Is the "Real Presence" real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent. Thanks very much. Talking about these things doesn’t mean one doubts them, just to clarify a bit. We know God created the Universe but our curiosity about that universe has nothing to do with our belief that He did create it. Similarly, I am/was trying to figure out the use of the word “spirit” in John 6:63-64 and although I think I know, I am not yet positive. And neither am I a slow learner. (But I might be, after all) 🙂
 
I believe in the Real Presence. But look at John 6:63-64. This comes just after speaking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. And before John 6:63, Jesus is speaking of belief in Him as the key, not the eating or drinking.

**dcb 188 this is a common misunderstanding of Jesus speaking after he had completed his life bread discourse. Jesus is done talking about the true presence of the bread, body and blood consumption.

One thing to consider here is that Sacred Scripture never ever speaks of the word Spirit to be symbolic, or mean symbolic. The word Spirit here is not used in the way 20th century protestant thought has taught it to mean, that something spiritual as having a symbolic meaning to mean something other.

Jesus is comparing Spirit ( The Holy Spirit in the new and everlasting covenant reveals these mysteries and teaches them and gives the gift of faith and life to the believer**) To the flesh: ( Which comes from the Old Covenant that is close to disappearing, The natural law of the old covenant refers to the flesh), these fallen away disciples and Jews are from the natural old covenant law that is why they walk away to their former way of life ( old covenant) and the Jews did not recieve him, only the chosen 12 remained who are of the Spirit, the new and everlasting covenant that will never end.

So Jesus states, "It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. Why because Jesus fulfilled the flesh (natural)covenant in his body which is everlasting in the eternal Spirit that gives life. This in no means has to do with a symbolic Jesus. But has everything to do with why Jesus was there to deliver them from the old Covenant flesh natural law that condemned mankind to death.

There is much more to discuss here, I hope this helps a little.

Peace be with you.
 
Thank you, it does help. Protestants believe that John 6:63-64 refers to the words Jesus had just spoken, i.e. that what He had just said, he had said in a spiritual sense and not literal. That was my confusion. If I were a Protestant I would feel mighty unsure of myself on this kind of ground, and would “err” on the side of taking it literally. But they already have their minds up that they do not WANT to interpret it literally, and herein lies the problem. They are not really open to discussing it in a way that might lead them to conclude that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. That is why these discussions are endless, because each “side” already believes they are right, so they will never end up saying, well, I was wrong. I think the hardest thing for human beings to do is to admit when we are wrong. My line of work confirms this daily.
 
Thank you, it does help. Protestants believe that John 6:63-64 refers to the words Jesus had just spoken, i.e. that what He had just said, he had said in a spiritual sense and not literal. That was my confusion. If I were a Protestant I would feel mighty unsure of myself on this kind of ground, and would “err” on the side of taking it literally. But they already have their minds up that they do not WANT to interpret it literally, and herein lies the problem. They are not really open to discussing it in a way that might lead them to conclude that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. That is why these discussions are endless, because each “side” already believes they are right, so they will never end up saying, well, I was wrong. I think the hardest thing for human beings to do is to admit when we are wrong. My line of work confirms this daily.
You are right the symbolic spirtual sense of the Eucahrist is how protestants teach and believe Jesus words to mean symbolic. When Jesus repeats the literal sense of his words. Even in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke would make a ridiculous out come of his meaning if he was stating these words in a symbolic fashion. The symbolic wording or teaching does not fit the original language nor the Jesus meaning of the text.

To take Jesus words to heart for a protestant would only lead him to believe in the 2000 year old belief literally body and blood which is the Eucahrist and would make them Catholic. Now it is not the crucified body of Jesus Christ that is a cause for stumbling, It is his glorified sacrifical body and blood that has become the stumbling block. Same thing, just the latter is glorified body of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you
 
That is why these discussions are endless, because each “side” already believes they are right, so they will never end up saying, well, I was wrong. I think the hardest thing for human beings to do is to admit when we are wrong. My line of work confirms this daily.
Well all my life I have admitted that I am a sinner. If Truth tells me Iam wrong, I will accept that I am wrong. I will not run from Truth, but I will run to Truth.

It is hard to defeat Truth, when it has stood the test of time, survived, persecution, martyrdom, heresies, false teachers and Truth does not change, only people, governments, nations, and rulers have changed, the Roman Catholic church has not changed her doctrines on the Eucharist for 2 milineum now, nor will it ever change what Jesus instituted.
 
As I have indicated previously, I too believe in the Real Presence. The trouble with transubstantiation is that it tries to define too much. While the early church fathers clearly believe in a Real Presence, it is not necessarily in accordance with transubstantiation.

For example, Irenaeus seems to define something along the line of Lutheran consubstantiation by say two realities are present.
  1. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:18:5)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

Theodret calls the elements symbols and indicates that they retain their former substance even after being consecrated. He talks about them becoming the body, but not in a way consistent with transubstantiation.
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 are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. Theodret (Dialogues, 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

Another example is Pope Gelastius who indicates that the substance and the nature of the bread and wine remains.
The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.-Gelasius (Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

Like Augustine, who I quoted in earlier posts, Tertullian also associates verses 60-63 with the Bread of Life Discourse. He speaks about devouring with the ear and ruminating with the understanding
He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits nothing;” John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. 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 quickens;” and then added, "The flesh profits nothing,"—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which comes down from heaven,” John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly **under the figure of necessary food **the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. -Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37)
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

to be continued
 
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation raises a number of problems. Although raised earlier, I have seen no real response to the problem with a literal view of verses 51-53.
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 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 yourselves.
(John 6:51-53 NASB)
If this is taken literally all anyone would have to do, regardless of belief, is go to Mass and receive the Eucharist. As Jesus says “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” such a person would qualify to live forever based on a literal interpretation of this statement.

A second problem for me is the duration of the presence. In any of the elements that are left over the presence remains indefinitely. However, once consumed I have read that the presence remains for 15 minutes. Presumably this is to avoid the implications of Matthew 15:17.
"Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
(Matthew 15:17 NASB)
However, where is the justification for the limited duration found?

If the Real Presence is true but not transubstantiation then these are not problems. If someone does not believe then that person would not receive the body or blood since it is received by faith. This would accord with writers like Ephrem the Syrian.
There remained yet another act that would abolish the Passover and would become the Passover of the Gentiles, a source of life to the end. Our Lord Jesus took bread in his hands, plain bread at the beginning, and blessed it, made the sign of the cross over it and sanctified it in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit, and he broke and distributed it in morsels to his disciples in his kindness. He called the bread his living body, and he filled it with himself and with his Spirit. He stretched forth his hand and gave them the bread that his right hand had sanctified. Do not regard as bread what I have given you now…eat it, and do not disdain its crumbs. For this bread that I have sanctified is my body. Its least crumb sanctifies thousands of thousands, and it is capable of giving life to all who eat it. Take, eat in faith, doubting not at all that this is my body. And he who eats it in faith eats it in fire and the Spirit. If anyone doubts and eats it, it is plain bread to him. He who believes and eats the bread sanctified in my name, if he is pure; if he is a sinner, he will be forgiven. He, however, who despises it or spurns it, he may be sure that he is insulting the Son, who has called the bread his body and truly made it so. Receive of it, eat of it, all of you, and eat in it the Holy Spirit, for it is truly my body, and he who eats it will live forever. This is the heavenly bread that has come down from on high onto the earth. This is the bread that the Israelites ate in the wilderness and did not esteem. The manna that they gathered, which came down to them, was a figure of this spiritual bread that you have now received. Take and eat of it, all of you. In this bread are eating my body. It is the true source of forgiveness. -Ephrem the Syrian (Memra for the Fifth Day of the Great Week (Holy Thursday), Sermon 4 Joel C. Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament IVa John 1-10, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 236.)
He notes that someone who does not eat with faith receives only bread. This would not be true if transubstantiation actually takes place.

Finally, just because a church father refers to the body and bread does not necessarily mean that he agrees with transubstantiation. That is reading a future concept into their writings. Even denominations that don’t believe in a sacramental presence refer to the elements as the body and blood of Christ.
 
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation raises a number of problems. Although raised earlier, I have seen no real response to the problem with a literal view of verses 51-53.

SyCarl, I have read your posts here, and the early church fathers teachings in the short context as you displayed them.

I dont find any contradiction of transubstantiation in these teachings what so ever. If anything they support what the Catholic church teaches on transubstantiation. No.1, that the species of bread and wine remain these only to our natural senses. No.2 the bread, and wine in Jesus words made present are confected into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus by his priest in person christi.

I dont see consubstantiation anywhere here. The Roman Catholic confected Eucahrist remains the body, blood in the consecrated hosts, at all times when not consumed. St. Jerome states, that even the vessels, Chalice and cyborium are to reverenced, because they held,or hold the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Can you imagine that ST. Jerome reverencing the vessels that contain the Eucharist.

Another point I would like to mention that doesnt get mentioned here, is that when the host is placed in the tabernacle, a light must be present at all times. This is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant Law where God demands on the left over sacrifice, a light is to be lit the entire time it is in the tabernacle.

This proves that their cannot be no such thing as consubstantiation. Because The Roman Catholic church reverences the consecrated host in the tabernacle, with a candle lit 24 hours a day. Until the host is removed. That is why Catholics cross themselves when passing by a Catholic church, because the tabernacle posseses the Consecrated host, the true presence of Jesus Christ.
 
Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?
Could we agree that **they are saying **the Eucharistic species are not the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of our Lord then ?

If so, I’d read a fantastic answer in a book written by Fr. Albert Mary Joseph Shamon. He was quoting a bishop I believe. When a person said to this bishop that they didn’t believe in the real Presence and asked how could Jesus change the bread and the wine into his Body and Blood respectively, the bishp answered:

When you eat bread and drink wine it is converted into your body and blood; why then do you think our Lord is not capable of doing what your own body does ?

Strange huh? - People will believe our Lord walked on the water which means he transformed his body because an untransformed human body can’t walk on water, but they don’t believe he could transform it a second time or the also countless times that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered down through the ages. God Bless.
 
Could we agree that **they are saying **the Eucharistic species are not the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of our Lord then ?

If so, I’d read a fantastic answer in a book written by Fr. Albert Mary Joseph Shamon. He was quoting a bishop I believe. When a person said to this bishop that they didn’t believe in the real Presence and asked how could Jesus change the bread and the wine into his Body and Blood respectively, the bishp answered:

When you eat bread and drink wine it is converted into your body and blood; why then do you think our Lord is not capable of doing what your own body does ?

Strange huh? - People will believe our Lord walked on the water which means he transformed his body because an untransformed human body can’t walk on water, but they don’t believe he could transform it a second time or the also countless times that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered down through the ages. God Bless.
**Good reflection. A thought about Jesus in heaven, a non catholic mentioned in another post that Jesus cant be present in the host at every Mass, because he (Jesus) is sitting down at the right hand of God in heaven, meaning his sacrifice was done once and for all. To which I agreed. But Jesus has an eternal priesthood.

The Non Catholic forgets that Jesus is STANDING in heaven as a lamb that appears to have been slain (see Revelations 5:6) This eternal sacrifice of Jesus body and blood, is revealed in his sacrificial Mass, where he **appears **to be slain ( in the Eucharist) (sacrificed for our sins) but still lives eternally offering up the perfect sacrifice for us. **
 
Thanks for that thought Gabriel of 12. I hadn’t heard it expressed this way before. It’s been copied to my personal notes for further reflection. Let me know if you’d prefer otherwise.
 
Gabriel of 12 says :
The Non Catholic forgets that Jesus is STANDING in heaven as a lamb that appears to have been slain (see Revelations 5:6) This eternal sacrifice of Jesus body and blood, is revealed in his sacrificial Mass, where he appears to be slain ( in the Eucharist) (sacrificed for our sins) but still lives eternally offering up the perfect sacrifice for us.
I know I am coming into this conversation abit late, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that Christ is still offering a sacrifice in Heaven?

What you wrote above is in the present tense. The quote which you refered to is in past tense. Which is it? what do you believe?

Re 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I’m confused, because Hebrews says the following;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Please explain what I have outlined in Red. What you wrote and what these passages say seem contradictory to me.

Thank you
 
Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?
No it isn’t.
 
No it isn’t.
I took this from a post of mine from a couple of months ago:

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at what those people closest to the disciples thought about the matter. After all, if you want to interpret the passages in the Bible correctly, it would be useful to see what the first few generations of Christians actually thought.

Catholics believe that Jesus is not just symbolically present in Communion, but actually physically present. You may be interested to note that we are not the only denomination that holds to this view. In fact, about 2/3 of ALL Christians believe this to be true, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans. In order to prove the Real Presence, I think it’s essential to look at both what the Bible says and what has historically been true. After all, if it is a corruption, it should be fairly easy to track down at what point it entered into Catholic belief. Looking at what people believed in the very early church would be critical to your argument that it is false.

So, I’m going to begin to answer the question from the historical perspective, and then go back and deal with the Biblical issues. I realize that it will be very important to back up the claim with what’s taught in the Bible, since it is an inspired source. BUT, if we want to know how to correctly interpret that source, we need to see what the apostles and the followers of the apostles thought about how it should be interpreted. If it matters, I’m a professional historian at a small private college in the South, although my area of expertise is Latin America, not the Catholic Church or theology. (Just so you know that my research has some credibility.)
 
I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.

First, a couple of assumptions:
  1. I think we can both agree that the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is established by the Reformation, so I will leave any discussion from that era out.
  2. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Real Presence in the Orthodox Eucharist), we can assume that the doctrine predates the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox.
(Now, that said, the Orthodox will not use the word “Transubstantiation”. They leave the miracle of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a mystery, but they DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ, and in basically the same way as Catholics.)

Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.

While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.
 
We can now proceed to push the date of the doctrine of the Real Presence back even further, using quotes from St. Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. Ambrose:

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Theodore of Mopsuestia


“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan


“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

These are all mainstream figures in the Catholic Church. Ambrose and Augustine were both important bishops. These statements are clear, and they define the position of the Catholic Church, which is then stated more formally at the Council of Ephesus. As a result, it’s clear that the idea of the Real Presence develops absolutely no later than the late 4th century
 
I should mention that most of these quotes are coming from the Catholic Answers library on the front page of this site. I’m just adding some additional commentary.

In 350 A.D., we have another very important document from Cyril of Jerusalem. He states:

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Again, we have a clear indication of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now we begin with some quotes that are slightly less clear, but offer some strong evidence for the Real Presence:
**
Aphraahat the Persian Sage**

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Now granted, this particular quote could be interpreted as merely symbolic, but given the documentary evidence from other sources and the fact that the Real Presence is clearly believed in 350 A.D., it strongly suggests that this quote is to be taken literally.

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Here we have a reference to the Eucharist in one of the most important of all Church councils, the Council of Nicaea. The important parts of this quote are the reference to the sacrificial, rather than symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that it is regarded as something special and important enough that only priests and bishops may offer it.

Next, we have Cyprian of Carthage talking about how the Eucharist must be eaten only by those who have confessed of their sins. The sacrifice of the Eucharist may only be consumed by the pure, because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He then proceeds to back up his opinion through Holy Scripture:
**
Cyprian of Carthage**

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top