Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Robbinson]

for the inner 12 it should have been clear enough well before that. They had already heard the “believe in me and receive eternal life” message. And if they listened closely that day, they would have heard:
v 40 whoever believes in the Son shall have eternal life
v 47 whoever believes in the Son shall have eternal life
v 51 whoever eats my living bread/flesh has eternal life
v 54 whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

somewhere there should have been an “Oh snap, Jesus is using ‘believing in him’ and ‘eating his flesh’ interchangably…eating is to be understood as believing.”

First, your math is bad. It is 1500 years between Christ and the reformation. Second you are presuming what is at issue… I see no reason to believe that a literal understanding was taught for the first 100 +/- years after Christ or that a consensus was reached until after Origen and Augustine. Third, even now less than 60% of those Americans who consider themselves RC believe in a Real Presence. Hardly “all” for 1600 years.

only one of those known as the apostolic fathers said anything that could be indicative of a belief in a Real Presence. Here is something that I posted on another thread. Ignatius does say:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Please note, that given that Ignatius was addressing a gnostic position, I feel it appropriate to understand Ignatius’s argument here to be:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself.

This figurative interpretation is supported by Ignatius’s figurative language when he said, “I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”

except that is exactly what he repeatedly said…it seems that you are inclined to pick and chose when you will insist on a literal understanding.

well, I wouldn’t call it “literal” when the bread still smells, tastes, feels and looks exactly like bread.

You seem to be missing something. If you are going to argue that the elements of the Passover meal must find an exact counterpart in the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t you be also asking whether I am missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB’S BLOOD MUST BE DRUNK?..but if you can’t ask that second question, then why should I believe that your first question has any merit?..or, shouldn’t you be also asking that isn’t it the case that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE SLAIN? …but if you can’t ask that third question (b/c it would invalidate the first Lord’s Supper), then why should I believe that your first question has any merit?

Radical - you may not believe in the real presence (that is your perogative), but as to the historical record - it is abundantly clear that the early Church fathers taught the “real presence”. I’m out of town, or would send you numerous quotes (in addition to the Ignatius quote you noted - w hich actually is quite clear on its face). Most protestant scholars will not contest this - but make their arguments on the basis of scriptural interpretation not questioning the history of early Christian belief. In fact, the “real presence of the Eucharist” was to the common viewpoint until the time of the reformation and even Luther, who most acknowledge as the “father” of the reformation held a largely “real presence” view point.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

To my thinking, there are only two times where Jesus did not explain further what he had said to those who listened. One was when he spoke of his own death and resurrection and the other was John 6. Once he had died and rose again, all of them saw what he had been saying. In John 6, if he did not mean it literally, why did he not explain it? There were times when he explained things to the 12 when others were not around. This is not the case, either. Why?

Am I asking the wrong question?

And, in the spirit of CHristmas, we should all think about what Bethlehem means.

HOUSE OF BREAD

Something else that I think it is relevant.

The apostle John didn’t write the words of the gospel at the time. He wrote them years later. By then, he had participated in communion dozens if not hundreds of times.

He selected the words of Jesus that he thought were appropriate.

Read John 6 with the understanding that John knew exactly what Jesus was talking about.

 

[ralphinal]

for the inner 12 it should have been clear enough well before that. They had already heard the “believe in me and receive eternal life” message. And if they listened closely that day, they would have heard:
v 40 whoever believes in the Son shall have eternal life
v 47 whoever believes in the Son shall have eternal life
v 51 whoever eats my living bread/flesh has eternal life
v 54 whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

somewhere there should have been an “Oh snap, Jesus is using ‘believing in him’ and ‘eating his flesh’ interchangably…eating is to be understood as believing.”

But you are ignoring the actual words. To eat one’s flesh (word used translates better as gnaw) was alwas taken to mean “destroy or defame.”

First, your math is bad. It is 1500 years between Christ and the reformation. Second you are presuming what is at issue… I see no reason to believe that a literal understanding was taught for the first 100 +/- years after Christ or that a consensus was reached until after Origen and Augustine. Third, even now less than 60% of those Americans who consider themselves RC believe in a Real Presence. Hardly “all” for 1600 years.

The day I trust my fellow Americans is a sad day indeed. Why don’t you prove that the early Chruch Fathers did not understand a real presence.

only one of those known as the apostolic fathers said anything that could be indicative of a belief in a Real Presence. Here is something that I posted on another thread. Ignatius does say:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Please note, that given that Ignatius was addressing a gnostic position, I feel it appropriate to understand Ignatius’s argument here to be:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself.

This figurative interpretation is supported by Ignatius’s figurative language when he said, “I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”

except that is exactly what he repeatedly said…it seems that you are inclined to pick and chose when you will insist on a literal understanding.

well, I wouldn’t call it “literal” when the bread still smells, tastes, feels and looks exactly like bread.

It is literal but not offensive to our senses.

You seem to be missing something. If you are going to argue that the elements of the Passover meal must find an exact counterpart in the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t you be also asking whether I am missing the fact that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB’S BLOOD MUST BE DRUNK?..but if you can’t ask that second question, then why should I believe that your first question has any merit?..or, shouldn’t you be also asking that isn’t it the case that in order for the passover meal to be complete, the LAMB MUST BE SLAIN? …but if you can’t ask that third question (b/c it would invalidate the first Lord’s Supper), then why should I believe that your first question has any merit?

Was Jesus not the lamb? Why would he command us to drink his blood when it was not part of passover? Hint: why did God forbid the drinking of blood…

And the Lamb WAS slain. The Last Supper, though it was done prior to the crucifixion, still contained the Lord’s body and blood. Jesus, as God, can work miracles, you know.

 

[BrianH]

Interesting take on Ignatius radical. I am going to look at what you wrote and the Letter some more.

 

[Robbinson]

Interesting take on Ignatius radical. I am going to look at what you wrote and the Letter some more.

I found the additional quotes from the early fathers I mentioned to radical in a prior post :

A few quotes from early Church fathers re: the Eucharist:

St. Ignatius (110AD): “[heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ . . .” (Letter to the Smyrneans 6, 2);

St. Justin Martyr (150AD)" - “not as common bread, nor common drink do we receive these; but . . . 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 are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that Incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology 66, 20)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (195AD): “He [Jesus] has declared the cup, a part of his creation, to be His own blood from which causes our blood flow; and the bread, a part of his creation, He has established as his own body from which He gives increase to our bodies.” (Against Heresies 5, 2, 2)

Blessings,

Brian

 

[NonCatholic]

To my thinking, there are only two times where Jesus did not explain further what he had said to those who listened. One was when he spoke of his own death and resurrection and the other was John 6. Once he had died and rose again, all of them saw what he had been saying. In John 6, if he did not mean it literally, why did he not explain it? There were times when he explained things to the 12 when others were not around. This is not the case, either. Why?

Am I asking the wrong question?

John 6:26-29 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 “Do not work for the food (literal)which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life (spiritual), which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Jesus answers the question before and after in no uncertain terms as to what He meant. The people who did not get it, the crowd that thought He was talking of cannibalism, walked away in “disbelief”.

Worry, if you do not see the simplicity in all of this. The entire book of John is showing the Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, as the Word; it shows the way of salvation and shows those who are able to accept the offer(they understand) and those who reject (don’t get it due to spiritual blindness). Only God can open the eyes of the blind.

 

[look3467]

Interesting info:The four natures of Christ
Matthew = Jesus as King
Mark = Jesus as a servant
Luke = Jesus as a man
John = Jesus as God

Eze 1:10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man (Luke), and the face of a lion (King), on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox (Servant) on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.(God)

The four gospels representing the four faces of Christ.

Is there any symbolism, metaphors and or number representations in the bible?

The tip o the ice berg?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[ralphinal]

John 6:26-29 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 “Do not work for the food (literal)which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life (spiritual), which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Jesus answers the question before and after in no uncertain terms as to what He meant. The people who did not get it, the crowd that thought He was talking of cannibalism, walked away in “disbelief”.

Worry, if you do not see the simplicity in all of this. The entire book of John is showing the Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, as the Word; it shows the way of salvation and shows those who are able to accept the offer(they understand) and those who reject (don’t get it due to spiritual blindness). Only God can open the eyes of the blind.

And yet why must it be symbolic? I think that we are having trouble communicating. It is not about the food for the body but the food for the soul. Why did Jesus use words that meant to insult and degrade in the most violent way? How is that doing the work of God? Why did he say that His Flesh was FOOD INDEED?

 

[look3467]

The day I trust my fellow Americans is a sad day indeed. Why don’t you prove that the early Chruch Fathers did not understand a real presence.>>>ralphinal

Paul, having seen the glory of God on the road to Damascus, knew and understood more than he led us to believe.

Ref:1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Paul was careful to deliver only what the people then could digest, understand.
Much what milk is to a baby and meat is to an adult.

The “meat” of the word that we eat(Digest) is the spiritual understanding that is commensurate with our spiritual growth.

Did Eve really eat of an apple? For a child’s understanding, Yes!

But for the spiritually mature? No.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

Why did Jesus use words that meant to insult and degrade in the most violent way? How is that doing the work of God? Why did he say that His Flesh was FOOD INDEED?>>>ralphinal

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:

Without the Holy Spirits revelation, we can know and understand nothing.
Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Except the Father reveal it to us we shall still be in the dark: Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[ralphinal]

So, AJ,
Do you think that the 12 understood him in John 6?

 

[Radical]

But you are ignoring the actual words. To eat one’s flesh (word used translates better as gnaw) was alwas taken to mean “destroy or defame.”

always? perhaps you could provide an authority for that “always” claim…in any event, you RCs don’t actually think any gnawing or destruction of flesh occurs b/c the physical attributes of the flesh are not present to be acted upon by your teeth, so what’s your point?

Why don’t you prove that the early Chruch Fathers did not understand a real presence.

I don’t think I need to prove anything such as that. Rather, wouldn’t it be the case that I only need to prove that variation existed among the ECFs with respect to their views regarding a real bodily presence in the Eucharist? If such variation exists then:

a) the apostles didn’t tell the whole story and the ECFs where in the business of adding to what was originally taught so that variations arose; or

b) the apostles did tell the whole story, but certain ECFs where in the business changing what the apostles taught so that variations arose; or

c) the apostles did tell the whole story, but certain ECFs were unaware of all that the apsotles taught and were in the business of adding to what they knew so that variations arose.

If it is (a) then the RCC has a problem b/c it can’t establish what was added and what was original. Instead, all the RCC can do is insist that God wouldn’t allow the RCC to fall into error, which is really just saying that the RC position must be right b/c my faith requires it to be right.

If it is (b) or (c) then the RCC has a problem b/c it can’t establish which ECFs changed or added to what was originally taught and which ECFs didn’t. Intead, all the RCC can do is insist that God ensured that the RCC followed the right ECFs b/c God wouldn’t allow the RCC to fall into error, which is really just saying that the RC position must be right b/c my faith requires it to be right.

If you are interested, I would be happy to engage in an investigation of what ceratin ECFs believed regarding a real bodily presence. I have already done so with respect to Augustine on this thread . If you are game, why don’t we start with Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen?

It is literal but not offensive to our senses.

well I prefer Augustine’s understanding of literal to yours…

Was Jesus not the lamb? Why would he command us to drink his blood when it was not part of passover? Hint: why did God forbid the drinking of blood…

It seems that you have abandoned the “counterpart” argument as far as it applies to the cup…so again, why should your “counterpart” argument regarding the other element hold any water? It seems that you are in the business of drawing a parallel when it suits you and then abandoning a parallel involving the exact same matters when it doesn’t work for you. I would like to see a little more consistency for the basis of an argument.

 

[look3467]

So, AJ,
Do you think that the 12 understood him in John 6?

Of course not! It was not until the assembly at the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon them did they understand the significance of it.

Had they understood at the time Jesus spoke of it, they would have never deserted Him on His way to the cross.

Afterward, they were boldly empowered by the presence of the Holy Spirit to boldly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As often as they met, they celebrated His death, burial and resurrection by remembering in the partaking of the Lord’s Supper first, after having their hearts been renewed from on high.

Remember and understand one thing, that everything remained the same prior to the cross, even with Jesus’ understandings, and after the cross all things were made new.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

After the cross: 2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Radical]

Radical - you may not believe in the real presence (that is your perogative),…

Thanks for your permission. Please allow me to return the favour regarding this:

… but as to the historical record - it is abundantly clear that the early Church fathers taught the “real presence”. …Most protestant scholars will not contest this - but make their arguments on the basis of scriptural interpretation not questioning the history of early Christian belief. In fact, the “real presence of the Eucharist” was to the common viewpoint until the time of the reformation and even Luther, who most acknowledge as the “father” of the reformation held a largely “real presence” view point.

You may believe what you wrote here (that is your perogative) but what you think is abundantly clear, ain’t clear at all. As pointed out to “raphinal” above, I discussed Augustine’s view already. As you can see, at the end of that thread a fellow who supported the Real Presence resorted to an “most of the scholars agree that we are right” type of argument What I said there applies here to your claim of abundant clarity. I said:

An appeal to an authority other than God on religious matters is something we protestants are inclined to disregard (It’s in our nature you know)…and serves little purpose in these forum discussions. We could duel with authorities if you like. This is from O’Connor’s The Hidden Manna:

*In respect to the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, St. Augustine’s doctrine has always presented certain difficulties. F. van deer Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, writes:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West. *

That, from a fellow who is acknowledged (by by O’Connor, a staunch RC) as the author of a renowned work on Augustine. Hardly clear.

As to the three ECFs you quoted, I already have remarked on the Ignatius quote. Regarding Martyr, the change referred to is the one that occurs upon digestion and the assimilation of food into the body of the eater. Further, if you look at my last post to “ralphinal” above, you should note that I believe that you must not only establish (through quotes that cannot be read with a figurative understanding) that the ECFs held to a real bodily presence, but you must also show that no significant variation existed. In that regard, what do you think the scholars believe about the existence of such a variation?

 

[NonCatholic]

And yet why must it be symbolic? I think that we are having trouble communicating. It is not about the food for the body but the food for the soul. Why did Jesus use words that meant to insult and degrade in the most violent way? How is that doing the work of God? Why did he say that His Flesh was FOOD INDEED?

Like I said before; there was the group that went away in disbelief, the ones that said to themselves how can we eat His flesh and drink His blood in a literal sense.? At the beginning and at the end of John 6 He explains what He means by what He said. I do not expect you to see this; your mind is fixed and that is the way it is.

 

[Robbinson]

Thanks for your permission. Please allow me to return the favour regarding this:

You may believe what you wrote here (that is your perogative) but what you think is abundantly clear, ain’t clear at all. As pointed out to “raphinal” above, I discussed Augustine’s view already. As you can see, at the end of that thread a fellow who supported the Real Presence resorted to an “most of the scholars agree that we are right” type of argument What I said there applies here to your claim of abundant clarity. I said:

An appeal to an authority other than God on religious matters is something we protestants are inclined to disregard (It’s in our nature you know)…and serves little purpose in these forum discussions. We could duel with authorities if you like. This is from O’Connor’s The Hidden Manna:

*In respect to the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, St. Augustine’s doctrine has always presented certain difficulties. F. van deer Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, writes:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West. *

That, from a fellow who is acknowledged (by by O’Connor, a staunch RC) as the author of a renowned work on Augustine. Hardly clear.

As to the three ECFs you quoted, I already have remarked on the Ignatius quote. Regarding Martyr, the change referred to is the one that occurs upon digestion and the assimilation of food into the body of the eater. Further, if you look at my last post to “ralphinal” above, you should note that I believe that you must not only establish (through quotes that cannot be read with a figurative understanding) that the ECFs held to a real bodily presence, but you must also show that no significant variation existed. In that regard, what do you think the scholars believe about the existence of such a variation?

Thanks Radical:

I’ve provided several quotes of early Fathers supporting belief in the real presence. I’m sure we can find quotes for individuals who have not held this view. However, as to the historical record - I am surprised by your assertion that the historical record does not document the early christian belief in the real presence. Let’s break this down so we can really get at the issues.

1. I acknowledge the differing interpretation of scripture and that we can’t look to quotes from individual alone to “make the case” (on either interpretation).
2. I do believe the historical beliefs of the early Christians are relevant in trying to understand what the apostles meant when they wrote these words;
3. I do believe that that writings of the early Church fathers demonstrate that this was the common early christian view (in fact, the common view up until the reformation). While there we (will always) be exceptions (as there have always been herecies), I’d like to see some evidence from you that this was not the prevailing view as I’m pretty well read (from both the Protestant and Catholic perspective - you sound well read as well, so I’d like to learn if my experience on the historical record is different than yours) and sincerely haven’t seen many Protestant scholars seriously question the early christian belief (they do attack the basis of that belief - that is a different issue).
4. Perhaps its hard to read tone in emails - (I know it can be), so I intended no sarcism in my post when i said “your perogative” - so I’ll ask you to use charity in yours so, as brothers/sisters (as applicable) in Christ, we can dialogue in love and respect.

To me - the combination of the historical record; Jesus own words in John 6 and Paul’s words in Corinthians form a powerful proof of the intended literal reading of these words.

The last point I will make is that the Catholic Church has uniformly held this view of the real presence since its inception (or is that something you disagree with as well?).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Radical]

1. I do believe the historical beliefs of the early Christians are relevant in trying to understand what the apostles meant when they wrote these words;

agreed, but with two strong qualifications. I tend to break down the early historical record into a) the writings of the apostles, b) the writings called the Apostolic Fathers, c) the ECFs between the Apostolic Fathers and Nicea and d) Nicea to Augustine. The relevancy diminishes as one goes down the line. Also, the work in question often gives an indication as to the authority the ECF is resorting to…sometimes the OT, sometimes a myth, sometimes the NT etc. If the indicated authority is something other than the apostles, then relevancy is seriously diminished or eliminated.

1. I do believe that that writings of the early Church fathers demonstrate that this was the common early christian view …I’d like to see some evidence from you that this was not the prevailing view as I’m pretty well read (from both the Protestant and Catholic perspective - you sound well read as well, so I’d like to learn if my experience on the historical record is different than yours) and sincerely haven’t seen many Protestant scholars seriously question the early christian belief (they do attack the basis of that belief - that is a different issue).

I see the Real bodily Presence view slowly gaining over the four time periods that I deliniated above…growing as distance from Christ and the apostles increases (of course from my understanding that Jesus was talking symbolically in the first place)

1. Perhaps its hard to read tone in emails - (I know it can be), so I intended no sarcism in my post when i said “your perogative” -

I never inferred sarcasm…I was merely amused by the way you said it…hence the winking icon

…ask you to use charity in yours so, as brothers/sisters (as applicable) in Christ, we can dialogue in love and respect.

and I intended no offense in return…we are indeed brothers in Christ…but then again, I tend to joke around with my siblings, so whenever in doubt, please assume that I am just having a bit of fun

To me - the combination of the historical record; Jesus own words in John 6 and Paul’s words in Corinthians form a powerful proof of the intended literal reading of these words.

understood

The last point I will make is that the Catholic Church has uniformly held this view of the real presence since its inception (or is that something you disagree with as well?).

First, I do not identify the RCC as the church founded in Jerusalem by Christ…so it depends on what you mean by “Catholic Church” and “inception”. Second, I believe (very strongly) that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6 and at the first Lord’s Supper and so I do not believe that a belief in a real bodily presence was around at the very start. If I thought either Christ or the apostles taught that doctrine, then I would adopt it.

Cheers and may God bless you.

 

[Robbinson]

agreed, but with two strong qualifications. I tend to break down the early historical record into a) the writings of the apostles, b) the writings called the Apostolic Fathers, c) the ECFs between the Apostolic Fathers and Nicea and d) Nicea to Augustine. The relevancy diminishes as one goes down the line. Also, the work in question often gives an indication as to the authority the ECF is resorting to…sometimes the OT, sometimes a myth, sometimes the NT etc. If the indicated authority is something other than the apostles, then relevancy is seriously diminished or eliminated.

I see the Real bodily Presence view slowly gaining over the four time periods that I deliniated above…growing as distance from Christ and the apostles increases (of course from my understanding that Jesus was talking symbolically in the first place)

I never inferred sarcasm…I was merely amused by the way you said it…hence the winking icon

and I intended no offense in return…we are indeed brothers in Christ…but then again, I tend to joke around with my siblings, so whenever in doubt, please assume that I am just having a bit of fun

understood

First, I do not identify the RCC as the church founded in Jerusalem by Christ…so it depends on what you mean by “Catholic Church” and “inception”. Second, I believe (very strongly) that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6 and at the first Lord’s Supper and so I do not believe that a belief in a real bodily presence was around at the very start. If I thought either Christ or the apostles taught that doctrine, then I would adopt it.

Cheers and may God bless you.

Thanks Radical - this was very helpful to me in understanding where you are coming from. I’m out of town, but will dig a bit deeper into early Church writings after the New Year.

In the meantime, given your parameters - I guess I’d initially revert back to the Ignatius quote as he was a direct disciple of St. John (author of the gospel) and irrespective of whether he was responding to an agnostic or other heresy, his quote does appear on its face to directly speak to his and the general belief in the “real presence” in the Eucharist. I’ll look at it further as well in its full context (i.e., will go back to the source).

Blessings - and best wishes for a Happy New Year.

Brian

 

[thirdn6]

John 6:26-29 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 “Do not work for the food (literal)which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life (spiritual), which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

**Jesus answers the question before and after in no uncertain terms as to what He meant. The people who did not get it, the crowd that thought He was talking of cannibalism, walked away in “disbelief”. **
Worry, if you do not see the simplicity in all of this. The entire book of John is showing the Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, as the Word; it shows the way of salvation and shows those who are able to accept the offer(they understand) and those who reject (don’t get it due to spiritual blindness). Only God can open the eyes of the blind.

Yep! Among those who stayed were probably catholics in their faith and might have said, “Amen!” Jesus is the bread of life. He has the words of eternal life. They were so faithful.

And among those who were expecting him to correct himself that he should have really meant ‘spiritually’ were protestants- dismayed and disappointed and just walked away thinking he meant ‘cannibalism’!

“54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 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.” DRB John 6

Amen!

That he taught while He and his disciples were in Capernaum, just after the miracles of fish and bread, and his walking on water!

Fast forward to the last supper, Jesus said it again! “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.” DRB Matt 26

Now, what would a protestant say if he is one among those sitting at the table? Or listening. “Are we dumb? He already meant it to be ‘spiritual’ why does he keep repeating it to be his body and blood? And has to be eaten and drunk?” And so you protest again… back to the same situation as in John 6. Actually, they are protesting up until now that he meant something else…

What would a Catholic say if he is one among those sitting at the table? Or listening. “Amen! Jesus is the bread of life. He has the words of eternal life.” They are so faithful!

 

[Zooey]

Jesus instructed his followers to partake of his body and blood.

When Jesus spoke figuratively, no one was shocked or confused because he clarified his point for them.

Why did so many followers leave after his statements in John 6?

When Jesus described himself as a door or a light, no one declared it to be a “hard teaching”.

Paul, and the entire early Church documented the understanding that Jesus is indeed with us in body and spirit in the Eucharist.

Why deny it?

You have taken out of context and put a false interpretation of this passage.
How the Corinthian church (notice not CATHOLIC church) was eats and drinks unworthily is that they were greedy and did not share in the love feast.
CONTEXT,CONTEXT,CONTEXT

The Catholic Church at Corinth… there not being any Baptist churches in Corinth at the time…

And, in the spirit of CHristmas, we should all think about what Bethlehem means.

HOUSE OF BREAD

:extrahappy: :crying: :extrahappy: :crying: :extrahappy: “For joy, it seems, she was unable to speak”–Franny & Zooey, Salinger