Real Presence and John 6

[johnnyc176]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

I have heard protestants who came Home to the One True Church say they simply did not speak about John 6. It is either pride or ignorance that prevents one from seeing the Truth of Jesus and His Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Jewish Passover had remain the same for thousands of years. Remained the same in symbology, in commemoration of the events in Egypt, in how it was observed, etc. This was a pinnacle of Jewish life (religious, cultural, secular, etc).

Now here comes Christ, and He introduces (what appears to be) a new meaning and a new purpose of this ceremony, (apparently) shattering thousands of years of foundational traditions of what it is to be Jewish. This is HARD for people. HARD for people to embrace the fact that Jesus was the Christ. HARD to to embrace the new covenant. People really struggled with it, and many outright rejected it.

I would agree with you here.

Today we have the benefit of hindsight and able to make our conclusion after seeing or rather reading, all the events in the Bible. It was not so for people at the time of Jesus. Even his own apostles could not fully comprehend who he was, what he said and his teachings were obviously difficult to accept, which at that time would seem to be heresies and revolutionaries to the the orthodox Jewish belief and practices.

It was hard teaching for them to be told that they should eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life. Eating of human flesh and drink the blood? They were taught all along these were taboo and unlawful. Jews did not drink blood.

So yes, it was hard teaching and still hard today. Unless we believe that Jesus is truly the Messiah in the Christian context, that is God, then the teaching of having to eat his body and drink his blood would be truly unacceptable.

 

[Reuben_J]

But what would be the Catholic reasoned rebuttal to the cannibalism argument?

As I said in my above post, first and foremost, Jesus is God, so cannibalism does not count.

The body and the blood referred to are in his divine capacity.

Cannibalism only applies to eating of human flesh, which we do not, in the Eucharist.

Now that may not be the strongest argument or foolproof especially if one insists on saying that the Eucharist is the human flesh of Jesus. So I guess, one has to take a stance whether the resurrected Jesus is purely human or that he is spirit and therefore God.

 

[Duane1966]

My mom argues that the “hard saying” was his claim to be the Son of God and to have come from heaven. I said that this doesn’t really make sense and showed her the verses from Corinthians as well as some quotes from the early church fathers. And while she didn’t really have an explanation for what they said, she really locked down because “Jesus couldn’t have meant the real presence, because that would be cannibalism”. And I don’t really have a great response to that honestly.

Answering the cannibalism question. unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/202-eucharist-cannibalism.html

 

[Memaw]

J.G. Davies explains how the Hebrew mind would have assimilated such statements:

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)

Justin Martyr said…

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] 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. (Dialogue with Trypho, 70)

Clement of Alexandria said…

The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood (The Paedagogus 2.2)

Origen said…

We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea said…

For with the wine which was indeed** the symbol** of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

Then how do you explain all the Eucharistic Miracles within the Catholic Mass. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Duane1966]

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

The words symbol and figurative today, do not mean what it meant in the early Church, as attested to by two leading Protestant historians of the last century. Taken from this site: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num29.htm

First Kelly:

PROGRESS IN EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE from Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES

“In the third century the early Christian identification of the eucharistic bread and wine with the Lord’s body and blood continued unchanged, although a difference of approach can be detected in East and West. The outline, too, of a more considered theology of the eucharistic sacrifice begins to appear *. In the West the equation of the consecrated elements with the body and blood was quite straightforward, although the fact that the presence is sacramental was never forgotten. Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [E.g. de orat. 19; de idol. 7] the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks [De pud. 9], ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the eucharist.’ The REALISM of his theology comes to light in the argument [De res. carn. 8], based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the eucharist ‘the flesh feeds on Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s BODY and BLOOD are as REAL as the baptismal WATER.” (Kelly, pg 211)

So says J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford scholar and one of the greatest Protestant patristic scholars of the 20th century. Schaff may have been good last century, but his accounts on the Eucharist are incomplete and misleading. Further, Kelly goes on to say concerning -figura- –

"Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.’

**"YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’

"All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them [as do Catholics today – see the Catechism, paragraphs 1333ff**

“In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine.” (JND Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, page 212)***
to be continued…

 

[adamhovey1988]

With regards to the real presence of the Eucharist, although they may not call it that all the bodies that broke away from the Catholic Church before the Protestant Reformation with maybe one or two exceptions believe in the real presence. So, you have the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East(which was historically called in Nestorian) which broke fairly early on well before the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic split, and these ancient bodies also believe in the real presence of the Eucharist they might not use terms like transubstantiation or use some of the terms Latins use but they do have that idea they are. in fact, in cases of emergency and necessity Catholics may receive the Eucharist at those ancient churches I was even told that’s when I went to a Syriac Orthodox Church that I could receive communion which is true but to do so would be to declare an actvof schism unless it was absolutely necessary. I refained, but they are right and they do have a valid Eucharist according to the Catholic Church. they seem to be very happy with the fact the Catholic Church recognizes their Eucharist is valid and I don’t blame them. I think, we must go back to the ancient Witnesses on this because they definitely did not have a southern Baptist view of communion. I mean no offense to Southern Baptists many of which are sweet people, but St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew an apostle or two, defended the real presence he did not defend a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist.

 

[Duane1966]

Now Stone:

Darwell Stone on Tertullian from A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

"Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in Tertullian… Tertullian more than once uses like language with explicit reference to the Eucharist. He asserts our Lord’s intention to have been to show that bread was ‘the figure (figura) of His body’ : he explains the words ‘This is My body’ as meaning ‘This is the figure (figura) of My body’; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord’s body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread ‘makes present (repraesentat) His very body’ [Adv Marc i,14].

“The consideration of this type of phraseology must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words ‘symbol’ [in Clement of Alexandria] and ‘figure’ (figura) [in Tertullian]; (b) the meaning of the word translated ‘makes present’ (repraesentat); (c) the relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the same writers.” [something which Schaff did not address] (Stone, volume 1, page 29)

FIGURA IN TERTULLIAN – “This is the FIGURE of My body”

After Stone points out the different meanings, associations and tendencies of the words “symbol” and “figure” even in present language and cultures, he goes on to say

"As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning ‘symbol’ would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness.

‘What we nowadays,’ he writes, ‘understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies…What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.’ [HISTORY OF DOGMA, ii,144; iv,289]

"…Still more explicit indications of the meaning of such terms [as symbol or figure] in the phraseology of Tertullian may be shown by an examination of his language elsewhere and by a comparison of other known uses of the word ‘figura.’

“In describing the Incarnation Tertullian uses the phrase ‘caro FIGURATUS’ to denote that our Lord received in the womb of His Virgin Mother not only the appearance but also the REALITY of flesh [Apol 21; cf. Adv Marc iv,21]. He says that our Lord made known to the Apostles ‘the form (FIGURA) of His voice’ [Scorp 12]. He uses the word ‘figura’ in the sense of a main point in, or head of, a discussion [Adv Marc ii,21]. Elsewhere he denotes by it the prophetic anticipation of an event afterwards to be fulfilled [De Monog 6 – the Latin is provided in note].” (Stone, vol 1, pg 30,31)

Stone goes on to give further examples of “figura” –

(1) In one of Seneca’s letters it is the equivalent of the Greek word -idea- as used in Platonic philosophy (Ep lxv,7 Latin given).

(2) The translation of Phil 2:6 “being in the FORM of God” in the old Latin version becomes “in FIGURA Dei constitutus”

(3) After Tertullian, a Roman council spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being “of one Godhead, one power, one FIGURA, one essence” (Council of 370 A.D.)

(4) a Gallican version of the Nicene Creed translated “was made flesh and became man” by “corpus atque FIGURAM hominis suscepit”

"A scholar of great authority as to the meaning of early Latin documents has inferred from these facts that in Tertullian ‘figura’ is equivalent not to -schema- but to -charakter- [see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, vii,596], that is, it would approach more nearly to ‘ACTUAL and distinctive NATURE’ than to ‘symbol’ or ‘figure’ in the modern sense of those terms.

“The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING.” (Stone, vol 1, pg 31)

 

[gazelam]

ALL the sacraments are “Symbol’s”, just not symbol’s only.

Saint Justin Martyr ALSO said:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Certainly something blessed by God’s word is not common, but nothing in this quote states that the bread and wine are physically changed. Nothing in this quote goes beyond what’s stated in John 6:55.

Saint Clement of Alexandria ALSO said:

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

Again, there’s nothing here that can’t be read as symbolic.

Origen ALSO said:

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

This quote simply uses the verbiage of John 6:55 and does not take things a step further and state there is a change in substance.

One also need to read of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a DISCIPLE of St. John:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Again, no specific statement that there’s a change in substance.

And St. Irenaeus who was speaking against heretics:

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

This quote simply uses verbiage from John 6:55.

And Saint Cyrpian:

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

Another quote that does not go beyond John 6:55…

My previous statement stands that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

For one, the RCC did not formally settle this matter until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. (See papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#Confession%20of%20Faith in third paragraph where it is actually stated that there is a change in substance.)

For what it’s worth, this site justforcatholics.org/a181.htm states that Duns Scotus acknowledged that transubstantiation was not an article of faith in the Church before the Thirteenth Century. I couldn’t find a citation of this statement so I’ll just leave it at that.

Interesting this too:

ALL those Catholic Bishops who affirmed, infallibly, the Canon of the NT (27 books, no more, no less), ALL professed believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

They were after all, Catholic Priests.

That is an inconsistency Gazelam: how could a Church in a great apostasy, infallibly discern and affirm the NT canon in the late 4th century?

How can you trust those Catholic Bishops on the Canon of the NT…but distrust them on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

This is off topic.

 

[susanlo]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

I don’t know exactly what part of the teaching was hard to accept and made them turn their back. Did they turn away because they understood what Jesus meant? Or did they turn away because they misunderstood what he meant?

In the passage, the disciples ask:
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Jesus responds:
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.

It seems to me that Jesus response was that this was a concept to be understood spiritually and not literally.

 

[susanlo]

Interesting this too:

ALL those Catholic Bishops who affirmed, infallibly, the Canon of the NT (27 books, no more, no less), ALL professed believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

They were after all, Catholic Priests.

That is an inconsistency Gazelam: how could a Church in a great apostasy, infallibly discern and affirm the NT canon in the late 4th century?

How can you trust those Catholic Bishops on the Canon of the NT…but distrust them on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

I believe that Augustine of Hippo was at these councils. He had a spiritual understanding of the Eucharist.

“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

“So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit." earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

 

[rcwitness]

I believe that Augustine of Hippo was at these councils. He had a spiritual understanding of the Eucharist.

“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

“So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit." earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

The problem with a symbolic only acceptance is that it doesn’t connect the hardness of His saying. His flesh and blood is eaqual to the Spirit! The Spirit has anointed His flesh and blood, so that it will become the means of our salvation. Of course we receive as a spiritual food! But nevertheless, it is still real food and drink.

The Jews asked “How will He give us His flesh and blood to eat?”

They did not understand. They didn’t understand He would die for the forgiveness of sins or that He would provide a Sacrament to eat the sacrifice of the New Covenant.

Peter believed and trusted He was the Christ and His words were from above. Judas did not, but he stayed. This is when Jesus revealed that one of them is a devil.

 

[Duane1966]

I believe that Augustine of Hippo was at these councils. He had a spiritual understanding of the Eucharist.

“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

“So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit." earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

Susan, we’ve been through this before. I have posted in the past a passage by Augustine where he says the Eucharist MUST be adored. Everyone agrees that adoration to anything but God is idolatry. Your response was you do not know what he meant by adoration. I have also showed you several non-Catholic leading historians who say that your interpretation of how the fathers use the words figure and symbol, is vastly different than how the fathers actually mean them. You have not really given an academic response to those historians.

My question to you is, if you don’t know what Augustine meant by adoration, why should someone think you know what Augustine means in other passages of his that you post, especially when academia says you are wrong?

By the way, what you have in bold, Augustine says what you see is bread and wine, if you grasp that you are receiving Jesus’ real body and blood, the spiritual benefits are immense. Unfortunately, many Catholics do not grasp.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

A question for the Catholic’s (since it’s mostly Catholics replying - thank-you by the way!). If the host and chalice contain the resurrected Christ in his divine nature (and is therefore not cannibalism) how does it represent his sacrifice on the cross? Since he became human so that he could die for our sins?

 

[rcwitness]

A question for the Catholic’s (since it’s mostly Catholics replying - thank-you by the way!). If the host and chalice contain the resurrected Christ in his divine nature (and is therefore not cannibalism) how does it represent his sacrifice on the cross? Since he became human so that he could die for our sins?

His flesh and blood is equal to the Spirit. It is not “fallen” but “anointed” and made one with the Father. We are made one through Him. His blood is not forbidden, but contains the Spirit and life.

 

[Reuben_J]

A question for the Catholic’s (since it’s mostly Catholics replying - thank-you by the way!). If the host and chalice contain the resurrected Christ in his divine nature (and is therefore not cannibalism) how does it represent his sacrifice on the cross? Since he became human so that he could die for our sins?

Exactly. Just that. He had to die in order to become spirit, putting it simply. Not that he was not spirit before that as he existed even before the foundation of the world.

The whole concept about salvation in the sacrifice on the cross, that the Messiah had to die. It is in his death that we have the salvation. That is what the host is all about. The mass then narrates the major events, like the pascal meal, the passion and eventually his death; in which ultimately we can eat his divine body and blood, given for us for our salvation.

Thus you can see how important it is to eat his Body and drink his Blood because they are all parts of the whole narrative. We cannot just take some and leave out the other.

I said this before but most likely missed out by readers - the so called Last Supper, regarded as the institution of the Eucharist, was the foreshadow of the things to come. The apostles truly understood what Jesus meant, as they recalled it, right after the resurrection, on the road to Emmaus.

 

[LivingWaters7]

For one, the RCC did not formally settle this matter until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. (See papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#Confession%20of%20Faith in third paragraph where it is actually stated that there is a change in substance.)

The matter was “settled” long before that. The doctrine of the Real Presence has been part of the Church since the beginning. There was no debate on the matter within the Church. It has always been a core teaching. Formal defining of dogmas does not change that.

For what it’s worth, this site justforcatholics.org/a181.htm states that Duns Scotus acknowledged that transubstantiation was not an article of faith in the Church before the Thirteenth Century. I couldn’t find a citation of this statement so I’ll just leave it at that.

This is repeating what you said above. See above.

Also, you may not understand the distinction between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation”. The belief in the “Real Presence” has been part of the Church since it was established by Jesus Christ. All of the most ancient Christian churches in the world, besides the Catholic Church, subscribe to the belief in Real Presence, or that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. “Transubstantiation” is an explanation of how that change occurs. That formal definition came later, however the belief in Real Presence has existed before that, and is present in other churches that may not subscribe to the specific transubstantiation doctrine.

 

[susanlo]

Susan, we’ve been through this before. I have posted in the past a passage by Augustine where he says the Eucharist MUST be adored. Everyone agrees that adoration to anything but God is idolatry. Your response was you do not know what he meant by adoration. I have also showed you several non-Catholic leading historians who say that your interpretation of how the fathers use the words figure and symbol, is vastly different than how the fathers actually mean them. You have not really given an academic response to those historians.

My question to you is, if you don’t know what Augustine meant by adoration, why should someone think you know what Augustine means in other passages of his that you post, especially when academia says you are wrong?

By the way, what you have in bold, Augustine says what you see is bread and wine, if you grasp that you are receiving Jesus’ real body and blood, the spiritual benefits are immense. Unfortunately, many Catholics do not grasp.

What I mean about Augustine and the statement of adoration is that the concept of Eucharistic adoration and the distinction between adoration and veneration had not been defined in his time. We can’t use our current definitions when reading back in this point of time when these words were not yet defined in such a way. Also, because Augustine believed that the elements became consecrated and holy it would make sense that he would honor these elements, just as some Christians venerate symbols, icons and sacred items today. An item being consecrated does not mean that it has undergone a physical change. (Maybe holy water would be an example - it is not physically changed, but is blessed or consecrated and would not be dumped down the drain or dumped into the gutter.) We can not impose our later definitions of adoration back on Augustine’s writing and know exactly what he meant. What he meant by adoration could be what people today mean by veneration. We need to look at the context of the entire writing to understand more fully what he was describing.

I can appreciate that the term symbol had a slightly different connotation at that time. You did provide quotes from JND Kelly and Darwell Stone (who are Anglican and believe in the real presence) about the different understandings of the word. However the word symbol has never meant that an object transformed from one thing to another. The translators feel that the closest word to translate these terms from Greek or Latin to English is using terms symbol, figurative and metaphor and not the terms transformation, literal, and conversion.
JND Kelly distinguishes the symbolic understanding from the conversion understanding when describing the development of the ideas around the Eucharistic presence from the time period between Nicea and Chalcedon.

“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440

So while we may agree that the connotation of the terms has changed over the centuries, there was at this time still a varied understanding of the Eucharistic elements that was distinguishable and defined by scholars.

 

[rcwitness]

What I mean about Augustine and the statement of adoration is that the concept of Eucharistic adoration and the distinction between adoration and veneration had not been defined in his time. We can’t use our current definitions when reading back in this point of time when these words were not yet defined in such a way. Also, because Augustine believed that the elements became consecrated and holy it would make sense that he would honor these elements, just as some Christians venerate symbols, icons and sacred items today. An item being consecrated does not mean that it has undergone a physical change. (Maybe holy water would be an example - it is not physically changed, but is blessed or consecrated and would not be dumped down the drain or dumped into the gutter.) We can not impose our later definitions of adoration back on Augustine’s writing and know exactly what he meant. What he meant by adoration could be what people today mean by veneration. We need to look at the context of the entire writing to understand more fully what he was describing.

I can appreciate that the term symbol had a slightly different connotation at that time. You did provide quotes from JND Kelly and Darwell Stone (who are Anglican and believe in the real presence) about the different understandings of the word. However the word symbol has never meant that an object transformed from one thing to another. The translators feel that the closest word to translate these terms from Greek or Latin to English is using terms symbol, figurative and metaphor and not the terms transformation, literal, and conversion.
JND Kelly distinguishes the symbolic understanding from the conversion understanding when describing the development of the ideas around the Eucharistic presence from the time period between Nicea and Chalcedon.

“In examining the later doctrine of the Eucharist it will be convenient, as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and those interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or the symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease on life through the powerful influence of Augustine. Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine. The connexion between these theories and the different ideas about consecration referred to in the first section of this chapter hardly needs to be pointed out.”
archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440

So while we may agree that the connotation of the terms has changed over the centuries, there was at this time still a varied understanding of the Eucharistic elements that was distinguishable and defined by scholars.

I think what you say in your last paragraph is very likely. And this would signify the reason for a clarification of definition, when Transubstantiation was expressed, no?

I would like to know the context and circumstances surrounding the time that Transubstantiation was first proposed.

 

[Memaw]

A question for the Catholic’s (since it’s mostly Catholics replying - thank-you by the way!). If the host and chalice contain the resurrected Christ in his divine nature (and is therefore not cannibalism) how does it represent his sacrifice on the cross? Since he became human so that he could die for our sins?

It represents the WHOLE Christ, how can you separate Christ from Himself?? It is a Beautiful Mystery. Rack your brain all you want but I will TRUST that the Lord tells us the TRUTH!! That’s why we call belief in God’s Mysteries, FAITH!!! God Bless, Memaw