Your friend may be right…the Fathers may not be as “unanimous” on the particulars as we Catholics would “like to think they are.” For instance, they didn’t always use the same terminology and same concepts from location to location and century to century when they discussed the topic.My one Protestant friend claims that the Early Church’s thoughts on Real Presence in the Eucharist are not as unanimous as Catholics like to think they are.
Not to be unkind.This is an extremely dangerous website. It is meant to lure faithful Catholics outside of the Church. Just take a look at the website title. His teaching is about the perpetual virginity of Mary is not right. His believes that this belief is the invention of human minds. If only he knew that she was inspoused to the Holy Spirit and did not have any other children.
He doesn’t know that the Early Fathers taught that there is purgatory.
He doesn’t even understand the Rosary.
He confuses tradition with his own interpretations that have lasted for only 500 years.
This is dangerous!
As others have pointed out, Tertullian and Augstine have been taken out of context.My one Protestant friend claims that the Early Church’s thoughts on Real Presence in the Eucharist are not as unanimous as Catholics like to think they are.
justforcatholics.org/a179.htm
Anything I could say in response to him?
How can one feed on a mere symbol? Tertullian is saying that we are actually nourished by His body and blood.“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
These men affirmed transubstantiation. Moreover, transubstantiation does not preclude symbolism. A symbol is simply something that has a particular meaning derived from cultural consensus. St. Paul said that whenever we eat His flesh and drink His blood we proclaim His death. The Eucharist is a message to the world.“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
So?I believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus, but transubstantiation? The host taste like bread, the wine taste like wine.
And what words did Jesus speak? He spoke that his flesh is real food. That is his blood is real drink. That those that eat his flesh (“gnaw” his flesh in the original Greek) have life within them. When some of disciples objected that Jesus couldn’t possibly mean that they had to really eat his flesh and drink his blood, Jesus didn’t agree with them and say he was only speaking symbolically. Instead, he let them depart from his company.Could it not be like Jesus said? (John 6:63) ‘It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
Well Jesus said spirit that gives life, the flesh had nothing to offer. Could he have not been saying that his flesh had nothing to offer, but his spiritual self is what gives life? Is not the Eucharist spiritual food, so why, if he said flesh had nothing to offer would he give us his flesh, it was not spiritual?So?
And what words did Jesus speak? He spoke that his flesh is real food. That is his blood is real drink. That those that eat his flesh (“gnaw” his flesh in the original Greek) have life within them. When some of disciples objected that Jesus couldn’t possibly mean that they had to really eat his flesh and drink his blood, Jesus didn’t agree with them and say he was only speaking symbolically. Instead, he let them depart from his company.
– Mark L. Chance.
From my own reflection about it, it more than affirms Transubstantiation, as indeed when the priest consecrates the host and wine, the Spirit blesses them and “gives them life”. So Jesus’ Presence in the consecrated host and wine is very real, as it is the Spirit that gives life. So in a very real way then, His flesh has much to offer, as this is the nourishment that we get. This affirmation can be seen in the rest of the passage: He let go of the 60. Why would He do that if He is speaking in symbolic terms? He is morally obliged to come after them and explain, as He said Himself that He is the Truth. Though the Eucharist is spiritual food, it is also very physical. The Early Fathers see the Eucharist to be both physically real, and spiritually real.Well Jesus said spirit that gives life, the flesh had nothing to offer. Could he have not been saying that his flesh had nothing to offer, but his spiritual self is what gives life? Is not the Eucharist spiritual food, so why, if he said flesh had nothing to offer would he give us his flesh, it was not spiritual?
Again I would like to confirm that I know that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but does it not make much sense that it is just spiritual? Besides will it change anything or will we lose any benefit if we don’t believe in transubstantiation?From my own reflection about it, it more than affirms Transubstantiation, as indeed when the priest consecrates the host and wine, the Spirit blesses them and “gives them life”. So Jesus’ Presence in the consecrated host and wine is very real, as it is the Spirit that gives life. So in a very real way then, His flesh has much to offer, as this is the nourishment that we get. This affirmation can be seen in the rest of the passage: He let go of the 60. Why would He do that if He is speaking in symbolic terms? He is morally obliged to come after them and explain, as He said Himself that He is the Truth. Though the Eucharist is spiritual food, it is also very physical. The Early Fathers see the Eucharist to be both physically real, and spiritually real.
Then you would be contradicting yourself, since if you truly believe the Eucharist to be His Body and Blood, it has to be both physical and spiritual. Reducing it to merely spiritual would, in essence, be making it into a mere symbol, one which the Church does not totally agree with.Again I would like to confirm that I know that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but does it not make much sense that it is just spiritual?
As I’ve stated, it would then be reduced to a mere symbol. The Church affirms that Jesus’ Presence in the Eucharist is real physically and spiritually. Jesus in John 6 spoke of it as not merely spiritual, but physical. If it’s merely spiritual, then He would not have set His foot down and let go of the 60, and even willing to let go of the 12. A merely spiritual food would not be an affront to the Jews nor would it cause much dissent among His Disciples. The fact that it caused them much distress, and Jesus not wavering in His stance, affirms that it is not merely spiritual food nor is it a symbol, but is very much a physical reality.Besides will it change anything or will we lose any benefit if we don’t believe in transubstantiation?
Certainly not, since if that’s the case then He would still be obliged to explain it in spiritual terms to the 12. He didn’t. He was more than willing to let them go as well. This is the only time that Jesus did not even explain it to the 12. His words only? As I have stated in my previous post, such a thing would not be an affront to the Jews nor to His Disciples. Jesus is the Truth, and He was morally obliged to go after them to explain what He meant were He talking about His words as food. It wasn’t just His words that He meant, but something more. The Apostles knew this. The Early Fathers knew this. Are you saying now that the Early Fathers were wrong all along, when they have affirmed Jesus spoke of the Eucharist as not merely spiritual, but actually physical?I think those who left Jesus when He said these things didn’t have “ears to hear”.
Yes-Again I would like to confirm that I know that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but does it not make much sense that it is just spiritual? Besides will it change anything or will we lose any benefit if we don’t believe in transubstantiation?
Isn’t what you are telling me about church law just what Cults do and say? You believe what I say or else.Yes-
Ken
- Transubstantiation is a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith that you MUST believe.
- Failure of belief in this dogma places you outside the Church - excommunicated ipso-facto.
- You are declared “Anathema” by the Council of Trent. Until you recant of this heresy you are denied reception of Holy Communion.
- For making such heretical statement, “I do not believe in Transubstantiation” here in public forum you need to go to confession.
Choosing religion based on your own personal insights and feelings that go against what the Church has always taught. It is the same with practicing homosexuals who need to feed their own desires over what the Church teaches.As a Celiac, I have been battling with this teaching myself for a few years now.
I have such a hard time accepting that, until the recent low-gluten hosts from the Benedictine nuns in Missouri, there was no safe way for a Celiac to receive communion. How can I accept the teaching on transubstantiation? Yes, the accidents remain, but how can the Eucharist feed the soul if it kills the body? I cannot receive from the cup either as there is a small piece of host in it too. There are a few parishes that will pour a bit of wine in a seperate cup, but most parishes will not do this, and had I not this special host now (which, throughout history, no one had) I would not be able to receive at all.
Another thought that plagues me: “my words are spirit and truth”. Bearing this in mind, and knowing that the “accidents” still remain, and that the “flesh profit nothing”, I believe the Eucharist is spiritual food. Why would we need to literally eat of something in order to have eternal life?
In John 6:35 Jesus said: 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
I think this verse is very key to understanding the rest of John 6 and the Eucharist. And the last: 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
One thing I can tell you in all honesty, that in all the time I have been unable to receive communion, and now since I had decided to leave the Catholic church while I ponder these things, I have been fed marvelously upon His Word. His words truly are spirit and life, and you don’t have to search the world over to find them (like I had to in order to find a special host), nor do you have to live in an era of technological advances in order to have access to them (as Celiacs have had to do in order to receive safely). I don’t have to wait for a mass to attend in order to receive my nourishment. Use a concordance and do a study on the Word and see how much God has tried to impress upon us the importance of His Word.
I think those who left Jesus when He said these things didn’t have “ears to hear”. It wasn’t a parable he needed to explain. Jesus plainly says that his words are spirit and life - all after telling us that his flesh and blood give life.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of any of this. These are just my thoughts, of which I admittedly see problems with. I happened to have thought a lot about this when I awoke this morning and wanted to add some of my own 2cents to the discussion.
No. Open Scripture for yourself and Jesus Himself says the same.Isn’t what you are telling me about church law just what Cults do and say? You believe what I say or else.