It's not about what you get out of it

[steido01]

Later in life I joined the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (Holy Communion - Consubstantiation)

No!

Please PM me the name of your pastor. We do not teach Consubstantiation! Rather, we profess Sacramental Union. Consubstantiation implies an explanation of the Sacrament.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

From my many years as a relatively apathetic, nominal Protestant, and the discussions I have with my Protestant parents about what they “get” out of their church service, I believe that primarily, Protestants are looking for any number of things.

1. A sense of validation or affirmation.
2. Entertainment or appealing music and “liturgy.”
   2.5. An engaging, humorous, or thought-provoking homily.
3. Spoon-fed understanding of Scripture, through an in-depth Bible-study at church.
4. A sense of fellowship; holding hands, sign of peace, etc…

I would say that out of those, #2 is the most… I don’t know the right word, inappropriate thing to look for? I’m also a little confused by the need to go into serious exegesis, etymological word study of a given verse, or a topical guide through the Bible in the middle of trying to worship. I do that sort of stuff at home, alone or in a small Bible study.

As an Evangelical Protestant, I would say that Evangelicals are looking to get two things out of church- these things can (and should) be achieved through any number of means, but the two things are as follows.

1. Become a better Christian.
2. Position oneself to be better at helping others become Christians (evangelize) and to help other Christians become better Christians.

Fellowship, affirmation, meaningful relationships, sermons that you can listen to which also have transformative value for your life- these are a means to an end. We care about becoming better Christians. This is how we go about doing it. That is why these things matter- not because it’s important to feel good or stroke our egos, but because Protestants, like Catholics, also come to church understanding that we are broken people who need to be fixed. And this “other stuff” that keeps getting pushed aside by various people on this thread- the singing, the sermon, the fellowship and relationships with other people- that actually is very important, as long as it effectively serves the purpose of helping people become better Christians.

I understand that Catholics also care about becoming better Christians. This “other stuff” works for you too, although I get that there’s another thing that you may refer to as the source and summit of the Christian life. But just because it’s the top priority, that doesn’t mean every other thing rates as having zero priority. As to the importance of what you get out of Mass, and the Eucharist in particular- it is valuable insofar as it helps people become better Christians. Does the Eucharist always help make Christians into better Christians? Is it truly the greatest and best thing at helping Christians become better Christians? You can guess what my opinion is based on my affiliation, I’m sure there is no real question about it for you though. For Protestants, however, and for Evangelicals in particular, these are matters that we question in a different way. Honestly, we are inclined to think that the Eucharist does not always make Christians into better Christians, and we are also inclined to think that it does not tend to be the greatest and best thing at helping Christians become better Christians. On the whole, I believe these conclusions are partly based on assumptions, but they are mostly based on experience and observation. Also, with the exception of truly anti-Catholic people who won’t listen to reason at all, we are mostly waiting to be shown otherwise- but for the most part, this is not something that’s demonstrated to us.

With those tendencies in mind, consider why an Evangelical would bring up the issue of what it is you “get out of” Mass. The same question could be phrased thusly- Does it really do a great job of making you a better Christian? We do Not assume that the Eucharist necessarily makes you a better Christian. We Do see that it means a lot to some people and it makes a great deal of difference in the lives of Some People, but we also assume that it doesn’t necessarily do that all the time and it’s not Necessarily the best means of helping someone become a better Christian. We have this in common- we all care about becoming better Christians. But when Evangelicals question what it is that you “get out of it,” we are questioning whether or not this is a great and super effective means to that end.

I wrote all of that, and I only touched on point number one- what about point number two? It is also important that we go through personal change that better positions us to be disciple makers, to help people become Christians, to help other Christians become better Christians as we are being helped ourselves. (It’s really tied together pretty closely- we accomplish number two in order to help others get to number one, and we get number one when others are focused on number two). The first part of what I said was a bit controversial, I hope that this next part is not as much- the Eucharist has virtually nothing to do with any of this. When you receive the Eucharist at Mass, it does not enable you to evangelize any more or any better than before. It does not put you in a better position to help other Christians become better Christians. That’s not what it does, and it’s not even the stated goal, at least where direct effects and direct causality is concerned. So what do you do in order to achieve the goals outlined in point number 2? How can you make that happen? The answer, of course, is other stuff. You do other stuff that focuses directly on meeting these goals, and you make a mental note that you shouldn’t down-talk this other stuff strictly because it’s not the Eucharist, nor should you neglect, eliminate, or de-emphasize this other stuff strictly because you have the Eucharist. That just doesn’t make sense. Even if the Eucharist is everything you say it is, it doesn’t make sense to go halfway (or not at all) on any of the other stuff that is also important, albeit less so.

 

[Sariaru]

When you receive the Eucharist at Mass, it does not enable you to evangelize any more or any better than before. It does not put you in a better position to help other Christians become better Christians. That’s not what it does, and it’s not even the stated goal, at least where direct effects and direct causality is concerned.

If you understand what Catholics believe about the Real Presence (regardless of if you agree with it or not) how on earth could you think that it would fail to make us better at spreading the Gospel? It puts us MILES ahead in terms of our ability to spread grace, avoid sin, protest occassions of sin, and generally help others along the path to grace. I brought my sister to the Catholic Church by introducing her to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If the Eucharist is Christ itself, then how could receiving Christ not help us help others towards the living Christ whose Sacred Body and Blood we have received? A bizarre misunderstanding of Catholic belief at best, and an insult to the Blessed Sacrament at worst. For charity’s sake, I shall assume the former.

 

[hockeyfan]

Can I just say that this sounds like a great name for a radio show? Maybe EWTN should pick it up.

hockeyfan, I’m agreeing that with you that there were “oddballs,” but as I said, no real traction in the “Communion-as-symbol-only” until…Calvin? It was only with the Reformation that symbol-only became a widely recognized point of contention. The vast, overwhelming majority of Christians took the Real Presence dead seriously (St. Iggy, for example) - I can’t find any early Church writings from these oddballs, which would suggest they didn’t get much traction. -shrug-

Oh, no, I understood you and totally agree with you.

 

[hockeyfan]

Clement of Alexandria called em symbols and not more…it is wrong to apply to the early church later definitions. it is just not transubstantiation that fits Ignatius real presence,though I will admit it seems more than just symbolic. I would not peg him into our RP debate for that was not his primary context. He was dealing with docetists, people who did not believe Jesus died in the flesh. Docetists therefore even denied the symbolism of His real body and blood in the bread and wine.

Saying Clement of Alexandria said it is not a source. Please provide evidence that the original intent of the Eucharist is “Thanksgiving.” I am providing sources that the Early Christians believed in the Real Presence.

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.
St. Justin Martyr First Apology, 66

You see how the altars are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated by the precious blood of Christ.
Origin, Homilies on Joshua 2:1

 

[hockeyfan]

well that is the debate as to just what real presence is. Your “common understanding” has a history, as does mine. It is your belief that it is actual body from the beginning, even to the Last Supper. Mine is not. So to say the term Eucharist began meaning the body from the very beginning is dubious. It is like the word catholic began as an adjective to church then became a proper noun name as in capital C…the exact definition of transubstantiation certainly is not from the beginning either.

The word transubstantiation may not bu used until St. Thomas Aquinas but that does not mean it wasn’t taught. In my previous post, I showed early teachings on the Real Presence. Granted, St. Thomas Aquinas went through many details to define the specifics. Still, it was based upon much earlier teachings. You say that our common understanding has a history as does yours? I have yet to see a single writing predating Calvin from a mainstream Christian.

 

[edkw55]

No!

Please PM me the name of your pastor. We do not teach Consubstantiation! Rather, we profess Sacramental Union. Consubstantiation implies an explanation of the Sacrament.

I apologize Don. It was a long time ago that I was a member of LCMS. At the time I only joined because my ex-wife was LCMS. I was born and raised Baptist and took the symbolic understanding with me into LCMS. Over the last several years my views on this have definately changed however.

God bless.

Ed

 

[hockeyfan]

No!

Please PM me the name of your pastor. We do not teach Consubstantiation! Rather, we profess Sacramental Union. Consubstantiation implies an explanation of the Sacrament.

When I was a teenager I once went to a Lutheran church with a aunt and uncle. I guess it was on the anniversary of the thesis’s and the pastors sermon was on the subject. He also did talk about transubstantiation and how it is different from consubstantiation. He was saying that they teach consubstantiation. Now I do know that there are different synods, as I have learned a lot over the last 15 years. At the time I understood it to be the Lutheran teaching, though. Could you please educate me on what you are taught and also if your synod teaches something different then others.

 

[Sariaru]

Clement of Alexandria called em symbols and not more…it is wrong to apply to the early church later definitions.

Really? Let’s look at some actual words of St. Clement and see what he has to say for himself.

“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.​

"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!"

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.​

Dunno mate, looks like Real Presence to me. Sure, he makes the comparison between the Real Presence of the Word, and the Word in Holy Scripture, and how we are nourished by both, and indeed require both. But as we know from St. John’s Gospel, the Word was (is) God.

it is just not transubstantiation that fits Ignatius real presence,though I will admit it seems more than just symbolic. I would not peg him into our RP debate for that was not his primary context. He was dealing with docetists, people who did not believe Jesus died in the flesh. Docetists therefore even denied the symbolism of His real body and blood in the bread and wine.

Of course the Real Presence was his primary context! That was the entire point of the Docetian heresy. If Christ’s flesh wasn’t real, He obviously couldn’t have meant for Christians to really eat it. However, since He did say it was real food and real drink (cf St. John 6:55), then it was obviously real, and really suffered and really rose again and really bled and really died, and really did all those things that the heretics denied. St. Iggy didn’t defend against Doeticism in order to support the Real Presence; rather, he used the doctrine of the Real Presence to refute the heresy. Horse, then cart.

 

[steido01]

I apologize Don. It was a long time ago that I was a member of LCMS. At the time I only joined because my ex-wife was LCMS. I was born and raised Baptist and took the symbolic understanding with me into LCMS. Over the last several years my views on this have definately changed however.

God bless.

Ed

When I was a teenager I once went to a Lutheran church with a aunt and uncle. I guess it was on the anniversary of the thesis’s and the pastors sermon was on the subject. He also did talk about transubstantiation and how it is different from consubstantiation. He was saying that they teach consubstantiation. Now I do know that there are different synods, as I have learned a lot over the last 15 years. At the time I understood it to be the Lutheran teaching, though. Could you please educate me on what you are taught and also if your synod teaches something different then others.

In the interest of keeping this thread on its original track, I’ll start a new one.

 

[edkw55]

I apologize Don. It was a long time ago that I was a member of LCMS. At the time I only joined because my ex-wife was LCMS. I was born and raised Baptist and took the symbolic understanding with me into LCMS. Over the last several years my views on this have definately changed however.

God bless.

Ed

Hi Don,

Over the last several years I have to come to believe that Holy Communion is not just symbolic (the Bible, going to mass for 7 years with my wife, reading the patristic fathers, history, etc.). I believe that Jesus is truly present in Holy Communion in some mysterious way that I don’t understand. I have no detailed complex doctrine or definition of what this means to me.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

In the interest of keeping this thread on its original track, I’ll start a new one.

…we did get a bit off track…ed

 

[benhur]

If you understand what Catholics believe about the Real Presence (regardless of if you agree with it or not) how on earth could you think that it would fail to make us better at spreading the Gospel? It puts us MILES ahead in terms of our ability to spread grace, avoid sin, protest occassions of sin, and generally help others along the path to grace. I brought my sister to the Catholic Church by introducing her to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If the Eucharist is Christ itself, then how could receiving Christ not help us help others towards the living Christ whose Sacred Body and Blood we have received? A bizarre misunderstanding of Catholic belief at best, and an insult to the Blessed Sacrament at worst. For charity’s sake, I shall assume the former.

Again, go to any church service that is letting out and I doubt you will be able to differentiate which church folks just had a transubstantiated communion from those who had a con substantiated communion or from those who had a spiritually symbolic communion.

 

[edkw55]

Again, go to any church service that is letting out and I doubt you will be able to differentiate which church folks just had a transubstantiated communion from those who had a con substantiated communion or from those who had a spiritually symbolic communion.

I agree benhur. I do believe that God does allow us a certain degree of liberty in what we believe the Eucharist to be. Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. God does look at the heart after all.

Ed

P.S. I realize some have a problem with my use of the phrase “certain degree of liberty”…I completely agree and you are right…just asking that you understand what I really mean when I use this phrase.

 

[benhur]

Really? Let’s look at some actual words of St. Clement and see what he has to say for himself.

Dunno mate, looks like Real Presence to me. Sure, he makes the comparison between the Real Presence of the Word, and the Word in Holy Scripture, and how we are nourished by both, and indeed require both. But as we know from St. John’s Gospel, the Word was (is) God.

Of course the Real Presence was his primary context! That was the entire point of the Docetian heresy. If Christ’s flesh wasn’t real, He obviously couldn’t have meant for Christians to really eat it. However, since He did say it was real food and real drink (cf St. John 6:55), then it was obviously real, and really suffered and really rose again and really bled and really died, and really did all those things that the heretics denied. St. Iggy didn’t defend against Doeticism in order to support the Real Presence; rather, he used the doctrine of the Real Presence to refute the heresy. Horse, then cart.

Well we are often chided for cherry picking quotes but it would have been nice for you to include the parts where clement calls them symbols…that being said, if we disagree on scripture we will disagree on a father’s writing also…as far as Ignatuis, that is your choice to view Christology of communion to be more important than that of Calvary. Again the docetists did not believe Christ really died in the flesh as Ignatius says hence do not participate in Eucharist. Their view of Calvary defined disallowed eucharisting,not the other way around. They would have even objected to a symbolic of his flesh and blood communion also.

 

[Sariaru]

Well we are often chided for cherry picking quotes but it would have been nice for you to include the parts where clement calls them symbols

To be fair, I did a simple Google search of “Clement of Alexandria teachings on Eucharist” and read what I found. Perhaps you can enlighten me to some quotes where he refers to them as symbols? I am willing to admit that perhaps my search was flawed or insufficent.

as far as Ignatuis, that is your choice to view Christology of communion to be more important than that of Calvary. Again the docetists did not believe Christ really died in the flesh as Ignatius says hence do not participate in Eucharist. Their view of Calvary defined disallowed eucharisting,not the other way around. They would have even objected to a symbolic of his flesh and blood communion also.

In the Catholic’s eyes, the Christology of the Eucharist and the Christology of Calvary are one and the same. In the breaking of Body and Blood, we are making present again an unbloody sacrifice; that is to say, making Calvary present for us, now, as it is an eternal sacrifice. At least, that is my understanding from all that I have read of the Church’s teachings on the matter. One cannot be more important than the other, since in the doctrine of the Real Presence, these two become one - one of the things, I humbly think, make the Real Presence so lovely.

As to the Docetist heresy, I stand by what I explained previously. If indeed the Eucharist is what the Catholic Church proclaims it to be, they would logically deny the latter (Eucharistic celebration) after denying the former (true death of true Flesh on the Cross). Bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me, but there it is.

As to knowing whether or not a service just had a transsubstantiated, consubstantiated, or purely symbolic Communion - easy. Just look at the name on the church building.

 

[benhur]

To be fair, I did a simple Google search of “Clement of Alexandria teachings on Eucharist” and read what I found. Perhaps you can enlighten me to some quotes where he refers to them as symbols? I am willing to admit that perhaps my search was flawed or insufficent.

In the Catholic’s eyes, the Christology of the Eucharist and the Christology of Calvary are one and the same. In the breaking of Body and Blood, we are making present again an unbloody sacrifice; that is to say, making Calvary present for us, now, as it is an eternal sacrifice. At least, that is my understanding from all that I have read of the Church’s teachings on the matter. One cannot be more important than the other, since in the doctrine of the Real Presence, these two become one - one of the things, I humbly think, make the Real Presence so lovely.

As to the Docetist heresy, I stand by what I explained previously. If indeed the Eucharist is what the Catholic Church proclaims it to be, they would logically deny the latter (Eucharistic celebration) after denying the former (true death of true Flesh on the Cross). Bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me, but there it is.


As to knowing whether or not a service just had a transsubstantiated, consubstantiated, or purely symbolic Communion - easy. Just look at the name on the church building.

What ? You google for your stuff ? Why, why that is what I do also.and thank you for being so humble. I had to go to page 3 to find my quote from a very reputable historian and will try to find it again…yes you have explained CC eucharist quite well, as others have…the un bloody sacrifice is strange because a sacrifice is what we are commanded to " remember" but not re present as re offer or as " sacrifice" as to be pleasing to God. we offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, which of course are bloodless. It was not till 4 or 5 centuries into church history that it took on a more sacrificial tone, that is we now offer thanksgiving and The Lord, the crucified Lord( though un bloody) to the Father…strange cause he offered it to us and now we offer it back ?..it is like giving a gift back and hoping , praying that it be acceptable…very funny about looking at church sign to see who had what kind of communion…but humor will only go so far leaving the question unanswered…in other postings I think I asked if you can tell Monday morning or. Just mixing everybody up, like shuffling a deck of cards after church lets out and then pick out the tran and the con and the symbolic folk…bis balt

 

[benhur]

I agree benhur. I do believe that God does allow us a certain degree of liberty in what we believe the Eucharist to be. Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. God does look at the heart after all.

Ed

P.S. I realize some have a problem with my use of the phrase “certain degree of liberty”…I completely agree and you are right…just asking that you understand what I really mean when I use this phrase.

Thank you and for always trying to be careful,sensitive…it is interesting that when the church was too busy growing and was the underdog and was persecuted and had no time to sit back and sophisticate, there was more “liberty” , simplicity and universality…same thing happened with other covenants,at least the Mosaic for sure. What began with 600 laws turned up to be double or triple that, with time.

 

[Telstar]

What ? You google for your stuff ? Why, why that is what I do also.and thank you for being so humble. I had to go to page 3 to find my quote from a very reputable historian and will try to find it again…yes you have explained CC eucharist quite well, as others have…the un bloody sacrifice is strange because a sacrifice is what we are commanded to " remember" but not re present as re offer or as " sacrifice" as to be pleasing to God. we offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, which of course are bloodless. It was not till 4 or 5 centuries into church history that it took on a more sacrificial tone, that is we now offer thanksgiving and The Lord, the crucified Lord( though un bloody) to the Father…strange cause he offered it to us and now we offer it back ?..it is like giving a gift back and hoping , praying that it be acceptable…very funny about looking at church sign to see who had what kind of communion…but humor will only go so far leaving the question unanswered…in other postings I think I asked if you can tell Monday morning or. Just mixing everybody up, like shuffling a deck of cards after church lets out and then pick out the tran and the con and the symbolic folk…bis balt

“Matthew 26: [26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.”

“Mark 14: [22] And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. [23] And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

"Luke 22: [15] And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. [16] For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [17] And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: [18] For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. "

“St. Paul: 1 Corinthians 10: [14] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols. [15] I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say. [16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. [18] Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? [19] What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? [20] But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”
Jesus said it, Himself: "John 6: [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. ** [58]As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever."
Should there ever be any question or doubt that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus? Or that what the Apostles did then, is also exactly what happens in every Catholic Mass? The Apostles were very much aware that the bread and wine that they blessed and shared at their commemoration of the last supper, was the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus clearly told them that it was. Why should any of us think otherwise? Would Jesus lie to us? Was He just being melodramatic? No. He was telling us the truth. That’s why some of His disciples left Him, then, because they couldn’t believe it, either. He didn’t try to stop them, or even try to change their understanding of what He said, because He knew they understood Him correctly. Who could believe it? The Apostles most certainly did believe it."[69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.** "

 

[benhur]

“Matthew 26: [26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.”

“Mark 14: [22] And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. [23] And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

"Luke 22: [15] And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. [16] For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [17] And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: [18] For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. "

“St. Paul: 1 Corinthians 10: [14] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols. [15] I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say. [16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. [18] Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? [19] What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? [20] But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”
Jesus said it, Himself: “John 6: [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58]As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.”
Should there ever be any question or doubt that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus? Or that what the Apostles did then, is also exactly what happens in every Catholic Mass? The Apostles were very much aware that the bread and wine that they blessed and shared at their commemoration of the last supper, was the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus clearly told them that it was. Why should any of us think otherwise? Would Jesus lie to us? Was He just being melodramatic? No. He was telling us the truth. That’s why some of His disciples left Him, then, because they couldn’t believe it, either. He didn’t try to stop them, or even try to change their understanding of what He said, because He knew they understood Him correctly. Who could believe it? The Apostles most certainly did believe it."[69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. "

Yes and that is how Peter “ate” theLord , by faith with his confession according to St. Augustine…The others left not because of the ‘‘eating’’ primarily but because they did not believe from the beginning.john 6:64 “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” …They were offended at the veiled Calvary -that this possible messiah would have to die (can’t eat what is alive) for he continues with , “*What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” * No, these people didn’t believe in the “program”. No way would they accept Isaiah 53’s Lamb, nor His Ascension. He was supposed to kick out the Romans and set up Davidic throne…They were not believers who then walked away at the eating…Anyways, this is what you won’t find in scripture or early fathers "remembering’’, "Pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty father…May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands’’ …This changing our commanded remembrance into a sacrifice, a re presenting, has nothing to do with real presence though related (it is a separate matter).