Really, really want to know!

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracelife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracelife

Guest
I know the Early Church Fathers taught and believed that the bread & wine truly becomes the body and blood of Jesus.

Do the Early Fathers teach that the conscecrated bread / wine remains the body / blood of Jesus?
Who? Where?
 
The consecrated Body and Blood of Christ remains as such as long as it remains in that form. Once the Body and Blood had been broken down (by the stomach acids or, heaven forbid, rotting on the ground) it is no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Yes, but I’m looking for the history of the teaching is all.
 
I’m not denying that it does.

Just wondering… says who?
What’s the history behind the remains part of it.
 
40.png
gracelife:
I’m not denying that it does.

Just wondering… says who?
What’s the history behind the remains part of it.
Click to expand...
Im thinking St Aquinas had a bit to say about that. About a thounsand years to late to be a Church father though.

I can’t think of any that argued thatit remained the Body and Blood of Christ, most likley due to the fact that this is no reason to apologize something that is obvious and not disputed.
 
Though the sources are scarce, there is some historical evidence that even the early Church reserved the Eucharist in a tabernacle, which by implication would mean that they believed Christ remained present in the Eucharist.

Here is a quote from Tertullian (around 200 A.D.):
“The house of our dove is simple; it is found on elevated sites, is always open, and is placed toward the light. For the image of the Holy Spirit loves the direction of the rising sun, which is the symbol of Christ.”
Click to expand...
 
Very early on, the Church also had the practice of having someone carry the consecrated bread to the sick who could not attend the Eucharist, thus indicating their belief that Jesus remained in the Eucharist even after the Mass was ended.
 
St. Justin in his writings in the first century talks about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. AS far as “remaining”, that is assumed that Jesus is there until the Eucharist is consumed by the believer.

wc
 
Tertullian-
Will not your fast (before mass) be more solmn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.

the commentary on this point says the bolded words indicate something more than taking and receiving at the altar Probably a reference to carrying home a particle of the Eucharist for later reception.

Letter of Basil to a patrician lady Caesaria:
… It were needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be obliged, in the absence of a priest or deacon to receive communion by his own hand is certainly not a serious offence, because long custom sanctions this practice in such cases. Indee, all the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, reserving Communion at home, receive it from their own hands. In Alexandria and in Egypt everyone, even of the laity, reserves Communion in his own home and receives by his own hand whenever he is pleased to do so.

While both of these don’t specifically address your question they do answer it!
 
40.png
gracelife:
I know the Early Church Fathers taught and believed that the bread & wine truly becomes the body and blood of Jesus.
Do the Early Fathers teach that the conscecrated bread / wine remains the body / blood of Jesus?
Who? Where?
Click to expand...
Why would the body and blood of Christ turn back to bread and wine, after Mass? It’s kind of illogical. A blessing doesn’t go away after a few minutes…once blessed always blessed (as would go with transubstantiation). Otherwise we may have needed to be rebaptised every week, have a holy medal reblessed daily, or the pope may have to rebless Jesus’ cross every Tuesday…
My guess that this was always assumed and never articulated in this way.
 
does it matter…we take communion to remember christ and to show forth his return…we honor him as the communion reminds us of the blood that was shed and the body that was broken…we are to do that as a sense of remembrance and consecration…not forgetting what he has done and reminding ourselves that one day he will be returning…i don’t think it was the intention of christ for the church to get wrapped up in what the elements turn into once it is eaten…the most importance thing is that you discern the lords body…you remember what he has done…not forgetting…we do these things to honor and to not let those things that christ has done be forgotten in our minds…but constantly reminding ourselves the sacrifice that was brought to calvary which paid for our sins and washed us clean…making those that accept him righteous and brought back in relationship with the father…christ bridged the gap…no longer are we condemned to those that receive…that is what we are to remember…in my opinion…you can drink grape juice and eat pizza dough, as long as your genuinly discerning the lord and honoring him…makes no difference…thankyou,

Ceasar
 
40.png
ceasar:
in my opinion…you can drink grape juice and eat pizza dough, as long as your genuinly discerning the lord and honoring him…makes no difference…thankyou,
Click to expand...
The Eucharist is not simply a reminder or a remembrance. It makes Jesus really present to us here and now. It makes his one sacrifice at Calvary present to us, and enable us to be present at the events of our salvation. Pizza dough can’t do that.
 
I believe a more logical question would be, were there any Church Fathers that didn’t believe it remained the Body and Blood. Once it is transubstantiated, Newton’s law would assume it remain that way until acted upon by another force. Newton’s law is certainly inadequate, but logically one would assume that it would only change from its being when acted upon by something else. What “something else” would that be? Certainly if it came to be Christ through a miracle, then it would take a miraculous event to remove Christ, and such a miracle was never instituted by Christ, therefore impossible to do. The miraculous consecration can only happen because of Christ, therefore, for it to be transubstantiated back into the bread and wine, it would only be possible through Christ, and He never made that possible. That may be a bit redundant, but I think it makes sense.

Peace,
Michael
 
40.png
ceasar:
does it matter…we take communion to remember christ and to show forth his return…we honor him as the communion reminds us of the blood that was shed and the body that was broken…we are to do that as a sense of remembrance and consecration…not forgetting what he has done and reminding ourselves that one day he will be returning…i don’t think it was the intention of christ for the church to get wrapped up in what the elements turn into once it is eaten…the most importance thing is that you discern the lords body…you remember what he has done…not forgetting…we do these things to honor and to not let those things that christ has done be forgotten in our minds…but constantly reminding ourselves the sacrifice that was brought to calvary which paid for our sins and washed us clean…making those that accept him righteous and brought back in relationship with the father…christ bridged the gap…no longer are we condemned to those that receive…that is what we are to remember…in my opinion…you can drink grape juice and eat pizza dough, as long as your genuinly discerning the lord and honoring him…makes no difference…thankyou,

Ceasar
Click to expand...
Ceasar,
I tend to believe the word’s of our Lord Jesus Christ. He truly is present in the Eucharist. what a fabulous gift He gives to us. Do I truly understand this miracle ? No but I do believe our Lord.

God bless,

Trick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top