Merely Grape Juice

[6YRSHOME]

Ignatius of Anticoh 110AD
Take not of those who hold herodox opinions of the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary thier opinions ar to the mind of God. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor for the orphan, nor for the distressed, nor for those in prison or freed from prison, nor for the hungry and thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which is the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. It would be better for them to have love, so that they might rise again. It is right to shun such ment and not even to speak abouth them- neither in public nor in private.

Justin the Martyr 100AD
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teching to be true an who has been washed in the wasing which is for the remission of sins anf ro the regneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not 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 bben taught, the food which has been made into the Echarist byt the Eucharistic prayer sent down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

There are many more references. You may look them up if you want. The point is that the Church always believed in the real presence.

 

[rbarcia]

Ignatius of Anticoh 110AD
Take not of those who hold herodox opinions of the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary thier opinions ar to the mind of God. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor for the orphan, nor for the distressed, nor for those in prison or freed from prison, nor for the hungry and thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which is the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. It would be better for them to have love, so that they might rise again. It is right to shun such ment and not even to speak abouth them- neither in public nor in private.

Justin the Martyr 100AD
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teching to be true an who has been washed in the wasing which is for the remission of sins anf ro the regneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not 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 bben taught, the food which has been made into the Echarist byt the Eucharistic prayer sent down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

There are many more references. You may look them up if you want. The point is that the Church always believed in the real presence.

1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):

Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a “remembrance of His being made flesh”, not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as “in remembrance of His own blood” not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, **in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."** (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

1. Irenaeus (180 AD):

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use “evil material things” like bread and juice in the Lord’s Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

“How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? … Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view”. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

1. Tertullian (200 AD):

Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

 

[Mickey]

Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation

Doubtful.

If you take all his writings in context you will plainly see that St Justin Martyr believed in the Real Presence and the remembrance of the holy event. It’s both!

Same goes for the other writers you quoted.

 

[a_priori]

Doubtful.

If you take all his writings in context you will plainly see that St Justin Martyr believed in the Real Presence and the remembrance of the holy event. It’s both!

Same goes for the other writers you quoted.

Good point. If people take the time to study Church history with an open mind they may discover some interesting things that tend to disagree with some of what they have been told.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Can I just get something off my chest about specifically the wine and grape juice thing… …

Side note Mr Welch did make his juice of excellent quality to use for communion but I digress.

Some people CANNOT have alcohol, period. End of story, thats all she wrote. (Im sure thats why grape juice was introduced.) My Father who was a alcoholic finally broke free. At my wedding he broke down with everyone and had a glass for toasting. Didnt take long before he was drinking again. I would have never allowed wine there had I known the affect. But people treat addictions so casually. It takes 1 smoke for smokers, 1 little thing leads to bigger things. Not just my dad, but alot of people out there struggle daily.

Dont tell me hes weak, of course he is, we all are. We all are weak to something, those that say they arent are lying to themselves. Wasnt it Paul that said if it causes your brother to be weak then DONT do it. So why the endless debate about grape/wine, it should have been settled with Paul back in the day. Its not a mystery, its not due to interpertation, its pretty plain, and part of loving one another.

ps Im not mad, if it sounds that way, I, just for the life of me, cannot understand the arguement, when it was put straight so long ago.

pps Im not talking about real presense just wine or grape juice