I Stepped In It!

[susanlo]

I’m disappointed.

You didn’t open up and read the internal links to #34 :coffeeread:

Please open up the links inside #34

That’s not history, but somebody’s justification for division. Guess what? It’s condemned in scripture. The Protestant revolt was condemned in the 16th century as division was condemned by the apostles. No difference.

That was all shown scripturally in #34 . Please open the links

I don’t think I stated anything that conflicts with your post. I said that the church was considered 'c’atholic in the early centuries, later it became 'C’atholic when other churches were around. The doctrines and ideas changed over the centuries, but the term catholic remained. I don’t think many disagree with this.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t think I stated anything that conflicts with your post. I said that the church was considered 'c’atholic in the early centuries, later it became 'C’atholic when other churches were around. The doctrines and ideas changed over the centuries, but the term catholic remained. I don’t think many disagree with this.

Your answer proves you didn’t read the links I gave from primary sources.

 

[Church_Militant]

Augustine was a catholic Christian. My point is that a 5th century catholic is different from a 16th century Roman Catholic (and different that 21st century Roman Catholic). I also didn’t state that I agree with everything Augustine teaches, but just that some of his views are in disagreement with doctrines later created by catholic Christians.

There isn’t that much difference between Catholicism today and 2,000 years ago or Augustine’s times…we still echo his plain statement that the Church is the influence that moves us to believe, and he too shared our same beliefs. Very few modern n-C communities bear any real resemblance to the early church either in practice or doctrine.

Paul was correcting some problems that were occurring during their love feasts and communion services. The preceding verses:…

A common misinterpretation by n-Cs like yourself. Either Paul means what he says or not…or is he teaching error in your opinion? You cannot ignore the plain statements of both New Testament writers and the early church. It is not we Catholics that changed from the faith of the New Testament and early church.

I don’t know why the content of the Eucharistic elements would make a difference in their worthiness of receiving the sacrament representing the salvation work that Jesus performed on the cross. It is a privilege to participate in this service and they were disrespecting it.

The problem here is that you are blending different events in order to get the misinterpretation that your beliefs are based upon.

The love feasts were meals, but the Eucharist was not part of that. Two different events…just like your own Wednesday night Bible studies versus your potluck dinners. One is fellowship while the other is actually liturgical worship.

Augustine’s Sermon 227 is similar to Sermon 272. david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

It refers to this passage: "So they are great sacraments and signs, really serious and important sacraments. Do you want to know how their seriousness is impressed on us? The apostle says, Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don’t let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed?†9 Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above."Understand however that Augustine is not speaking infallibly and his explanation is faulty in its expression.

Understand also that in the centuries of persecution prior to Augustine many Catholics (the only Christians then) were martyred for carrying and protecting the Eucharist on the way to take it to the sick and imprisoned. Many were murdered for refusing to surrender the Eucharist to pagans for desecration. Why would anyone do that if they did not share our belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence of Jesus? That makes no sense at all.

Moreover, what could possibly better exemplify “Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision.” than to partake of the body and blood of Christ while living in mortal sin. That very lack of repentance and contrition would make the sacrilege all the more grave and that is precisely what Paul is saying in 1st Corinthians 11.

 

[Church_Militant]

John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[a] and life

." This doesn’t sound like spiritualization nonsense to me.] Nothing in John 6 in any way even infers that Jesus is speaking symbolically and the fact that he did not in any way see to clarify his remarks makes it plain that he was speaking literally and the crowd’s reaction shows that they understood it just that was as well.

It becomes even more clear as Jesus turns to the 12 and makes it a make or break point when He asks if they wish to leave too without any attempt to clarify or explain whcih we also know from context of scripture was His common practice with them. (See Mark 4:34)

1 Corinthians 10 is part of Augustine’s sermon 227 and 272. It is a really fascinating example he gave. He compares the members of the church to many grains and many grapes that form one loaf and one brew of wine.

Pretty much irrelevant though. Augustine believed the Real Presence, after all he was a priest.

They weren’t guilty of injuring the actual elements. It was how they were misusing the sacrament that they had the privilege to participate in because Jesus sacrificed his body and blood, right?

I think that’s precisely what I said, but you overlook that Eucharistic wine is not drank in any kind of abundance that would cause drunkenness. Like I said we’re dealing with 2 different events here.

Ignatius was speaking about a gnostic heresy called Docetism. This heresy denies that Jesus came to earth with a body… I don’t know if Ignatius was speaking of transubstantiation or not. I do know that there would be no reason to celebrate a symbolic communion about Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross if he did not really die on the cross. That is the whole point of communion. I don’t know if this is sufficient evidence to know Ignatius’ ideas on the Eucharist. But there was clearly plenty of theologians in the first 500 years who denied transubstantiation - yet were in the catholic church.

That’s also irrelevant because Ignatius makes it very plain that he is teaching the Eucharistic Real Presence. The targeted heretics are not relevant. He most clearly is teaching transubstantiation. how can you read his letter and not see that?

I don’t know where you get your information but you’ll have to show me all these early church writers who deny the Real Presence, because I don’t think you can produce a substantial list and even so, just because individuals may be wrong does not in any way indict the truth of the doctrines we Catholics have held all this time. By that bad logic n-C Christianity would fall because of the vast divergence of beliefs and teachings throughout the very many divisions of communities across your whole spectrum. It simply doesn’t work and it actually indicates a tactic of holding us Catholics to higher standard than you yourselves live up to.

 

[susanlo]

Your answer proves you didn’t read the links I gave from primary sources.

You may need to give me a clue about what I am missing. Are you talking about the capital letter? Ancient Greek and Latin didn’t have capital letters. The Nicene Creed uses “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.” This is 4 adjectives. Why would they all be capitalized? Or was that what they called the church as a proper name in the 4th century? I don’t think that is the official name for the Catholic Church today.

But my main point is that the Catholics or catholics at Nicea do not agree with Catholics today on many issues. Most church denominations today believe they are part of the “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” I understand that you disagree with them, but they see the Greek word ‘universal’ in the adjective catholic.

 

[susanlo]

   There isn't that much difference between Catholicism today and 2,000 years ago or Augustine's times...we still echo his plain statement that the Church is the influence that moves us to believe, and he too shared our same beliefs. Very few modern n-C communities bear any real resemblance to the early church either in practice or doctrine.A common misinterpretation by n-Cs like yourself. Either Paul means what he says or not...or is he teaching error in your opinion? You cannot ignore the plain statements of both New Testament writers and the early church. It is not we Catholics that changed from the faith of the New Testament and early church.

The problem here is that you are blending different events in order to get the misinterpretation that your beliefs are based upon.

The love feasts were meals, but the Eucharist was not part of that. Two different events…just like your own Wednesday night Bible studies versus your potluck dinners. One is fellowship while the other is actually liturgical worship.

Paul says they were having their own private supper at the Lord’s supper. (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+11%3A17-34&version=NIV) They used to have communion as part of the love feast, but the wealthy were flaunting their riches in front of the poor. In order to correct the unworthiness they were being judged for was to eat at home before the Lord’s Supper. (v. 22 & 34)

Understand however that Augustine is not speaking infallibly and his explanation is faulty in its expression.

Understand also that in the centuries of persecution prior to Augustine many Catholics (the only Christians then) were martyred for carrying and protecting the Eucharist on the way to take it to the sick and imprisoned. Many were murdered for refusing to surrender the Eucharist to pagans for desecration. Why would anyone do that if they did not share our belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence of Jesus? That makes no sense at all.

Moreover, what could possibly better exemplify “Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision.” than to partake of the body and blood of Christ while living in mortal sin. That very lack of repentance and contrition would make the sacrilege all the more grave and that is precisely what Paul is saying in 1st Corinthians 11.

I think Catholics often don’t understand that communion can have significant meaning even if it isn’t on the physical level. That is why other churches do it even though they do not believe in transubstantiation. Actually in the 16th and 17th century Christians were persecuted for not believing in transubstantiation, so I don’t think willingness to be persecuted could only happen if transubstantiation occurs.

 

[susanlo]

Nothing in John 6 in any way even infers that Jesus is speaking symbolically and the fact that he did not in any way see to clarify his remarks makes it plain that he was speaking literally and the crowd’s reaction shows that they understood it just that was as well.

It becomes even more clear as Jesus turns to the 12 and makes it a make or break point when He asks if they wish to leave too without any attempt to clarify or explain whcih we also know from context of scripture was His common practice with them. (See Mark 4:34)
Pretty much irrelevant though. Augustine believed the Real Presence, after all he was a priest.

Many experts would agree with me that Augustine did not believe in a change of substance: archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up
J.N.D. Kelly refers to realism which is different from “Real Presence” for him.

“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. 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 Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place,** the figurative or the symbolical view**, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and 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 on 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. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”

The ongoing pages give more details, identifying Ambrose as the pioneer of the conversion theory and describing Augustine and his complex understanding of a mystical body.

I think that’s precisely what I said, but you overlook that Eucharistic wine is not drank in any kind of abundance that would cause drunkenness. Like I said we’re dealing with 2 different events here.
That’s also irrelevant because Ignatius makes it very plain that he is teaching the Eucharistic Real Presence. The targeted heretics are not relevant. He most clearly is teaching transubstantiation. how can you read his letter and not see that?

Ignatius is talking about people who taught that Jesus came to Earth in a phantom-like body and didn’t have any substance or matter. They believe he didn’t really die on the cross - it was either another man or an “optical illusion.” They made light of those that believed he died on the cross. The following paragraph after the mention of Eucharist is: “They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection.” This is not the viewpoint of those who participate in symbolic communion. How could you have even a symbolic communion memorializing Jesus’ sacrifice if you don’t even think he was truly sacrificed. I think it is much more that he is talking about than the substance consumed at the Eucharist.

 

[susanlo]

I don’t know where you get your information but you’ll have to show me all these early church writers who deny the Real Presence, because I don’t think you can produce a substantial list and even so, just because individuals may be wrong does not in any way indict the truth of the doctrines we Catholics have held all this time. By that bad logic n-C Christianity would fall because of the vast divergence of beliefs and teachings throughout the very many divisions of communities across your whole spectrum. It simply doesn’t work and it actually indicates a tactic of holding us Catholics to higher standard than you yourselves live up to.

Tertullian - “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 of 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.” earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Clement of Alexandria - "“…Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

“He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book2.html

Theodoret - “You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.”
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

 

[steve_b]

You may need to give me a clue about what I am missing. Are you talking about the capital letter? Ancient Greek and Latin didn’t have capital letters.

Actually ancient Greek and Latin used all capitals. Later, the lower case came into use

Do a word search of Catholic (within the actual documents) in the links I gave within #34.
s:

The Nicene Creed uses “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.” This is 4 adjectives. Why would they all be capitalized? Or was that what they called the church as a proper name in the 4th century?

those are the 4 identifying marks of the Church

scroll down in this link for a quick explanation of four marks of the Church Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

obviously there is lots more detail to give you on that particular subject if you’re interested
s:

I don’t think that is the official name for the Catholic Church today.

The Catholic Church will not lose those identifying marks. They are as valid when Jesus established His Church as it is today and forever.

Here is one of the links I gave for you to read within #34. To your point, let’s expand this a bit.

In 180 a.d. Irenaeus, a Catholic bishop, wrote against the Gnostics.
Yes he is a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church. [Bk 1 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm”]Chapter 10 v 3] do a word search for Catholic Church within that document. He only has to say Catholic Church once in his entire work, not having to say it over and over and over again, to prove or to clarify what Church he is in and talking about…agreed?

Irenaeus was taught by Bishop Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of the apostle John. Look up Polycarp’s reference as well in link 34 that I gave you. Anyway, Irenaeus teaches all, as in (everyone, everywhere) must agree with the Church of Rome on account of it’s preeminent authority. [Bk 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3, v 2-3]. One could ask, who does Irenaeus credit for the understanding that “everyone must agree with the Church of Rome on account of it’s preeminent authority” ? It’s from Peter and Paul at Rome. Then Irenaeus gives 12 bishops of Rome by name in succession from Peter, down to his day. He does that so there is no confusion on which Church 'THIS" Church is, that he’s talking about. Pope Francis is the 266th successor to Peter in Rome.

iow Everyone Everywhere is to believe the same. The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world. And the Church of Rome is the one everyone has to agree with

THAT is the definition of Catholic Church from Irenaeus. He would have gotten that from Polycarp, who got that from John. Irenaeus is only one man away from an apostle.
s:

But my main point is that the Catholics or catholics at Nicea do not agree with Catholics today on many issues.

Considering scripture, Those (as in everyone) who have left the unity of the Catholic Church or won’t return, and instead insist on remaining separate, have to deal with Jesus on that point. We know what he commands John 17:20-23, and we see the consequences from scripture, if one won’t obey Him
s:

Most church denominations today believe they are part of the “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” I understand that you disagree with them, but they see the Greek word ‘universal’ in the adjective catholic.

Division **διχοστασίας **] from the Catholic Church is condemned in scripture. That link is operational. It’s used in Romans 16:17-20 , and Galatians 5:19-21 . In Galatians one sees the consequence for knowing the warning, yet not heading it and remaining in διχοστασίας ] from the Catholic Church. They “shall not obtain the kingdom of God.”

Ever wonder where the phrase “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from? There it is

 

[Church_Militant]

Paul says they were having their own private supper at the Lord’s supper. (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+11%3A17-34&version=NIV

) They used to have communion as part of the love feast, but the wealthy were flaunting their riches in front of the poor. In order to correct the unworthiness they were being judged for was to eat at home before the Lord’s Supper. (v. 22 & 34) That may have been a local thing, but there is no evidence that this was how it was done throughout the church and St. Justin Martyr’s apologetic to the emperor certainly paint a different picture. (See What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?)

I think Catholics often don’t understand that communion can have significant meaning even if it isn’t on the physical level. That is why other churches do it even though they do not believe in transubstantiation. Actually in the 16th and 17th century Christians were persecuted for not believing in transubstantiation, so I don’t think willingness to be persecuted could only happen if transubstantiation occurs.

I would disagree, but I would suggest that you spend the time and effort to learn from Pope St. John Paul the Great’s encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

Oh and I suppose that you will attempt to pretend that said “persecutions” were all on us Catholics which certainly flies right in the face of the historical facts of history which, in fact we (American) Catholics are currently observing with regard to our ever decreasing religious freedoms.

As does the persecutions of my Catholic ancestors in Ireland which necessitated the creation of special Rosaries to allow us to more safely pray.


Irish penal rosary

What is the Fortnight for Freedom?

Each year dioceses around the country arrange special events to highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. The Fortnight for Freedom is from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day.

So let’s not even open that can 0 worms.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Tertullian - “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 of 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.” earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Hi Susan

Tertullian is not a good source to quote as he was a heretic but even so, that’s not what he is saying there.

Actually, the Fathers of the Church were clearly unanimous when it comes to the Real Presence. As far as Tertullian is concerned, there is some question as to whether or not he should be categorized as a true Church Father because of the fact that he died a Montanist heretic. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.

When Tertullian and St. Augustine use the term “figurative,” they do not mean to deny the Real Presence. In the texts cited, St. Augustine, for example, is warning against falling into the trap of believing the Lord was going to cut off parts of his body and give them to us. This would be cannibalistic and that is a definite no-no.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence

That’s what he is saying^^^^

Clement of Alexandria - "“…Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

“He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book2.html

Clement of Alexandria did not deny the real presence:

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

Sounds awfully Catholic to me

Theodoret - “You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.”
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

It remains in appearance, bread and wine. ^^^ The Church teaches us this.

And I have often wondered if we are not just splitting hairs with transubstantiation and consubstantiation meanings.

I’m sure you are aware that many protestants believe in consubstantiation. So when you combine 1.5 billion Catholics with 300,000 Orthodox and however many protestants believing in real presence, you have a overwhelming majority of Christendom pretty much affirming what the Church has always organically taught. It’s the radical reformers like Baptists and others who are out in left filed on this.

Pax

 

[Church_Militant]

Many experts would agree with me that Augustine did not believe in a change of substance: archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up

J.N.D. Kelly refers to realism which is different from “Real Presence” for him.

“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. 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 Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place,** the figurative or the symbolical** view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and 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 on 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. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”Again, you neglect the sources which are far more prevalent that teach the Eucharistic Real Presence and the obvious fact that none of those who took issue with it speak infallibly and the Real Presence is infallible doctrine, so the issue is moot except for those n-Cs who wish to try to use them today.

Kelly is also the guy who makes it clear that over 90% of the Old Testament quotes in the New are taken from the Septuagint which is the same canon that we Catholics use. But that is another matter…

The ongoing pages give more details, identifying Ambrose as the pioneer of the conversion theory and describing Augustine and his complex understanding of a mystical body.

Okay…but irrelevant, right?

Ignatius is talking about people who taught that Jesus came to Earth in a phantom-like body and didn’t have any substance or matter. They believe he didn’t really die on the cross - it was either another man or an “optical illusion.” They made light of those that believed he died on the cross. The following paragraph after the mention of Eucharist is: “They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection.” This is not the viewpoint of those who participate in symbolic communion. How could you have even a symbolic communion memorializing Jesus’ sacrifice if you don’t even think he was truly sacrificed. I think it is much more that he is talking about than the substance consumed at the Eucharist.

We already know that but the fact is that he’s very very clear about the Eucharistic Real Presence with no question at all, so it’s not who he was writing about but what he says that is important.

 

[Church_Militant]

Tertullian

• “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 of 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.” earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

Clement of Alexandria - "“…Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise,”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book1.html

“He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book2.html

Theodoret - “You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.”
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htmMaybe someone needs to check for context because the following article makes it plain that at least 2 of your quoted sources actually are proponents of the Real Presence and your 3rd link has exactly nothing to do with the source you assert.
The Real Presence

 

[Church_Militant]

Yo LA, if you can edit that post you might want to. Those huge fonts are guidelines violations according to A Note About Fonts and Colors

 

[susanlo]

Maybe someone needs to check for context because the following article makes it plain that at least 2 of your quoted sources actually are proponents of the Real Presence and your 3rd link has exactly nothing to do with the source you assert.
The Real Presence

Is the 3rd quote the one from Clement of Alexandria’s Instructor Book II? The topic is instructing on drinking (alcohol), but he mentions that Jesus called the wine at the last supper blood - and then drank wine. I understand that some Catholics believe that Jesus and the disciples consumed the actual body and blood at the last supper. The quote is the 3rd to last paragraph before chapter 3.

As for the context, it is important to look at the complete text when presented with a short quote. Everyone has the option of reading all of the full texts of the quotes on that page you linked and developing their own conclusions about the beliefs of the writers. Most all of the sources are available on New Advent. The Council of Ephesus is the only one I believe I couldn’t find when I researched the quotes last year. The link to the JND Kelly book they quote from are in some of my previous posts as well. Oh, Augustine’s sermon 272 and 227 aren’t on New Advent. I believed I referenced them earlier, but here they are.
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

susanlo:

Is the 3rd quote the one from Clement of Alexandria’s Instructor Book II? The topic is instructing on drinking (alcohol), but he mentions that Jesus called the wine at the last supper blood - and then drank wine. I understand that some Catholics believe that Jesus and the disciples consumed the actual body and blood at the last supper. The quote is the 7th to last paragraph before chapter 3.

As for the context, it is important to look at the complete text when presented with a short quote. Everyone has the option of reading all of the full texts of the quotes on that page you linked and developing their own conclusions about the beliefs of the writers. Most all of the sources are available on New Advent. The Council of Ephesus is the only one I believe I couldn’t find when I researched the quotes last year. The link to the JND Kelly book they quote from are in some of my previous posts as well. Oh, Augustine’s sermon 272 and 227 aren’t on New Advent. I believed I referenced them earlier, but here they are.
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

I edited my post to change 3rd to 7th.