Did the Church Fathers teach transubstantiation?

[Markie_Boy]

Below is from the onefold link in the first post. Any comments?

“It is interesting to think about how central the sacrifice of the mass is in Catholicism, and yet nowhere in early church do we find direct reference to it; only obscure evidence that, when taken in context, proves to be evidence to the contrary.”

And this quote from Clement in that article is profound:

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. 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…” (ibid)

 

[Church_Militant]

Those guys are all out to lunch. Even if what they dug up selective quotes they cannot deny what the Bible actually says because Our Lord and St. Paul both taught it…

See my blog article. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

and these from CA…Did Tertullian and St. Augustine Deny the Real Presence?
Is the Eucharist Truly Jesus’ Body and Blood?

 

[Markie_Boy]

I am in this in between, not able to fully see the eucharist as the church teaches it, but not willing to stand and deny it either.

Why is it so hard, and not so clear? And why do so many well educated theologically deny it?

One thing - if it is the true body of Christ it would be the most powerful thing on this earth in my mind. Yet I see so many I know take it every week, but their lives do not reflect it.

Thanks all for putting up with me.

 

[Gorgias]

And why do so many well educated theologically deny it?

My gut feeling is that, if Reformation theologians accepted the Eucharist, they would be forced to admit that a priesthood is necessary in order to confect the Eucharist. And since the priesthood requires a hierarchy (no priest is a ‘free agent’ – all exist in a connection through their bishop), it would be necessary to admit to a hierarchy of bishops. Therefore, to admit that the Eucharist really is the Real Presence is tantamount to admitting that the Catholic Church is necessary. And that just ain’t gonna happen.

So, whether this is a conscious or subconscious knowledge, I’m not going to speculate. However, the implications are clear enough: a Reformation theologian would have to abandon his theological grounds (and denomination (?)) in order to stand with the Eucharist

 

[Mintaka]

Markie Boy noted this quote from the link:

“It is interesting to think about how central the sacrifice of the mass is in Catholicism, and yet nowhere in early church do we find direct reference to it; only obscure evidence that, when taken in context, proves to be evidence to the contrary.”

It is interesting to note that the Roman Empire totally outlawed the Mass, that people got arrested and executed just for attending; and yet purely symbolic ritual meals were totally allowed by Roman law, from symposia and guild functions to Mithraic banquets and Passover.

St. Justin Martyr comes right out and gives a blunt explanation of Mass in his Apologia directed to the Emperor and the Roman Senate, because he was a philosopher and because direct petitions were traditionally somewhat protected. He was apparently criticized by later writers for breaking the “Disciplina Arcana” of not talking about Mass Club, and thus not strewing pearls before ravenous, man-eating swine.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechism classes had to swear an oath not to reveal the words of the Lord’s Prayer, for goodness’ sake! And that was in times when Christianity was legal, and when he had to lecture people on not becoming Christian because it was fashionable, and all your important bosses were doing it!

In short, it is interesting to read the early Christian Fathers with your eyes open and paying attention. This link guy seems pretty ignorant.

 

[Church_Militant]

I am in this in between, not able to fully see the eucharist as the church teaches it, but not willing to stand and deny it either.

Why is it so hard, and not so clear? And why do so many well educated theologically deny it?

One thing - if it is the true body of Christ it would be the most powerful thing on this earth in my mind. Yet I see so many I know take it every week, but their lives do not reflect it.

Thanks all for putting up with me.

This miracle does not stop us from being human, with the frailties that includes.

What did you expect…perfection? Do you see any of that in the n-Cs that you know?

I am far from perfect, but I can assure you that I am a far better Christian (and I have been a non-Catholic) because of my Catholic faith and most especially the Eucharist.

N-C theologians have to deny this because during the reformation, in separating themselves from the Catholic Church they lost connection to the apostolic succession and so also to the ministerial priesthood that alone can consecrate the Eucharist and absolve confessed sins. Since their congregations were coming from the Catholic faith they had to formulate a system to invalidate these things because the people would see them a deficiencies otherwise. See my article, My Reformation Theory

 

[CB_Catholic]

I am in this in between, not able to fully see the eucharist as the church teaches it, but not willing to stand and deny it either.

Why is it so hard, and not so clear? And why do so many well educated theologically deny it?

One thing - if it is the true body of Christ it would be the most powerful thing on this earth in my mind. Yet I see so many I know take it every week, but their lives do not reflect it.

Thanks all for putting up with me.

You are right that most of us do not live lives that reflect Jesus–either occasionally, or continually. Every single one of us has failed Him in some way. But the thing to be greatly appreciated here is that Jesus offers his flesh and blood to everyone, knowing that we are not perfect. So to look at others and say their lives don’t reflect Jesus, should prompt us to look at our own lives and see where we don’t reflect Jesus, because all of us have sinned and need to repent, and then thank Him for His gift of the Eucharist to sinners like us.

This Eucharist, this Body and Blood of our Savior is His great gift to us. It is what he left for us so that after He ascended He would still be with us in a physical way until he comes again. He said He would not abandon us or leave us orphans.

God is omnipotent, so it cannot be denied that it can be done, and He can change a piece of bread and a cup of wine into His Body and Blood, and yet leave the appearances unchanged, so we humans can accept it. And if one is so disposed, this presence of Jesus can effect a marvelous change in us and bring us closer to Christ.

 

[Markie_Boy]

I am going to ask you guys to help me with a few other things too.

But staying on topic - he did say “Do this in memory of me.” That can be twisted too I know, as to that he did not say to consume my flesh and have life in you, but just to remember remember Him.

Any thoughts?

 

[CB_Catholic]

I am going to ask you guys to help me with a few other things too.

But staying on topic - he did say “Do this in memory of me.” That can be twisted too I know, as to that he did not say to consume my flesh and have life in you, but just to remember remember Him.

Any thoughts?

Here is a discussion about this on CAF from 2005 which may be helpful to you, and also help you understand what the word “memory” meant to the Jews at that time in the context of the Last Supper.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88426

 

[MT1926]

I am in this in between, not able to fully see the eucharist as the church teaches it, but not willing to stand and deny it either.

Why is it so hard, and not so clear? And why do so many well educated theologically deny it?

One thing - if it is the true body of Christ it would be the most powerful thing on this earth in my mind. Yet I see so many I know take it every week, but their lives do not reflect it.

Thanks all for putting up with me.

Well the only answer I can give you is because we are fallible human beings. Sometimes we just need to trust what has been handed down from the Church Fathers. As for the why isn’t so clear, I think for some it is crystal clear, for others, like myself it isn’t. Now I understand the Eucharist and understand and believe the Biblical text behind the Eucharist. I just don’t get that deep in the gut feeling at mass that would give me the clarity you mention.

As for the well educated theologians denial, that is quite simple. Nobody reads the Bible like a blank slate. We all come from a particular background and as soon as we start reading we already know where we want the story to take us. We can easily read whatever we want into the Bible. This is the reason why the Church’s teachings and the Church Fathers are so vital to our salvation. I am reading a book called Handed Down that states For Christians history matters, we cannot ignore the foundation of our faith and still call ourselves Christians. Just think about it. People that were there at the time and present to see the miracles Jesus performed still turned away from him. Do you honestly believe we can turn towards Jesus 2000 years later without being given the knowledge of those that came before us. Unless I believe the writings of the men in the Church before us what reasoning do I have to believe the Bible is true?

 

[Richca]

Seriously searching on this one, no offense please.

If he is speaking literally, did he literally say in 6:63-64 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

What do you make of this statement please? This is a hard one for me to not see as Jesus clarifying he didn’t mean to literally eat his flesh.

In 6:67 when He asked “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

This was in alignment with what Jesus said in 6:63. Peter didn’t say you alone have the flesh of eternal life, but the words.

When Jesus says “the flesh is of no avail” he does not mean not to eat his body and drink his blood for that would be to contradict what he just previously said that he is the bread of life and that his body is real food and his blood real drink and that whoever eats his body and drinks his blood has eternal life. When Jesus says “the flesh is of no avail,” he does not mean that his body, flesh, and blood is of no avail. For at the Last Supper, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and said “This is my body which shall be given up for you.” And he took the chalice of wine and said “This is my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant which shall be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The sacrifice of Jesus’ body and the pouring out of his blood in his passion and crucifixtion is the price of our redemption. We are saved not with the blood of goats and calves “but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12).

Accordingly, that the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) avails us of much, even our eternal salvation. The humanity of Christ is as it were the instrument of his Godhead, his divine nature, and it is by partaking of the body and blood of Christ that Jesus bestows on us eternal life, that is, the spiritual life of grace and a participation in the divine nature. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth…And from His fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (John 1: 14,16).

“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” By these words we may understand that some of the listeners of Jesus’ bread of life discourse in John 6, understood that Jesus’ flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, not as it is quickened or animated by the spirit or soul. So, Jesus says “It is the spirit that gives life.” For it is the spirit or soul that animates the human body and makes it a living body, the body of itself is lifeless. But Jesus is not just talking about our natural life in which the soul animates the body, but of the supernatural life of grace, eternal life, a participation in the divine nature which is bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit and by eating the literal flesh and drinking the blood of Christ which is at it were the channel or instrument through which God bestows on us the spiritual life of grace. For the humanity of Christ is inseparably joined to his Godhead or divinity and God is the source of all life. So, by the words “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” I think Jesus intends a spiritual meaning to these words over and above the natural meaning he gives to them in reference to our soul and body and his listeners probably didn’t understand it. Even the apostles didn’t always understand what Jesus said for they did not always understand the spiritual meaning of some of Jesus’ words and parables.

 

[Duane1966]

“It is interesting to think about how central the sacrifice of the mass is in Catholicism, and yet nowhere in early church do we find direct reference to it; only obscure evidence that, when taken in context, proves to be evidence to the contrary.”

Really, how early do they need? If the following is not direct reference to it, then what is it referring to?

The Didache

“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Pope Clement I

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood,** and one single altar of sacrifice**—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

"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 [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [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 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“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 [A.D. 253]).

Serapion

"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12–16 [A.D. 350]).

By the way in just skimming onefold, I found this particularly hilarious, they highlight the symbolic part, but the next sentence Origen calls it true meat for those that eat of it.

Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

Origen just said Jesus became flesh, no reason to call it TRUE MEAT if it is just symbolic. How can eating a symbol give us eternal life?

 

[Church_Militant]

I am going to ask you guys to help me with a few other things too.

But staying on topic - he did say “Do this in memory of me.” That can be twisted too I know, as to that he did not say to consume my flesh and have life in you, but just to remember remember Him.

Any thoughts?

Actually you’re wrong about that. Note here exactly what Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ did say.

***John 6:[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” ***

 

[Markie_Boy]

It seems like Catholics always stop short and don’t include this part of the passage:

If he is speaking literally, did he literally say in 6:63-64 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

What do you make of this statement please? This is a hard one for me to not see as Jesus clarifying he didn’t mean to literally eat his flesh.

I’d love to receive communion tomorrow if my heart and mind were there. Actually my heart keeps leading me that way, but my mind isn’t yet.

 

[twf]

It seems like Catholics always stop short and don’t include this part of the passage:

If he is speaking literally, did he literally say in 6:63-64 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

What do you make of this statement please? This is a hard one for me to not see as Jesus clarifying he didn’t mean to literally eat his flesh.

I’d love to receive communion tomorrow if my heart and mind were there. Actually my heart keeps leading me that way, but my mind isn’t yet.

Yet elsewhere in the passage Our Lord says that the bread of Heaven is His FLESH given for the world (v 51). So clearly His Flesh, which Catholics believe is the Eucharist, does indeed avail salvation. He can’t in one breath say that the bread of heaven given for the world is His flesh and then immediately after say that flesh is useless. Protestants believe that He literally took physical flesh and literally died. Clearly the flesh matters. Our Lord is saying those who think in terms of the sinful flesh (in the sense St Paul often uses the phrase- our sinful nature) will not grasp these mysteries. Only in our spirit, United to the Holy Spirit, can we accept these awesome truths. The Eucharist is the mystical continuation of the incarnation. God became flesh and dwelt among us, as St John’s gospel tells us. That same Mystical Union of God and matter, of God and flesh, that began in the Blessed Virgin’s womb continues amongst us in the Church His mystical body.

Regarding the mass as sacrifice, others have included some good Patristric insights. Have you looked at Hebrews 13:10? The sacred writer speaks of a Christian altar from which those who minister at the Jewish temple have no right to partake. There is a direct parallel made between the Jewish altar of sacrifice, from which Jews eat, and the Christian altar from which we eat. Revelation also shows us that there is an altar in heaven (Rev. 8:3). What is the point of an altar if no sacrifice is offered? John also sees Christ as a “lamb slain” (Rev. 5:6) standing before the throne. Catholics believe Christ’s sacrifice is perpetually present before the Father on the heavenly altar. This one perfect sacrifice is made present on our earthly altars at mass by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gorgias]

It seems like Catholics always stop short and don’t include this part of the passage:

If he is speaking literally, did he literally say in 6:63-64 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

What do you make of this statement please? This is a hard one for me to not see as Jesus clarifying he didn’t mean to literally eat his flesh.

A few thoughts to ponder:

If Jesus was really offering a correction (that is, that He didn’t really mean ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’), then He was doing so in response to his disciples who said “this teaching is hard!”. If that’s the case, then we would expect that they would’ve replied, “oh! you didn’t mean it literally? Cool!” and they would’ve stayed with Him. However, John reports that this is exactly the opposite of what their reaction was – they couldn’t abide by His teaching, and left him. If Jesus was saying “my bad – I didn’t mean what you thought you heard”… then why did they leave Him?

On the other hand, Jesus affirmed that “my words are spirit and life.” What words is He talking about here? It would seem that He’s affirming that His words – “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or else you have no life within you” – are actually what give life! In other words, they were having a hard time believing Him because they were looking at His body – that is, his ‘flesh’ – and were having a hard time discerning his ‘spirit’. Since they couldn’t see that He is God, they were unable to hear His life-giving words. Therefore, He responded that they should disregard his flesh and try to actually hear the import of his words. They couldn’t do that… so they left Him.

When Jesus asks the same question of His apostles – “will you leave me, too?” – Peter responds that they are able to look past his human body and recognize his divine words: “to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!”

 

[twf]

The Orthodox Churches believe in the Real Presence, but do not ‘teach’ transubstantiation. They just trust and God and believe that it happens.

All ancient churches profess belief in the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic liturgy: Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian), and Assyrian Church of the East (which strongly testifies to this being the ancient faith of the Church as the Assyrians were beyond the borders of the Roman Empire in distant Persia).

 

[Micosil]

My gut feeling is that, if Reformation theologians accepted the Eucharist, they would be forced to admit that a priesthood is necessary in order to confect the Eucharist. And since the priesthood requires a hierarchy (no priest is a ‘free agent’ – all exist in a connection through their bishop), it would be necessary to admit to a hierarchy of bishops. Therefore, to admit that the Eucharist really is the Real Presence is tantamount to admitting that the Catholic Church is necessary. And that just ain’t gonna happen.

So, whether this is a conscious or subconscious knowledge, I’m not going to speculate. However, the implications are clear enough: a Reformation theologian would have to abandon his theological grounds (and denomination (?)) in order to stand with the Eucharist

I take issue with the bolded part. As twf says in the post quoted below, multiple non-Catholic Churches that have managed to mostly keep it together and retain true Apostolic Succession in their episcopate (bishops) can all validly confect the Eucharist. So while I do agree that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded (the one He speaks of in Matthew 16), the Catholic Church isn’t necessary for valid sacraments, the Real Presence, etc. All that is needed is a church whose bishops can legitimately say “I go back to one of Christ’s Apostles”, that is, they have true Apostolic Succession.

All ancient churches profess belief in the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic liturgy: Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian), and Assyrian Church of the East (which strongly testifies to this being the ancient faith of the Church as the Assyrians were beyond the borders of the Roman Empire in distant Persia).

Markie Boy, you’ll note that among the mainstream branches of Christianity, it is only Protestantism that denies the sacramental priesthood, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Sacraments (excluding baptism, which Protestants do seem to validly perform), etc. Don’t you think that is rather curious?

 

[Duane1966]

It seems like Catholics always stop short and don’t include this part of the passage:

If he is speaking literally, did he literally say in 6:63-64 "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe."

What do you make of this statement please? This is a hard one for me to not see as Jesus clarifying he didn’t mean to literally eat his flesh.

I’d love to receive communion tomorrow if my heart and mind were there. Actually my heart keeps leading me that way, but my mind isn’t yet.

I found this interesting from Father Ryan Erlenbush:

There are four reasons why our Savior’s words in John 6:26-72 cannot be understood as an analogy or a metaphor. Among these, the second is perhaps rather unknown. [all four reasons come from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]

1. From the nature of the words used One specially notes the realistic expressions “true” and “real” referring to the “food” and “drink” which is our Savior’s body and blood. Likewise, we note the concrete expressions employed to denote the reception of this Sacrament: the Greek word commonly translated as “to eat” is more literally “to gnaw upon” or “to chew”. The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. …] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:52,56).

1. From the biblical usage of the figure “to eat one’s flesh” In the language of the Bible, to eat another’s flesh or to drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him, to bring him to ruin and to destroy him. Thus, if Christ tells the Jews that we all must eat his flesh and drink his blood,** and if he means this metaphorically, we would be led to conclude (following the witness of Sacred Scripture) that our Savior intends us to reject him.**

Consider how the metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood functions in the Scriptures: Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. (Psalm 26:2)

By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Isaiah 9:19-20)

And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine. (Isaiah 49:26)

You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. (Micah 3:2-3)

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. …] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. (James 5:1,3)

And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)

1. From the reactions of the listeners The listeners understand Jesus to be speaking in literal truth – How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53) – and Jesus does not correct them, as he had done previously in the case of misunderstandings (cf. John 3,3; 4:32; Matthew 16:6). In this case, on the contrary, he confirms their literal acceptance of his words at the risk that his disciples and his apostles might desert him. Indeed, our Savior is willing to test his apostles on this point: Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? (John 6:68)

1. From the interpretation of the Fathers and the Magisterium Finally, we can recognize that this text is not to be understood as a metaphor from the interpretation of the Fathers, who ordinarily take the last section of the Bread of Life Discourse as referring to the Eucharist (e.g. St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexander, St. Augustine, et al.). Moreover, the interpretation of the Council of Trent confirms this. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life In John 6:64, Jesus does not reject the literal interpretation, but only the grossly sensual interpretation. Our Savior insists that the Eucharist is spirit and life insofar as it gives life. For the body we receive in the Eucharist is not dead flesh, but profits us unto eternal life.

So St. Augustine says, “This Flesh alone profiteth not, but let the Spirit be joined to the Flesh, and It profiteth greatly. For if the Flesh profiteth nothing, the Word would not have become Flesh.” The same (lib. 10, de. Civit. Dei) says, “The Flesh of itself cleanseth not, but through the Word by which it hath been assumed.”

And S. Cyril, “If the Flesh be understood alone, it is by no means able to quicken, forasmuch as it needs a Quickener, but because it is conjoined with the life-giving Word, the whole is made life-giving. For the Word of God being joined to the corruptible nature does not lose Its virtue, but the Flesh itself is lifted up to the power of the higher nature. Therefore, although the nature of flesh as flesh cannot quicken; still it doth this because it hath received the whole operation of the Word.”

By the way, Catholicism never stops short.

 

[Gorgias]

I take issue with the bolded part. As twf says in the post quoted below, multiple non-Catholic Churches that have managed to mostly keep it together and retain true Apostolic Succession in their episcopate (bishops) can all validly confect the Eucharist.

Yep – I’m cool with that.

Maybe a better way for me to say it, then, is that they’d have to agree that Reformation theology is deficient in terms of what the Eucharist implies with respect to its assertions, in contradiction to the traditions held by Catholics and Orthodox, dating from the founding of the Church. Fair enough?