No, He would not have, if transubstantiation is to believed. If one studies the ideas of Aristotle from which the RCC formed the idea of transubstantiation, the appearance of a thing is a moot point. Transubstantiation teaches you are indeed drinking blood.
Transubtiantiation was coined by the CC. It is strange for you to quote it against us as Catholics and Protestants don’t follow Mosaic dietary laws. You should be making a case for the Jews instead as they do not believe in transubstantiation. Since they do not believe it, they have no case against Jesus because they didn’t “see” the flesh and blood for it to qualify. Indeed the same as your logic.
Quite the contrary, He gave us the scriptures, the very word of God to tell us of these things. There are quite clear writings calling Jesus water, a door, a vine, light, etc… and that is very plain as well. They are also symbolic. He was very clear how we participate in His life, and how we consume the Word.
The topic is on the Real Presence. How all 3 Gospel writers wrote about it and the actual eating of it. None of them described it as symbolic. Please keep to the subject proper. Introducing extraneous topics like vines, door and such has no bearing on the subject proper. When he declares the bread is his body, we don’t know how he did it. We don’t expect to know how he raise people from the dead either. The question is do you have faith when God says it is his body, it actually is. And not questioning God whether he mean something else. Bringing in the vines and door is a typical tactic when one don’t wish to deal deeply with the subject proper. All you are saying is that there are cases of symbolic language and therefore this is a case of symbolic language without having to prove it. When Jesus said he is the vine he tied that with us being the branches. No one is scandalize by this. When Jesus said he is the door, no one is mistaking him to be an actual door. When Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood , that was a scandal! Disciples leaving en masse. If that wasn’t a scandal and merely a figure of speech, why did they leave? Jesus didn’t even proffer an explanation to say that it was all symbols and figure of speech.
That is simply not the case. Paul certainly didn’t consider the piece of bread to be Jesus Himself. Nor did many of the early church fathers, nor was it recorded as such in the Didache.
You have not proven your case. See 1 Cor 11:23-26 again. On the Church Fathers, you need to disclose the many Church fathers that did not believe in the Real Presence. I doubt you have many/any.
Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly said, “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity”
And he includes Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian as well. We also have on record Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Aphraahat the Persian Sage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine.
Council of Niceae 1 Canon 18: It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer.
Even before the New Testament was finalized, this Church Council already spoke about the communion of the Body of Christ. You can’t quote your Bible at all when it didn’t exist.
Council of Ephesus
Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody worship [sacrificii servitutem] in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh [corpus] and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. This we receive not as ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to the Word by union of honour, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and real flesh of the Word.
I presume you accept the proclamations of the 2 Councils.
I assume you have read the Didache since you quoted it. Let me quote:
On the Lord’s own day, when you gather together, break bread and give thanks [Or: celebrate the eucharist] after you have confessed your unlawful deeds, that your sacrifice may be pure.
If it is just ordinary bread why go through confession? If you understand the meaning of the Eucharist, you will understand that the Lord was the sacrifice and it is a pure sacrifice. You have to confess your sins before eating ordinary bread?
“Let no one quarreling with his neighbor join you until they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled”. Do not profane the Lord! Same as what Paul said. How do you defile ordinary bread?
The Didache teaches that one must confess our sins before partaking the body and blood of Christ lest we defile Him.
. Perhaps you can find time to reflect why your answers fell short.
