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

[GKC]

LOL. The communion can’t even get all the bishops to a conference that happens only once a decade, it would be an act of God if something like that worked

I’m sure some sect would reject the notion of a showing of hands anyway

No doubt.

I could ask around my parish, but the result would be forgone. Not Protestant.

GKC

 

[grampben]

No doubt.

I could ask around my parish, but the result would be forgone. Not Protestant.

GKC

Do you believe the church to have at one point been protestant?
(that is an actual question lol.) I mean why did the anglican church separate from the catholic church, if it is just an extension of that faith?

 

[pneuma07]

For an argument from silence … rather than maintaining a united front against Gnosticism?

Dear Radical,

         as for Macarius, I mean controversies ... among Church Fathers.   That in any time there were some  people struggling with  the teaching of the RP,  I am very inclined to believe.  As quoted in this forum and this thread,  many if not most nominal catholics appear to do so nowadays.  That does not mean at all you have catholic bishops who  teach different ways and engage in controversies among themselves.  ( questions being always there nowdays as well, as, for example about the  proper translation of *hyper  pollòn*)So, it seems, used to be in the Catholic Church in the IV or II century as well.

You appear to believe it was obvious that the Institution has to be seen as merely symbolic , and interculturally so. Indeed, IMHO this point is quite necessary for the NRP field. That is, this appears the only explanation why Jesus ( or the sacred author, commenting) did not express any symbolic caveat in any tale. On the other hand note please that the situation is not symmetrical here. I am not stating at this point, it was simply obvious the symbolic view was out of question, a priori.

But if we can remain open to an even small possibility the Institution could be taken realistically, then you get lead to consider it was meant as realist indeed.

If the premise is “realism was (is) unacceptable”, no amount of explaining/confirming could change this simple clear unacceptability.

(I cannot do but stress that you elsewhere explain that RP is attractive. Maybe it’s impossible getting to believe directly with RP, but it is attractive passing from NRP to RP ? ).

Let’s imagine, say”This is my body, by this I mean “this is my body”, I mean really not just symbolically”…and so on. If the sentence “this is my body” is per se unacceptable in his realist meaning in the first place , we’d go on listening and receiving that the repetition means always something not realist, that the “really” is not “really, really” and so on.

If , on the other hand, we admit a realistic understanding was just even possible, as said, then, in order to avoid it, Jesus could simply use the rich Aramaic vocabulary which was available in order to communicate a mere symbolic meaning.

I consider that the realistic understanding was astonishing and profoundly alien to their ( or our) “normal” mindsets.
Yet the absolute exceptionality of Jesus and the experience alongside Him made believing Jesus’ words for what they say acceptable, and ultimately compelling.

Back to evidence of contrasts. Isn’t it simpler considering there was no campaign of destruction of evidence ? Had there been, passages pointing to NRP would be veritable “smoking guns”, destroying the goals of the campaign itself. Unless, of course, those passages you consider pointing to NRP were not seen as such by the ancient Church.

There were I’d say many views, not only Gnosticisms (from the beginning we’d say) and arianism ( since the beginning of the IV century). We know the Church would oppose so many of them. And got involved in quite serious controversies within Herself about … the date of Easter. Do you believe “real” differences on Real Presence could not be perceived and, let’s say, considered at least as serious as this querelle on liturgical calendary ?

 

[pneuma07]

…continuing
I see it differently. I see the doctrine being derived via accretion. … Common ground could also be found in the aspects such as (I) the Eucharist serves to join us spiritually together/to the one body/to Jesus himself; (II) the Eucharist as being a remembrance of the sacrifice needed for our salvation/ a thing that we are commanded to do and therefore must do for our salvation/ a means of receiving grace for our salvation. Shared views with respect to other aspects of the Eucharist and the gradual enhancement of the level of a presence would reduce the likelihood of a confrontation arising. I don’t envision it to be the drastic innovation that you describe.

first one what? The first at (b)? Probably the Didache. In general, it seems to me that the fathers of the mid forth century (being mostly at (d)) assert a presence in a much bolder and concrete manner than the fathers of the mid to late second century (being not yet at (d)). (Again, my candidates for the symbolic/spiritual holdouts are Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine in Carthage and Clement and Origen in Alexandria. )

May God bless you

I’m not here to deny development. I do believe in development.
John Henry Newman’s superbly articulated position in its masterpiece of the same name was no novelty. Nor do I deny the likely existence of “schools”. Even in Scripture we have biblists pointing to a “pauline school” on Institution (Paul himself and Luke)
and a petrine one ( Mark and Matthew). Very likely we agree there were not essential differences between the two.

What you propose to believe, on the contrary, is corruption: continuous unchecked, or even unperceived corruption of the depositum fidei.
Precisely the one thing Church leaders were trained to avoid.
I guess ( I’m making this assumption explicit here) they were better judges on the nature of developments and variations occurring in their own time than we can be here today.

The process of explicitation gives more insight on the inexhaustible richness of the Sacrament, which in its turn can engender, in a modern, reader the impression of serious variations between Fathers who would write quite a lot on Eucharist, but more incidentally than systematically.
( I am inclined to consider the absence itself of ad hoc treaties as consequence of the absence of internal struggle )

You are betting on some III century fathers, and again … “our” Augustine in IV to V
Now, your ( as always ingenious )exposition ( A title for a PhD memorable work could be “On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church”) requires as precondition that you can persuade that the few II century Fathers were definitely NRP, ( or a) if you prefer, (maybe with b) nuances ).
And for sure more so than later Fathers.
Else, the construction collapses.

Bless you.

 

[stbruno]

As to the poll…my answer is DEFINITELY, I BELIEVE!!!

 

[GKC]

Do you believe the church to have at one point been protestant?
(that is an actual question lol.) I mean why did the anglican church separate from the catholic church, if it is just an extension of that faith?

So that he could receive his decree of nullity, Henry didn’t separate from the Catholic Church. He took the Church in England from under the authority of Rome. That was the pivot point of a process that would likely have happened in some fashion anyway, as a part of the dawning of nationalism,as refelected in the Parliamentary acts and Royal decrees I mentioned before…

Henrician Anglicanism was national Catholicism. Edwardian Anglicanism was a swing to the reformed. And Elizabeth set the seal on it, with the Elizabethan Compromise. It always contained a range of beliefs, from the more reformed, to the more Catholic. And since it retained (yes, as we know, I’m familiar with Apostolicae Curae) apostolic succession, it remained Catholic in essence. Though what answer you got to that question depended on which Anglican you asked, and when.

Other opinions are easily found, too.

GKC

 

[Realcatholicgk]

grampben:

You are obviously not aware of anglican history. Most anglicans do consider themselves protestant.
**
Hi Gramp,

You obviously have not real a lot of the postings. GKC is very aware **of Anglican history. He is one of the first to make sure Catholics do not misunderstand that he also knows and respects our prespective. As far as his beliefs differing from the real church, many of their people believe what we do. In their case it just isn’t true being they aren’t members of our Church! !.

I am a cradle Catholic, that although I must agree they do not have apostalic succession and are not “part of the catholic church” realize that many of their churchs are more Catholic then some of our liberal Catholic churchs.

Like other groups of christians, many of them have a real and sincere love for Jesus. They are in the “right church” so to say, just in the wrong “pew!”

 

[hughi]

Having read some of the posts, the most readily apparent fact is the strong emotion that surrounds this issue. I can relate to it from both past and more recent experience. Obviously, the colonel left in a state of disgust, and I suppose that is always sad when people attempt to engage in an exchange of ideas. Religious ideas are obviously “ultimate” ideas, and therefore, it isn’t surprising when one person’s view treads on the sacredly held belief of another. Well, such is the nature and substance of philosophical and religious debate.

At age 12 or so, I remember the Catholic kid next door coming over and telling my sister and I that we were going to Hell since we belonged to the wrong Church. Now that was a tough pill to swallow. And to make things, worse, she was the first girl I ever kissed (and she even paid me a dollar to do it). My sister never wanted to speak to her again. Ironically, she and her family were invited by our parents to my sister’s wedding (after all, they were the next-door neighbors). The Catholic girl showed-up with her Jewish fiancee, and informed us of her decision to convert to Judaism. What a twist! I guess she decided that Hell wasn’t such a bad place after all!

My first experience of being excluded from Catholic eucharist came as a college student, when I was invited to an Italian Catholic friend’s home for Thanksgiving. Inside the sanctuary, my friend politely told me to refrain from communion. I had no idea what he was talking about (or maybe I did), but certainly complied with his request. His mother’s home-made ravioli later that aftenoon was great, but the red wine was a little strong for my young palate.

Ten years later I was unofficially kicked-out of the Methodist Church, and rightfully so, for failing to make good on a commitment to teach a juniors Sunday School class. I was bitter, but in looking back, I was pretty confused at that point in my life.

I started dating my wife during that same period of time. She was Catholic, and invited me to meet her family. They were great (they were Irish Catholic), and as my grandfather was Irish Catholic, I may have felt some sort of a vague bond. ’

We went to Mass, and when it came time to walk the aisle for communion, my girlfriend told me to stay put in the pew. I was very hurt. No, I was angry, and stayed that way for weeks. I felt belittled and disgraced, but we were able to patch our differences and eventually married in the Catholic Church, but I refused to convert at that time. I remember the parish priest, a very strict German man, telling me that my wife had religious obligations and that I was not to interfere. I signed the aggreement, and to some extent, sold my soul in the process. I wonder how different I might have felt if he had said something like, “We know you are from a different faith community, but wonder if you would consider joining ours. I know you probably find much of Catholocism to be strange and hard to understand, but I wonder if I could give you a litte tour of our sanctuary. I’ll be glad to answer any questions you may have.” Well, he didn’t say that.

Ironically, about 2 years after we married, my wife drifted away from her home Church, attracted by the Pentecostal movement at the Assemblies of God Church. I agreed to attend with her, and even joined for a brief time, but I didn’t like the church and quit. Plus, I was a lousy husband and father at the time, and much more self-indulgent that anything else. I didn’t attend any church for the next 15 years or so.

In the process of researching my Irish family roots, I came across information out the early monastic movement in Ireland circa 500 AD. To make a very long story short, I started to read myself into the Catholic Church. My wife has stayed put in the Assemblies of God, but we do attend Mass together when visiting her elderly parents.

My parish was hosting a seminar on pro-life issues, when I met a Presbyernian gentleman who came to attend. He told me that from a pro-life standpoint, he might be Catholic were it not for the Church’s ban on offering communion to non-catholics. We shared a little about our personal understanding of the issue, though our time together was brief, and we didn’t get very far into the discussion.

A common thread in Catholic catechism is the view that the Eucharist is at the heart and soul of Catholocism. That could be a misleading statement, but from a theological point of view, I think that is a fairly accurate statement. One’s view on the Eucharist or Communion neither guarantees no precludes one’s view on soup kitchen’s for the homeless, alms for the poor, or relief for flood victims… It is primarily a theological view, that in my understading, goes to the heart of what a “sacrament” is.

If the fundamental “truth” of orthodox Christianity, is that Jesus Christ is the substantive Incarnation of God in human and thus material form, and therefore fully God and fully Man, then perhaps, one might understand the Catholic view of Eucharist as the “smoking gun” of that event, transcending time and space. This almost sounds like a “New Age” idea with the exception that it is strictly monotheistic, and does not recognize he “true presence” of God in other common forms of inanimate material. It’s interesting how many people of many faiths, including Christians, will speak of “God in Everything,” yet be offended and/or appalled by the idea of a transcendent God “lowering Himself” to beome a mere suffering Human, executed, bleeding and dead. And then further insulted by the notion that HIs blood is left as a lasting and quite literal sacrament of His eternal presence for those who believe. Yes, it is a theological concept. Well, hey, we all have different views, don’t we?

 

[Radical]

Your postulate seems to imply that for everyone in the Upper Room, and then in the believers to come, it is obvious that Jesus cannot mean what He says.

I object to your use of “cannot mean what he says”. He meant what he said, he just wasn’t speaking literally.

We should then explore the reasons why this is obvious and the opposite view unthinkable .
First you could claim a situational obviousness, such as ”This picture is my mother” “This point on the map is my town”: but we do not imagine they could see the bread as iconographic reproduction of His body or so.

No, they would see the bread as bread…no change made, and no need to go into the concept of an iconographic reproduction. The would see that the bread being broken and note that it was symbolic of Jesus’s body which is about to be broken. They would see the wine poured and note that it was symbolic of Jesus’s blood which is about to be poured out.

A staunch reason to believe Jesus cannot mean what he says, can certainly be to believe He cannot do what He says.

There might be a bit of this, b/c the RP view has Jesus saying, “I’ll change this bread into my body.” and then all present can see that no change was made to it or to his body. So it seems that w/o further explanation Jesus is saying “I’ll really change it without actually changing it”, and that is in the same ball park as “I’ll make a square circle.” …but I doubt they would have gone into an analysis of logical impossibilities…they would simply rely on their observation to know that no change was made.

That could hardly be attributed to the Apostles at that stage or later, in view of their living alongside Jesus and His record ( or to those coming to the faith through them) .

Tell me a miracle that would have prepared them for this alleged one. When Jesus changed water into wine they could observe that a change was made. When Jesus healed the leper they could observe that what was leperous was now clean. When he raised the dead, they could observe that what was dead was now alive. Where would they have gotten the idea that it was even possible to change a physical thing such as bread into another physical thing such as a body without any physical change having actually occurred?

In the following posts you appear to explain how the unthinkable option ( which was such for everyone in any context), the one against the senses ( which appear to shape any view of ours in the present exposition) was not only a thinkable option, but the “attractive” one.

I have described what I believe would be the natural response in two different realms. In the realm of the rational (the one that the apostles would have typically employed when attempting to understand a statement) the apostles would not just reference what they hear, but also reference what they saw and tasted in determining how to understand and make sense of the Lord’s words (figuratively vs. literally). Literal would be unthinkable given what they could observe. On the other hand, in the realm of the emotional, a RP view would be comforting and empowering in that it would lead the adherent to believe that he enjoyed a greater connection to God and benefited from the miraculous. (note the disciples already enjoyed the ability to interact directly to Jesus and to witness his miracles…they didn’t need to resort to an RP to gain those benefits). Further the bishops could then add that the Eucharist was essential for salvation and that only they could provide a valid Eucharist…and that was a powerful tool that could be used to control the faithful.

Bless you.

 

[grampben]

grampben:

You are obviously not aware of anglican history. Most anglicans do consider themselves protestant.
**
Hi Gramp,

You obviously have not real a lot of the postings. GKC is very aware **

of Anglican history. He is one of the first to make sure Catholics do not misunderstand that he also knows and respects our prespective. As far as his beliefs differing from the real church, many of their people believe what we do. In their case it just isn’t true being they aren’t members of our Church! !.

I am a cradle Catholic, that although I must agree they do not have apostalic succession and are not “part of the catholic church” realize that many of their churchs are more Catholic then some of our liberal Catholic churchs.

Like other groups of christians, many of them have a real and sincere love for Jesus. They are in the “right church” so to say, just in the wrong “pew!”

I never said GKC wasn’t aware of his anglican history. It’s not nice to make things up.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

**Hi Hugh,

Remember that little girl next store? She actually was right. Anyone not a Catholic probably is going to hell! That is what the Catholic church taught for over 1,900 years and what it still believes. Although after Vatican II, in order to try and regain some of the lost souls taken by Satan in the last 500 years, the Church started to ‘teach’ that since non-catholic groups were bringing people to Christ they were in fact “christians” just not fully in communion with the Catholic church.
I guess it is kind of the old “My enemy’s enemies are my friends” We all want the devil to be defeated and do good works etc. However, It’s worth noting that the Second Vatican Council was not a doctrinal or dogmatic council—This is often overlooked. It was a pastoral council—there were no anathemas issued whatsoever!

But there was what some people took as a kind of implied anathema. This, did not change the official Church’s Doctrine. It is in the third article of the decree on ecumenism, which speaks about the divisions among Christians, the “damnable” divisions among Christians, said the council fathers. “Damnable” because they contradict the church’s purpose in the divine dispensation as the sacrament of the unity of all Christians as a sign of the promised unity of mankind. God, is in Christ, attempting to reconcile the world to himself. We should do likewise.
However Full communion** in the Catholic understanding, involves agreement in doctrine, in ministry, and in liturgy. That’s usually the triumvirate, keeping in mind that doctrine includes moral doctrine. But we are all agreed, in all our ecclesiologies, however construed, that the Christian community of faith is a community of sinners. Sinners forgiven, to be sure, and sinners by the grace of God on the way to further sanctification and responding to the universal call to holiness, but still sinners.
So we are still far from this goal of full communion, from this unity, which is part of the very gospel of Jesus Christ. Foolishly, today there are 33,000 counterfeit denominations, and non-denominations with 28,000 sub denominations, and various associations, conferences, communions, conventions, fellowships, groups, sect, cults and unions. All 61,000 having 1,375 doctrines and dogmas They all partially agree with the CC and all partially disagree with the CC.There are around 21 new improved protestand denominations monthy. No one can control this rapid growth, it is like a cancer on the body of Christ. The Catholic church that has taught only the truth for 2,000 years refusing to compromise the truth and remained faithful to Jesus teachings is available to true believers the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic church.

You can copy money but if it doesn’t have the backing of the authorized issurer it is counterfeit. It can’t be spent to buy anything!

You can copy Christianity, but if it doesn’t have the backing of the Holy Catholic Church it is counterfeit. It can’t, by itself be used to obtain salvation!

As we proclaim, only the Catholic Church offers the real communion. The Eucharist! In it, Jesus is actually present both Physically and Spiritually. He is “Completely” present. Your lord and God is Here to be worshiped and eaten just as He commanded must be done to obtain eternal salvation. Only true believers understand that because the devil keeps his followers blinded to the truth!

As a Christian I must show love and concern for the other children of God. I must my help to save my brother! I have no choice. As Ft Corapi says “In the end, forever, you and I will be in Heaven or Hell. Period.” and like Him I will tell you what you need to know to obtain your personal salvation because “I’m not going to hell for anybody!”

There is no other religion, denomination or group in the world that can provide the grace for every one to obtain salvation except the Catholic church. Jesus founded it, He left us the sacraments and the church to provide his real followers with the tools necessary to win the battle and obtain eternal happiness.

And that my friend is the Truth!

God Bless

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Realcatholicgk;4668957:

**
I never said GKC wasn’t aware of his anglican history. It’s not nice to make things up.**

**
Hi Gramp,

I went back and looked. You are correct! :blushing: I got tangled in the web of the thread! In post #294 GKC answered “your” statement to jean-1958 in post #290 “You are obviously not aware of anglican history. Most anglicans do consider themselves protestant.”

I apologize, but it was a “honest” mistake. No offense meant :imsorry:

God Bless**

 

[grampben]

Hi Gramp,

I went back and looked. You are correct! I got tangled in the web of the thread! In post #294 GKC answered “your” statement to jean-1958 in post #290 “You are obviously not aware of anglican history. Most anglicans do consider themselves protestant.”

I apologize, but it was a “honest” mistake. No offense meant

God Bless

No harm done It’s an easy mistake to make, one I’ve been guilty off at times!

 

[GKC]

No harm done It’s an easy mistake to make, one I’ve been guilty off at times!

And I knew what was going on.

GKC

 

[hughi]

Realcatholicgk:
I might want to pin you down on the language in your post.

“Anyone not a Catholic is probably going to Hell. That is what the cc taught for over 1900 years and still believes.”

Probably going to Hell?

Hugh

 

[pneuma07]

Its that “in a manner” bit. The RP guy can’t grab a bit of bread off the communion table and say to the gnostic, “See, there is the very flesh of Jesus. That ends the argument, he was present on earth (in the flesh) just as he is present right here, right now in the flesh.” That argument might have some appeal amongst RPers, but would have no appeal to an outsider. To an outsider it is laughable.

As such, both the RP and the NRP are in the same boat vs. the gnostic in that they both argue that they are possessed of a tradition/belief/sacrament that goes back to Jesus himself, whereby Jesus made something his flesh (either symbolically or otherwise) and Jesus wouldn’t do that unless he actually had flesh whilst here…

Dear Radical,

I am glad you say we ‘re in the same boat.

Justin is not saying of course they were taught to show docetists a consecrated bread as proof of Incarnation to end the argument.

They were taught, concerning Eucharist, that “ In like manner as Jesus had flesh …the food blessed by the prayer … is the flesh …of that Jesus who was made flesh”
I’m not going to elaborate on this statement. It is such a realist statement, IMHO (for non docetists, of course …) !
Curiously enough, Justin sounds so catholic in the context:

no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that **is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

(I wonder whether you acknowledge the tenets of your NRP faith community in these conditions as here explained )

Bless you

 

[Protestant101]

**

You can copy Christianity, but if it doesn’t have the backing of the Holy Catholic Church it is counterfeit. It can’t, by itself be used to obtain salvation!

**

---

This is grand illusion #324

 

[Radical]

Pneuma,

(I cannot do but stress that you elsewhere explain that RP is attractive. Maybe it’s impossible getting to believe directly with RP, but it is attractive passing from NRP to RP ? ).

Hopefully, my last post before this one explained clearly how I can hold to initially unthinkable, but eventually attractive.

Let’s imagine, say”This is my body, by this I mean “this is my body”, I mean really not just symbolically”…and so on. If the sentence “this is my body” is per se unacceptable in his realist meaning in the first place , we’d go on listening and receiving that the repetition means always something not realist, that the “really” is not “really, really” and so on.

If one of the gospels recorded those words, I think I would have to choose between:
a) it was added to that gospel at a later date (this would cause real problems b/c then, perhaps, one should be suspect of all other things unique to a single gospel) or
b) Jesus was confused…meaning he wasn’t fully God (not attractive at all) ; or
c) reality is much more like an Alice in Wonderland thing than I have come to believe.

Fortunately, I don’t have to make such a choice.

Back to evidence of contrasts. Isn’t it simpler considering there was no campaign of destruction of evidence ?

Sorry, I don’t understand your question.

Do you believe “real” differences on Real Presence could not be perceived and, let’s say, considered at least as serious as this querelle on liturgical calendary ?

I would expect that they should be more serious than dates…especially in light of verses such as Romans 14: 5-6. Obviously this admission doesn’t help my case…but it seems a matter of form vs substance…and substance should (almost)always prevail.

 

[Radical]

What you propose to believe, on the contrary, is corruption: continuous unchecked, or even unperceived corruption of the depositum fidei.

I would clarify that the form of corruption was typically one of addition to the deposit. (IMHO)

Precisely the one thing Church leaders were trained to avoid.

I believe that the initial deposit was rather brief and that they did fairly well with respect to protecting it. They were considerably more liberal with respect to adding to the depsoit.

The process of explicitation gives more insight on the inexhaustible richness of the Sacrament,…

This inexhaustible richness of the Sacrament is something that I would categorize as an addition rather than part of the initial deposit.

( A title for a PhD memorable work could be “On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church”) …

I am not sure if that would be wordy enough for a thesis title…but not a bad suggestion nonetheless

… requires as precondition that you can persuade that the few II century Fathers were definitely NRP, ( or a) if you prefer, (maybe with b) nuances ).
And for sure more so than later Fathers.
Else, the construction collapses.

agreed subject to:

a) unless the transition occurred very rapidly in the first half of the 2nd century; and
b) one should expect that some reversals would occur and some areas would experience a quicker transition than others such that it wouldn’t be a pefectly clean/uniform transition.

May God bless you.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

I am glad you say we ‘re in the same boat.

Tis nice to be in the same boat as you, but we seem to spend far too much time focused on our areas of disagreement

(I wonder whether you acknowledge the tenets of your NRP faith community in these conditions as here explained )

Since this has become such an area of contention I would not endorse Martyr’s comments without qualification.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us.”

regarding this bit, it would depend on what Martyr meant by the things they taught. I wouldn’t require baptism. I wouldn’t require a bishop. I wouldn’t require a life led as “Christ handed down to us”. It seems that, in practice the RCC doesn’t require that last one either. I do require it to be approached in a worthy manner.

• “For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; …”* agreed

*"…but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is ** symbolic of ** the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." *

…and, of course, I would make the bold insertion in this bit.

Cheers!