Eucharist Question

[Jeanette_L]

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp

I also wanted to provide the above link, I don’t believe it has been posted on this thread as of yet, in regards to the meaning of the cup of the vine which seems to be in question. I thought this would be helpful in understanding the Catholic theology, it is an interesting read in explaining the four cups of the Passover meal as understood by the Jewish tradition and what was the significance of Christ’s words regarding his not drinking the fourth cup of wine until the Kingdom was established.

 

[Jeanette_L]

As they always say on Relevant Radio, welcome home Jeanette!

I loved reading your conversion story. You showed courage in not giving up when your world fell apart. You took the words of Pope John Paul II to heart: “Be not afraid!”

Now you have the fullness of truth. I know you couldn’t be happier. I strayed from the faith for a few years and when I came back I really wanted to re-learn my faith and live it. Finding a parish with perpetual adoration really strengthened my faith. It has been my parish now for five years even though I’ve been going there for adoration for 13 years.

Congratulations again Jeanette and keep reading the Scriptures. St. Paul’s epistles never get old. You’ll be surprised just what else you see!

Thank you! And you are correct, I have a deeper happiness and courage in my faith that I have not had before, even through the trials that come from crossing the Tiber, as you can imagine!

It’s how I know it is real and true, I have not previously had this kind of underlying peace and strength that could have allowed me to endure the separation from family and friends and then joyfully press on. It’s God’s grace in abundance! :yup:

 

[CANman]

YES, since as we see in the Letter to the Hebrews, He is both Priest and Victim.

As Priest, He will be eating the Victim - because that’s what priests do. They Sacrifice the Victim (Jesus sacrificed Himself on the Altar of the Cross) and then they eat the Victim - which is what Jesus will be doing when He is celebrating the Heavenly Mass.

We need to remember that the Sacraments are only a foretaste of what Heaven will be like. Once we are in Heaven, the Sacraments will no longer be needed.

The Eucharist is a foretaste of communion with our God. Sibnce in heaven, we will see God ‘face to face’, and be in total communion with Him, the Sacrament will no longer needed. We WILL BE “IN THE VINE” totally.

 

[Thal59]

I think you missed the point. Jesus has just spoken the words “This is my blood” and then tells the disciples that He will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day…". The Lord immediately calls it wine again, not literal blood.

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this** fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom

Swiss Guard answers this beautifully starting with post #38. But there are two points I would like to add to this approach of yours Kaycee.

1. One cannot always try to determine verses on a strict one for one word basis. I recently had a debate with a non-denominational friend of mine. When I mentioned the passage in Matt 23 about the paying tithes on mint, anise, and cummin - my friend argued my point because his bible reads… you pay your tithes of mint, anise, and cummin. My friend insisted that the herbs mentioned were the currency that the tithe was being paid with! He felt he had disproved my point even though he has no knowledge whatsoever of the nature of the practice being discussed.
2. Matthew’s Gospel is somewhat disjointed. For instance, we know that Thomas doubted the Lord’s resurrection. To the best that I can discern, Thomas was the only one to doubt this way. Thomas’ apprehension evaporates when he touches the Lord’s wounds. So, it is safe to say that at this point, none of the apostles doubt the Lord in any way. All of this happens, of course, before the Lord’s ascension. Yet in Matthews Gospel, after the eleven Apostles - minus Judas - go to the mountain where the Lord is about to ascend, verse 17 reads…

“And when they saw Him they worshipped Him; but some doubted.”

It is highly unlikely that anyone doubted the Lord, especially after worshipping Him. Matthew’s Gospel does not record the “doubting Thomas” episode, so it appears that Matthew tries, literally at the last second, to record this reaction by one of the apostles by interjecting at the last minute that “some doubted.”

These two examples, and the question concerning “this fruit of the vine…” are good examples as to why sola scriptura tends to confuse and fail its adherents. Without an authorized magesterium to determine the issue, single misplaced or mistranslated words can gum-up one’s entire theology.

Thal59

 

[Montalban]

Why don’t we see what the guys the apostles taught thought about it. Oh yeah, they thought it was really his body and blood. I’ll take their word for it.

Indeed. I’ve posted this same evidence several times before as it seems every week this topic comes up anew.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

We take in the bread because it is no longer mere bread…

Epistle to the Ephesians

20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology writes…

"CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

See also CHAP. VIII of

TERTULLIAN

ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

 

[kaycee]

Indeed. I’ve posted this same evidence several times before as it seems every week this topic comes up anew.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

We take in the bread because it is no longer mere bread…

Epistle to the Ephesians

20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

Ignatius

Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection. Ignatius wrote:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.

We do not have to take the phrase “the Eucharist is the flesh” in a literalistic manner. As in everyday speech, as well as in the Bible, it could simply mean that the Eucharist represents the flesh of Christ. To illustrate, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

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." (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

 

[kaycee]

Augustine

"That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

First, looking at the context, it is clear that Augustine is using figurative language. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body. Clearly, he means that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” - the bread and the cup - the Lord presents his people with his body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).

He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).

[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).

The Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Jesus. Since the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, it is acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; therefore it is called the body even though it is not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language.

Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ.

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error" (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).

 

[kaycee]

Augustine

"That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

First, looking at the context, it is clear that Augustine is using figurative language. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body. Clearly, he means that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” - the bread and the cup - the Lord presents his people with his body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).

He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).

[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).

The Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Jesus. Since the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, it is acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; therefore it is called the body even though it is not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language.

Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ.

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error" (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Indeed. I’ve posted this same evidence several times before as it seems every week this topic comes up anew.
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
earlychristianwritings.co…lightfoot.html
Epistle to the Ephesians
20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.
earlychristianwritings.co…lightfoot.html

Ignatius
Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection. Ignatius wrote:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.

But unfortunately for you Ignatius says that it is real. He says so specifically. They do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus. Still it’s an interesting theory you have; when Ignatius says it’s real, to believe he means the exact opposite.
Even pagans observing early Christianity knew we were partaking in the ACTUAL BODY. Pagans used as a criticism of Christians that they, (Christians that is), were cannibals (see the article “Why Early Christians Were So Despised” at
chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps139.shtml

 

[Montalban]

We do not have to take the phrase “the Eucharist is the flesh” in a literalistic manner. As in everyday speech, as well as in the Bible, it could simply mean that the Eucharist represents the flesh of Christ.

It could, but that’s not an argument. The Gospels say it is real. Jesus Himself said it is real. He’s in fact questioned on this and asked for clarification, and He confirms the literalness of it.

In John 6: 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If
anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **
(they are here asking Him if He is being literal, and He confirms that He is…)
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever 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 real food and my blood is real drink.** 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Note again the Jews took Him to mean a literal eating of His flesh, verse 52. Jesus confirms this interpretation. He says in truth. He says (55) “My
flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”

Jesus goes to great lengths here to confirm that it is a real meal. St. Paul confirmed this by stating that the Eucharist is not a communal get
together to eat and be merry.

1 Corinthians 11
The Lord’s Supper
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.

Paul says it too! He says that if you’re just after a meal, eat at home. The nature of this ‘meal’ is different.

In short, when Ignatius says it’s real, you ‘suppose’ that it isn’t. You make the supposition that it could be interpreted differently, ignoring that Jesus said it was real, and that Paul said it was real. In fact they’re all saying it’s real, but you believe otherwise.

 

[Montalban]

To illustrate, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

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." (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

Your quotes from Tertullian “Against Marcion” Book 4, Chapter XL (ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-31.htm#P5230_1636728) are simply to refute Marcion who held that the Body of Christ is not real. What you are doing here is attempting an argument out of context you accuse me re: Ignatius combating Docetism.

He confirms it’s a real ‘eating’ just as our own bodies are real and in need of sustenance
“the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ”
Tertullian, ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH, Chapter VIII
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Augustine

"That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

First, looking at the context, it is clear that Augustine is using figurative language. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body. Clearly, he means that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” - the bread and the cup - the Lord presents his people with his body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

To an Orthodox understanding that we partake in Christ to deify ourselves.
“For the son of god became man so that we might become god” The ‘figurative’ nature of the language is that we are of one flesh, as God became flesh through Christ so that we may partake in Him; by taking Christ upon us.
as per…
2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

 

[Thal59]

KAYCEE:

I love the way you have it figured out. It amazes me how people will define what St.Ignatius or Augustine said so many centuries ago, but they never tell us why the people who knew them do not support your interpretation, or why these people belonged all their life to a church that preached the “real” presence when they themselves, according to you, believe it is all symbolic.

To make the issue simple: Show me one quote from the church fathers that states something along the following lines…

“The bread and wine of the Eucharist is NOT the true body and blood of Christ, but merely a symbol of it.”

Show me this anywhere, Kaycee, and I’ll believe you.

Thal59

 

[visavismeyou]

Augustine

"That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed. Saying that cold clammy skin is a sign of shock is not saying that cold clammy skin is symbolically referring to “shock”.

Augustine said: “It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood “these things” being the bread and wine], which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins.”

This, taken with many other times he spoke of the sacrifice of Christ and Transubstantiation, very clearly display that Augustine believed in Transubstantiation. You see, Christ **did not **symbolically “shed” his body for us on the cross, thus, the bread and wine **are not **merely symbols of Christ’s body and blood.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Let me add my two cents into this discussion.
If anyone knows about the Jewish passover ceremony, there are four cups that are drank. IE, the second is called the cup of blessing. Jesus stopped at the third cup and all went out into the garden where he was taken prisoner. This would be odd for a Jew to interupt the ceremony and leave. The expectation would be that He would be coming back. My understanding is that the Passover was still continuing and only ends when the final cup is drank which was when he drank what was offered by the Roman guard. Jesus said “it is finished”. What was finished? It was the institution of the New Covenant, the beginning of the Church in our time. It is the cup of the New Covenant poured out in His Blood. So the passover is really a continuating liturgy that starts out here on earth and continues in heaven where the Lamb is on the alter looking as if it is slain (Revelation).