the development of the doctrine through different writings and Fathers up to the time of Augustine and then look in detail at Augustine’s teaching. One cannot have a proper understanding of the controversies of the 9th and 11th centuries without a clear understanding of Augustine for his teachings had a major influence on those involved in both controversies and ultimately on those involved in the Reformation. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria span the first two centuries of the particular views of the Church during these centuries.

The Didache presents the eucharistic elements as bread and wine but refers to them as spiritual food and drink. There is no indication that the Didache views the elements as being transformed in any way. Ignatius, on the other hand, speaks in very realistic terms of the nature of the eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus and as that which communicates eternal life. Bethune-Baker gives the following statements:

    To Ignatius the Eucharist is the one great bond of union of Christians with one another, but only so because it brings them into closest relation to the Lord. To partake of his one flesh and of the one cup of his blood is to live one life. It is this participation which really makes the whole Church one body. It is breaking one bread which is a medicine of immortality, a cure against death giving life in Jesus Christ for ever. So with the food of corruption and the pleasures of this life are contrasted the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ, and his blood, which is love incorruptible (J.P. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methune, 1903), p. 398).

    Justin Martyr refers to the Eucharistic elements as being more than common bread and wine in that when they are consecrated they become the body and blood of Jesus. And yet, in Trypho 70, he speaks of the elements as bread and wine which were inaugurated by Christ as a memorial and remembrance of his body and blood:

      It is quite evident that this prophecy also alludes to 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 (Thomas B. Falls, The Fathers of the Church, Saint Justin Martyr (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1948), Dialogue with Trypho 70, p. 262).

    So while he speaks of a change in the elements, it seems that the elements still remain, in essence, bread and wine. Like Justin, Irenaeus clearly believes the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus at consecration, but he also states that the elements are composed of two realities, one an earthly and one a heavenly or a spiritual. And therefore he infers that the change he envisages is spiritual and that the presence of Christ is therefore spiritual. This thought is further amplified by Bethune-Baker:

      At other times, in a different vein, Irenaeus could write of the spiritual character of the sacrifice offered in the Eucharist, which replaced for Christians the ancient offerings of the sanctuary. There is apparently in view the objection that it was itself a ‘Judaistic’ rite. ‘These offerings’, he says, ‘are not after the law (its bond the Lord blotted out and took away), but after the Spirit, for in spirit and in truth we must worship God. And for this reason the offering of the Eucharist is not fleshly but spiritual, and therein pure. For we offer to God the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks to him, that he bade the earth bring forth these fruits for our food. And then, when we have finished the offering (oblation), we invoke the Holy Spirit to proclaim this sacrifice, and the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that by partaking of these symbols we may obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal life. So then they who take part in these offerings in remembrance (or in the memorial) of the Lord do not follow after the ordinances of the Jews, but worshiping in spiritual fashion they shall be called sons of wisdom (J.F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen, 1903), pp. 401-402).

      Following Irenaeus we find that Tertullian speaks of the eucharist as being identified with the body and blood of Jesus and yet he expresses the concept of a sacramental though real presence. Tertullian, for example, when referring to the eucharistic elements uses terms such as figure, symbol and represent to express his concept of the eucharist. The following are his remarks:

        But was it not because He had to be ‘led like a lamb to the slaughter; and because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He not to open His mouth,’ that he so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood? … Then, having taken the bread and given 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 were first a veritable body … In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of His might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full wine press? … Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.

        For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by interpretation of the mystery…. and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume II, Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40, 3.19).

      Tertullian over and over again speaks of the bread and wine as being symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He very specifically states that these are not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said ‘This is my body’, Tertullian says Jesus spoke figuratively and that He consecrated the wine in memory of his blood.

      There are some historians who suggest that the ancient usage of the words ‘figure’ and ‘represent’ were often used differently from present day usage to describe the relation between the thing symbolized and the symbol. The suggestion is that the symbols in some mysterious way became what they symbolized. And the conclusion we are to draw is that a writer such as Tertullian meant more in his usage of the words ‘figure’ and ‘represent’ than the words would normally convey. They say, for example, says that the verb represent (representare) which Tertullian employs when speaking of the consecrated bread means ‘to make present’. But this argument simply does not hold for Tertullian uses the word in a number of places in which it means a symbolical representation without some mysterious meaning being attached. In the above mentioned quotes, for example, Tertullian says, ‘He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red…’ (Against Marcion 4.40).

      When Tertullian speaks of the bread and wine as being figures and symbols which represent Christ’s body and blood, that is exactly what he means. In no way does he teach that there is some mysterious conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. And this fact is placed beyond all doubt by the interpretation Tertullian gives of the Lord’s discourse in John 6 which he says is to be understood spiritually and figuratively rather than physically and literally. The following are his comments:

        He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ 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 to ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth 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 heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, 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 cometh down from heaven,’ 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 profiteth nothing’ (Ibid., On the Resurrection of the Flesh Chap. 37).

      As with Justin and Irenaeus, Tertullian expresses the view that the eucharist is not common bread and wine but that there is to be a distinction maintained between the physical reality of bread and wine and the reality of the body and blood of Christ which the bread and wine represent. Clement of Alexandria (150-211/216 A.D.) also called the bread and wine symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and taught that the communicant received not the physical but the spiritual life of Christ.

      The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes – the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food – that is, the Lord Jesus – that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.

      Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. ‘For Moses,’ He says, ‘gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh … But since He said, ‘And the bread which I will give is My flesh,’ and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed 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 fiauratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? (‘Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1956), Volume II, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, Chapter VI, pp. 219-222).

      Origen (185-253/254 A.D.), likewise, speaks in distinctively spiritual and allegorical terms when referring to the eucharist.

        So also the bread is the word of Christ made of that corn of wheat which falling into the ground yields much fruit. For not that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word call His body, but the word in the mystery of which that bread was to be broken. Nor did He call that visible drink His blood, but the word in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or His blood, be but the word which nourishes and the word which gladdens the heart? Why then did He not say, This is the bread of the new covenant, as He said, ‘This is the blood of the new covenant’? Because the bread is the word of righteousness, by eating which souls are nourished, while the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the mystery of His birth and passion (Origen,Commentary on Matthew, Sermon 85. Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longman’s, Green, 1909), Volume I, pp. 27-28).

      Thus Clement and Origen express views which are consistent with Tertullian. Philip Schaff gives these thoughts regarding the teachings of Clement and Origen:

        The Alexandrians are here, as usual, decidedly spiritualistic. Clement twice expressly calls the wine a symbol or an allegory of the blood of Christ, and says, that the communicant receives not the physical, but the spiritual blood, the life, of Christ, as indeed, the blood is the life of the body. Origen distinguishes still more definitely the earthly elements from the heavenly bread of life, and makes it the whole design of the supper to feed the soul with the divine word (Opcit., Volume 2, p. 244).

        The writings of Cyprian also identify the elements with the body and blood of Christ but, like Tertullian, he sees the elements as representative of spiritual realities. He specifically states that water alone cannot represent the blood of Christ, implying that water mixed with wine does represent his blood (Ep. 63.7). It is not a literal reality but representative of it. And he argues that when Christ called the bread and wine his body and blood he was using such language to figuratively represent the Church (Ep. 69.4). He says that cup contains both water and wine which are representative of two different realities. He says that just as water represents peoples in Scripture, so the wine represents the blood of Christ (Ep. 63.9-10) and the eucharist therefore represents the union between Christ and his Church. He says that just as in the Mystery of the eucharist the people of God are shown to be united, so in the wine the blood of Christ is also shown. He uses the same word to describe both realities demonstrating that the elements are a figurative representation of spiritual realities (Ep. 63.10). It is clear, therefore, that Cyprian did not view the elements as being literally changed into the body and blood of Christ anymore than he believed that the water was changed into literal people. And yet, he does speak of drinking the blood of Christ. For Cyprian the eucharist is a ‘spiritual’ sacrament in which the elements are not literally changed but one does partake spiritually of the body and blood of Christ.

        As time goes on we find two schools of thought about the eucharist developing side by side with one another. On the one hand one finds clearer and clearer descriptions of the eucharist as consisting of a transformation of the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. The literalist view is clearly represented in the writings of such fathers as Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and Ambrose. Cyril of Jerusalem is representative:

          Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, This is My body, who shall dare doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, This is My blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that this is not His blood? He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? … Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we call upon the merciful God to send fo His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is sanctified and changed (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, XXIL1-2, XXIII.7 (Oxford: Parker, 1842), pp. 270, 275).

        Historians point out that these men use such terms as transformed, transelemented, converted, changed and transmuted when referring to the consecrated elements. And they speak in very literal and realistic terms of the reality of the elements becoming Christ himself. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, teaches that the eucharist is a perpetuation of the incarnation and Bethune-Baker mentions the following views held by Chrysostom:

          The bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ, ‘the body pierced with nails’. We bury our teeth in his flesh; by his most awful blood our tongue is reddened … Of the consecration he says, ‘Christ is present, and he who arranged the first table, even arranges this present one. For it is not man who makes the things which are set before us become the body and blood of Christ; but it is Christ himself, who was crucified for us. The priest stands fulfilling his part by uttering the appointed words, but the power and the grace are of God. ‘This is my body’ he says. this expression changes the elements; and as that sentence ‘increase and multiply’, once spoken, extends through all time and gives to our nature the power to reproduce itself; even so that saying ‘this is my body’, once uttered, does at every table in the Churches from that time to the present day, and even till Christ’s coming, make the sacrifice complete (J.F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen, 1903), pp. 415-416).

        At the same time there is a continuing representation by many Fathers of the eucharistic elements as figures or symbols of the Lord’s body and blood, though they also believe the Lord is spiritually present in the sacrament. We this, for example in the teaching of Eusebius of Caesarea (263-340 A.D.) He identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ but, like Tertullian, saw the elements as being symbolical or representative of spiritual realities. He specifically states that the bread and wine are symbols of the Lord’s body and blood and that Christ’s words in John 6 are to be understood spiritually and figuratively as opposed to a physical and literal sense:

          But do you, receiving the Scriptures of the Gospels, perceive the whole teaching of our Saviour, that He did not speak concerning the flesh which He had taken but concerning His mystic body and blood… To this the Saviour answered, ‘It is not Moses that gave you the true bread out of heaven’. Then He adds, ‘I am the bread of life,’ and again, ‘I am the bread which came down out of heaven,’ and again, ‘The bread which I will give is My body…’, and He adds again, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him.’ When He had discussed these and such things more mystically, some of His disciples said, ‘The saying is hard; who can bear it?’ The Saviour answered them, saying, Doth this cause you to stumble? What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where He was before? The Spirit is the life-giver; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.’ In this way He instructed them to understand spirituallv…the words which He had spoken concerning His flesh and His blood; for, He says, you must not consider Me to speak of the flesh with which I am clothed … as if you were able to eat that, nor suppose that I command you to drink perceptible and corporal … blood; but know well that ‘the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life,’ so that the words themselves and the discourses themselves are the flesh and the blood, of which he who always partakes, as one fed on heavenly bread, will be a partaker of heavenly life. Therefore, He says, let not this cause you to stumble which I have spoken concerning the eating of My flesh and concerning the drinking of My blood; nor let the offhand … hearing of what I have said about flesh and blood disturb you; for these things ‘profit nothing’ if they are understood according to sense …but the Spirit is the life-giver to those who are able to understand spiritually…(Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica VIII. 1.76-80. Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist(London: Longman’s, Green, 1909), Volume I, pp. 62-63).

        In addition to Eusebius, as JND Kelly points out below, these non-literal views were also expressed by a view shared by Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macarius of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch. But, as we will see, this view found its strongest representation in Augustine. Seeburg, as quoted above, points out that pope Gelasius I, who reigned from 492 to 496 teaches that the bread and wine in substance at consecration do not cease to exist:

          The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and likeness of the body and blood of Christ is set out in the celebration of the mysteries… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature, so they show that the principal mystery itself, the efficacy and virtue of which they truly make present (representant) to us, consists in this, that the two natures remain each in its own proper being so that there is one Christ because He is whole and real (Pope Gelasius, On the Two Natures in Christ. Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (London: Longman’s, Green, 1909), Volume I, p. 102).

        J.N.D. Kelly points out that the literalist and symbolical views were both prevalent in the early centuries and he gives the following summation of the symbolical or figurative view held in the Church up to the time of Augustine. This is a long quote but very important in that it demonstrates the prevalence of the figurative view:

          Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period (4th century) 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 the reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was 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.

      Much more at the linked article.

50 posted on 08/23/2021 4:39:28 PM PDT by boatbums (Lord, make my life a testimony to the value of knowing you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"J.N.D. Kelly points out that the literalist and symbolical views were both prevalent in the early centuries and he gives the following summation of the symbolical or figurative view held in the Church up to the time of Augustine. "

Thanks, as it is of some value, however the uninspired writings of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed, not even for Catholics, as instead of such, or of Scripture, it is what their church asserts that both Scripture and tradition consist of and mean that are to matter most to the orthodox faithful.

* Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine” "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, pp. 227-228.

Catholics do appeal to both Scripture and tradition - forcing the former to support that latter according to the understanding of their church - in attempting to bring hearers to submit to their church, thus Scripture is not the supreme sure standard, and since it is disallowed that men can discern the contents to Scripture apart from faith in her, and to avoid circular reasoning (proving the church by the Scriptures and the Scriptures by the church) then in Catholic theology Scripture is appealed to merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. By which it is supposed that the candidate for conversion discerns the RCC as the one true church, even though it is disallowed that one can otherwise discover what the contents of Scripture are. Of course, when distinctive Catholic teachings are not found to be manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) then they are told they need to faithfully submit to "The Church" to understand Scripture regarding this. Imagine if the 1st century souls wholly followed this model.

51 posted on 08/23/2021 5:27:16 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save + be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska
-- Nobody has correctly explained this concept to my wife, and I'm too old to try:) --

Heh!

It's a tough nut for both sexes, but yeah, I'm there too. Part of the human experience.

52 posted on 08/23/2021 5:32:06 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
As suspected, it's merely lip service to their claim of "unanimous consent" of the fathers as well as to St. Vincent of Lerin's threefold (but never realized) criterion of Catholic doctrine: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (‘what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all’) formulated by St Vincent of Lérins (d. before 450) in his Commonitorium, a guide to heresy and to determining the true faith.

William Webster also wrote an excellent essay about the Catholic church's "living" tradition. It's basically Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition: (Viva Voce – Whatever We Say)

53 posted on 08/23/2021 5:43:58 PM PDT by boatbums (Lord, make my life a testimony to the value of knowing you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; boatbums

John 6:63.

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, they are life.”

How can this possibly be misconstrued so as to make a wafer the literal, flesh, of Christ, and the wine, the literal blood of Christ?

Christ plainly states that the flesh profiteth nothing. How can anyone believe that their we have life in that? He says there is not.

So what are they changing these physical things into? Certainly not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. He plainly states that rhe Flesh and Blood are spirit, not flesh. That the flesh profiteth nothing.


54 posted on 08/23/2021 6:06:56 PM PDT by smvoice (I WILL NOT WEAR THE RIBBON. OR THE MASK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Then why did Jesus say seven individual statements this Sunday in the Gospel about his Body and Blood.

He was driving home the message—and he let those who wanted to leave go.

Seven statements — seven is the sacred number in the Bible.


55 posted on 08/23/2021 7:58:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; lurk; daniel1212; Cronos
Nah, that's false boatie

the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or 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 nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

The Didache(c. 90 A.D.)

But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)

On the Lord's Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: "In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am  Great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles." (14:1-2)


St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

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)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the  Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)


St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)

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 [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has 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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66) Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)


St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)

…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.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…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 to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup 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…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)


Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)

Likewise, in 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…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)

A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)


Origen (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)


St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)

Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)


St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body…

He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)

Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)


Council of Nicaea (c. 325 A.D.)

It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice… (Canon 18)


Aphraates the Persian Sage (c. 280 - 345 A.D.)

After having spoken thus ["This is My body…This is My blood"], 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)


St. Ephraim (c. 306 - 373 A.D.)

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.

After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: "This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old." (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)


St. Athanasius (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ….Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 A.D.)

For just as 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 [Mystagogic 1], 7)

This one teaching of the blessed Paul is enough to give you complete certainty about the Divine Mysteries, by your having been deemed worthy of which, you have become united in body and blood with Christ. For Paul proclaimed clearly that: "On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat, This is My Body.' And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, 'Take, drink, This is My Blood.'" He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, "This is My Body," who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, "This is My Blood," who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 1)

Once in Cana of Galilee He changed the water into wine, a thing related to blood; and is His changing of wine into Blood not credible? When invited to an ordinary marriage, with a miracle He performed that glorious deed. And is it not much more to be confessed that He has betowed His Body and His Blood upon the wedding guests?(22 [Mystagogic 4], 2)

Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the 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.(22 [Mystagogic 4], 6)

Having learned these things, and being 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… (22 [Mystagogic 4], 9)

Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed.(23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)

Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED.

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT.

For I know that there are many who are saying this: 'If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?'…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)


St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 - 368 A.D.)

When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously -- had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)


St. Basil the Great (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: "He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life." Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week…and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter of Basil to a Patrician Lady Caesaria)


St. Gregory of Nazianz (c. 330 - 389 A.D.)

The tongue of a priest meditating on the Lord raises the sick. Do, then, the greater thing by celebrating the liturgy, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of the Resurrection. Most Reverend friend, Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword. (Letter of Gregory to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium)


St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - 394 A.D.)

This Body, by the indwelling of God the Word, has been made over to divine dignity. Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency, bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh. From the same cause, therefore, by which the bread that was made over into that Body is made to change into divine strength, a similar result now takes place. As in the former case, in which the grace of the Word made holy that body the substance of which is from bread, and in a certain manner is itself bread, so in this case too, the bread, as the Apostle says, "is consecrated by God's word and by prayer"; not through its being eaten does it advance to become the Body of the Word, but it is made over immediately into the Body by means of the word, just as was stated by the Word, "This is My Body!" …In the plan of His grace He spreads Himself to every believer by means of that Flesh, the substance of which is from wine and bread, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, so that by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may become a participant in incorruption. These things He bestows through the power of the blessing which transforms the nature of the visible things to that [of the Immortal]. (The Great Catechism 37)

The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ. So too the mystical oil, so too the wine; if they are things of little worth before the blessing, after their sanctification by the Spirit each of them has its own superior operation. This same power of the word also makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated from the generality of men by the new blessing bestowed upon him. (Sermon on the Day of Lights or On the Baptism of Christ)

He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.(Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ)


St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315 - 403 A.D.)

We see that the Savior took in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: "This is really Me." And He gave to His disciples and said: "This is really Me." And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, "This is really Me"; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of Savior. (The Man Well-Anchored 57)


Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 428 A.D.)

He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood," but "This is My Body and My Blood," teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood. (Commentary on Matthew 26:26)

It is proper, therefore, that 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 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 [that we should] receive them as they are, the Body and Blood of our Lord. We ought…not regard the [Eucharistic elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the Body and Blood of Christ, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit.(Catechetical Homilies 5)

[If we have sinned], the Body and Blood of our Lord…will strengthen us…if with diligence we do good works and turn from evil deeds and truly repent of the sins that befall us, undoubtedly we shall obtain the grace of the remission of our sins in our receiving of the holy Sacrament. (Catechetical Homilies 16)

At first [the offering] is laid upon the altar as mere bread, and wine mixed with water; but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into the Body and the Blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment. (Catechetical Homilies 16)


St. John Chrysostom (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)

When you see the Lord IMMOLATED and lying upon the ALTAR, and the priest bent over that SACRIFICE praying, and all the people empurpled by that PRECIOUS BLOOD, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (Priesthood 3:4:177)

Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)

Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His WORD be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect to the [Eucharistic] Mysteries, not looking only upon what is laid out before us, but taking heed also of His WORDS. For His WORD cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His WORD never failed; our senses err most of the time. When the WORD says, "THIS IS MY BODY," be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the REBIRTH and the RENEWAL….How many now say, "I wish I could see his shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals." ONLY LOOK! YOU SEE HIM! YOU TOUCH HIM! YOU EAT HIM! (Homilies on Matthew 82:4)

Take care, then, lest you too become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ [1 Cor 11:27]. They slaughtered His most holy body; but you, after such great benefits, receive HIM into a filthy soul. For it was not enough for Him to be made Man, to be struck and to be slaughtered, but He even mingles Himself with us; and this NOT BY FAITH ONLY, but even in every DEED He makes us His BODY. How very pure, then, ought he not be, who enjoys the benefit of this SACRIFICE? (82:5)

…if everywhere grace required worthiness, there could neither then be Baptism nor Body of Christ nor the sacrifice priests offer…..now He has transferred the priestly action [of ancient times] to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, He commands the offering up of Himself….What is that Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body….For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body….When you see [the Body of Christ] lying on the altar, say to yourself, "Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner, but free. Because of this Body I hope for heaven, and I hope to receive the good things that are in heaven, immortal life, the lot of the angels, familiar conversation with Christ. This Body, scourged and crucified, has not been fetched by death…This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood and the other of water, for all the world"…This is the Body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love; for those whom we kiss with abandon we often even bite with our teeth. (Homilies on Corinthians 8, 1[2]; 24, 2[3]; 24, 2[4]; 24, 4[7])

"So also was Christ offered once." [Hebrews 7-10] By whom was He offered? Quite evidently, by Himself. Here [Paul] shows that Christ was not Priest only, but also Victim and Sacrifice. Therein do we find the reason for the words "was offered." "He was offered once," [Paul] says, "to take away the sins of many." Why does he say of many and not of all? Because not all have believed. He did indeed die for all, for the salvation of all, which was His part….But He did not take away the sins of all men, because they did not will it….What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of His death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this Sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This Sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one Sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the Sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one Body. And just as He is one Body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one Sacrifice. (Homilies on Hebrews 17, 2[4]; 17, 3[6])

Not in vain was it decreed BY THE APOSTLES that in the awesome Mysteries remembrance should be made of the DEPARTED. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. For when the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome SACRIFICIAL VICTIM is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have DEPARTED in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf. (Homilies on Philippians 3:4)


Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400 A.D.)

A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he OFFERS THE SACRIFICE…A deacon does not bless. He does not bestow blessing, but he receives it from bishop and presbyter. He does not baptize; he does not OFFER THE SACRIFICE. When a bishop or a presbyter OFFERS THE SACRIFICE, he distributes to the laity, not as a priest, but as one who is ministering to priests. (8:28:2-4)


St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 333 - 397 A.D.)

We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered. (Commentaries on Psalms 38:25)

A priest must offer something in sacrifice and according to the Law he must enter the holy place through blood. Therefore, because God had repudiated the blood of bulls and of rams, it was necessary for this Priest, as you have read, to enter into the Holy of Holies, penetrating the heights of heaven, by means of His own blood, so that He might become an eternal oblation for our sins. Priest and Victim, therefore, are one and the same. But the priesthood and the sacrifice are a duty of the human condition; for like a lamb He was led to the slaughter, and He is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. (The Faith 3:11:87)

"My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly drink." You hear Him speak of His flesh, you hear Him speak of His blood, you know the sacred signs of the Lord's death; and do you worry about His divinity? Hear His words when he says: "A spirit has not flesh and bones." As often as we receive the sacramental elements which through the mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood of the Lord, we proclaim the death of the Lord. (The Faith 4:10:124)

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! Let us prove that this is not what nature has shaped it to be, but what the blessing has consecrated; for the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing even nature itself is changed…Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: "For our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink" (1 Cor 10:2-4; 15:44). For the body of God is a spiritual body. (The Mysteries 9:50; 9:58)

You may perhaps say: "My bread is ordinary." But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the things said beforehand, they are said by the priest; praises are referred to God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other persons; but when the time comes for the confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words but the words of Christ. Therefore it is the word of Christ that confects this Sacrament….Before it be consecrated it is bread; but where the words of Christ come in, it is the Body of Christ. Finally, hear Him saying: "All of you take and eat of this; for this is My Body." And before the words of Christ the chalice is full of wine and water; but where the words of Christ have been operative it is made the Blood of Christ, which redeems the people. (The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23)


St. Jerome (c. 347 - 420 A.D.)

Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the Apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ, and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians… (Letter of Jerome to Heliodorus)

The flesh and blood of Christ is understood in two ways; there is either the spiritual and divine way, by which He Himself said: "My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink"; and "Unless you shall have eaten my flesh and drunk my blood you shall not have eternal life." Or else there is the flesh and blood which was crucified and which was poured out by the soldier's lance. (Commentaries on Ephesians 1:1:7)

After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood. (Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26)


St. Augustine (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"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 [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Letter: Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

56 posted on 08/24/2021 2:46:15 AM PDT by Cronos ( One cannot desire freedom from the Cross, especially when one is especially chosen for the cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

You posted a lot there!


57 posted on 08/24/2021 8:24:38 AM PDT by Ken Regis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I read the first line and the last line of your extensive post.

I don’t see Psalm 98:9 quoted but I see the reference (misspelled) after an unfamiliar quote.

Could you clarify that for me?


58 posted on 08/24/2021 8:35:03 AM PDT by Ken Regis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
 
Two Hard Sayings in One Day – Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood
 

And two more on another day... 
Jesus’ insistence that the
'teachers of the law and the Pharisees' can actually swallow camels while being only the size of snakes!


Matthew 23:1-2,24,33
 
  1.  Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
  2.  The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

 24.  You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
 33.  You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
 
 

59 posted on 08/24/2021 8:43:39 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I think it's simple - Jesus said it so and repeated it three times So we must believe it

Jesus only said this once, so you can disobey it at will.

"Call no man father."

60 posted on 08/24/2021 8:45:16 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson