Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[rcwitness]

I’m of the opinion that you feed on Him in both Word and Sacrament, so I don’t have a huge problem with reformed view outside Lutheranism and Anglicanism, they just lack total understanding, imo.

Ya know, I find it very interesting that Evangelicals (non-denom/E-Free) even state this about their description of Holy Communion in their Articles of Faith:
… The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer.
I don’t think this is very far from accepting the Catholic Eucharist! It just needs to go deeper. And I’m not saying that these individuals are shallow. They just need to think more about what they do say. “Communion, visibly and tangibly, expresses and nourishes the believer”! A mere piece of bread and wine expresses the Gospel and nourishes the believer? How? If the Word of God does not change these things from ordinary to extraordinary, then it is a mock ritual. But if these elements tangibly express the Gospel, and nourish the believer, then there is actual grace being imparted through them!

That’s what we believe! That the Word of God is over the Baptismal waters, and the symbols of bread and wine become the substance of the Word!

It is the Word of the Lord we are receiving in His Eucharist. His Word became flesh, and His Word became Bread and Wine. So just as we read the Word of the Lord, we also eat the Word of the Lord.

 

[susanlo]

.

Paul reveals what the Lord divinely revealed to him about the Eucharistic liturgy or Last Supper. All the Gospels including Paul’s letter to the Corinthians reveal this; **“Do this eis ten emen **anamensin”

In conclusion; The biblical Greek Word anamesis reveals the real presence from both the Christian Liturgical Eucharistic Covenant meal practice, and the Jewish Passover meal Old Covenant meal, which the Jewish Hebrew word used Zikaron.

Zikaron; practices and reveals a present participation of an event from the past and not merely a mental recollection of a past event. “Real presence”.

**Anamesis; reveals that the Last Supper once divinely revealed in time and space is brought to the present (sacramentally) through the celebration of the Eucharist. **Paul records this real presence in 1Cor.11:24 And the baptized Corinthian’s are already practicing this Liturgical Rite in the Eucharist.

Transubstantiation only reveals that a substantial change has taken place, that compliments Paul’s liturgical language of Anamesis. If you add more than a substantial change to Transubstantiation, who have left Catholic theology and divine revelation.

Good to share with you

Peace be with you

anamnesis: “a recalling, remembrance, memory.” - Strong’s Concordance

This is used in the New Testament 4 times. 3 times in relation to Eucharist and once in Hebrews in referring to Jewish sacrifices.

Luke 22:19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25*In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Hebrews 10:3But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
biblehub.com/greek/364.htm

I can’t find Zikaron in Strong’s Concordance, but I do find: zakar: “remember.” This is used 232 times in the Old Testament. biblehub.com/hebrew/2142.htm

I find Zikaron on this Hebrew website and it means: “Memory. Memorial. Yom Zikarom is Israeli Memorial Day.” hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Hebrew_Glossary_-Z/hebrew_glossary-_z.html

What do these words have to do with transubstantiation?

 

[rcwitness]

anamnesis: “a recalling, remembrance, memory.” - Strong’s Concordance

This is used in the New Testament 4 times. 3 times in relation to Eucharist and once in Hebrews in referring to Jewish sacrifices.

Luke 22:19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25*In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Hebrews 10:3But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
biblehub.com/greek/364.htm

I can’t find Zikaron in Strong’s Concordance, but I do find: zakar: “remember.” This is used 232 times in the Old Testament. biblehub.com/hebrew/2142.htm

I find Zikaron on this Hebrew website and it means: “Memory. Memorial. Yom Zikarom is Israeli Memorial Day.” hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Hebrew_Glossary_-Z/hebrew_glossary-_z.html

What do these words have to do with transubstantiation?

I believe, on our part, remembrance is keeping His life and Sacrifice in our minds and hearts, while on God’s part, He is making present His life and Sacrifice with the mere bread and wine we have to offer. Jesus told Satan, in the desert, that man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word from the mouth of the Lord. Our bodies are nourished by bread. This is the symbolism of bread. It sustains the life of the body. But it doesn’t sustain the life of the soul. That is God’s Word. Transubstantiation is when the Word made flesh becomes the bread and wine we offer.

I know that I said it in the reverse, but it also helps make sense that way, no? We shouldn’t think that the bread and wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood, as the Body and Blood of Jesus becomes bread and wine! It’s the same thing, really.

His Word became flesh, and His flesh becomes bread. Because His Word is the real bread that sustains eternal life.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;14517403]
The Fathers did not have “unanimous consent”, as we do not today

.
Correction; Here are some canonized Christian Saints who record their apostolic faith in a real substantial presence in the Eucharist, ‘please note’, that some of these Saints record that a change has taken place from the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I included Tertullian in the list for you. Please note that Tertullian is not listed as a canonized Saint.
I hope you and other’s here take the time to read how a true Christian of the apostolic faith expressed His Catholic faith in the real presence.

St. John Chrysostom; “For His Word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. His Word has never failed, but our senses in most things go wrong”…"For as bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains nowhere appear, they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction, so we are co-joined both with each other and with Christ.
"He also co-mingles Himself with us, and not by faith only, but also in very deed makes us His body…what then ought not he to exceed in purity that has the benefit of this SACRIFICE?

St. Ambrose; “Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are TRANSFORMED into the flesh and the blood”… Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, How is it that you assert that i receive the Body of Christ? “Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed”.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem; “For in the figure of bread is given to you His body, and in the figure of wine His Blood, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become Partakers of the divine nature…and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ, and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the blood of the Christ…after the invocation the bread BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST”

St. Gregory of Nyssa; “He gives these gifts by virtue of benediction through which He TRANS-ELEMENTS the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing”

St. John of Damascus; …“but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood…So the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (heaven forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself…but if some persons called the bread and wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration”…

St. Augustine; "That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ…

St. Justin Martyr; “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these…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”…

St. Cyprian; “Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread he lives forever, as it is manifest…receive the Eucharist”…

St. Hilary; “it is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and blood”…

St. Leo the Great; “you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s body and blood. For that which is taken in the mouth which is believed in faith”…

TERTULLIAN; “up to the present time, Christ has not disdained the water which the Creator made… nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS HIS OWN PROPER BODY, thus requiring in his very sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator”…

St. Clement of Alexandria; “The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist…for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically”…

St. Gregory the Great; “He is again immolated for us in the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice. Where His body is eaten, there His flesh is distributed among the people for their salvation”…

St. John Chrysostom; “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon earth”?

Your quote by Tertullian only deals with the nature of Christ’s humanity (flesh) that defeats his contemporaries who are denying that Christ had a human nature. Tertullian from your quote is not specifically addressing the real presence in the Eucharist as you have misinterpreted Tertullian’s apology on the human nature of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What do these words have to do with transubstantiation?

When the biblical Anamnesis (“Do this in memory of me”) or Zikaron is placed in the correct Hebrew and Judeo/Christian faith. These words are describing a “Change” has taken place during a ritual, Passover and Last Supper in particular.

Transubstantiation would later confirm this apostolic faith in the real presence, that a substantial Change has taken place.

Anamnesis is a present action, that follows a divinely revealed rite, that makes present the divine will of covenant communion with God. When the Jews practice their Passover, they make present (Zikaron), the same Passover in the Desert with Moses, with no space or time elapsed, same is true with the Last Supper New and everlasting covenant.
In both OT and NT rituals all participants must Eucharist =give thanks, consume a lamb, break bread, with the cup of blessing to confirm the fulfillment of the Covenant and Holy Communion with God.

Peace be with you

 

[Wannano]

I believe, on our part, remembrance is keeping His life and Sacrifice in our minds and hearts, while on God’s part, He is making present His life and Sacrifice with the mere bread and wine we have to offer. .[/5QUOTE]

I am not a theologian of any kind but this sentence seems to me to be the best description of what could become a universal understanding of what Christ intended the Last Supper to be.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Neither of the quotations in your post show a clear depiction of a change occurring to the bread and wine during Eucharist. Symbols alone obviously can’t sanctify, but the Holy Spirit can sanctify people as they worship Jesus. Tertullian (and Baptist ministers) will call the communion bread and wine - body and blood. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe a change occurs. This can be a metaphor.

Yet later in his book, JND Kelly shows a clear distinction between the idea of a symbolic bread and wine and a bread and wine that are actually changed during the Eucharist.

archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up/search/440

“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.”

As an Anglican, JND Kelly probably believed in some type of a real presence. He notes a realism in all of the early theologians. He clearly makes a distinction between realism and transubstantiation. He was writing about the changing ideas of the Eucharist between Nicea and Chalcedon in this chapter.

Hi Susan.

In the quote from Tertullian he also says “reserved”. Meaning the consecrated items are sacred and treated with great reverence. We keep one in the tabernacle in Catholic Churches. It is adored. He also points out that “sacrifice” at the Mass, which any Baptist minister would be vehemently opposed to. So again, not very protestant sounding to me.

I was Anglican before I was Catholic. And In regards to JND Kelly, he most definitely believed in the real presence as any good Anglican does. But yes, they reject Transubstantiation. But they also genuflect if a reserved host is the present and sanctuary lamp is lit. I’ve always found that a bit contradictory because if you don’t believe a actual change took place at consecration, then I don’t see the point of genuflection. Unless this is just a target for Anglican worship.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ya know, I find it very interesting that Evangelicals (non-denom/E-Free) even state this about their description of Holy Communion in their Articles of Faith:
… The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer.
I don’t think this is very far from accepting the Catholic Eucharist! It just needs to go deeper. And I’m not saying that these individuals are shallow. They just need to think more about what they do say. “Communion, visibly and tangibly, expresses and nourishes the believer”! A mere piece of bread and wine expresses the Gospel and nourishes the believer? How? If the Word of God does not change these things from ordinary to extraordinary, then it is a mock ritual. But if these elements tangibly express the Gospel, and nourish the believer, then there is actual grace being imparted through them!

That’s what we believe! That the Word of God is over the Baptismal waters, and the symbols of bread and wine become the substance of the Word!

It is the Word of the Lord we are receiving in His Eucharist. His Word became flesh, and His Word became Bread and Wine. So just as we read the Word of the Lord, we also eat the Word of the Lord.

Precisely!!!

And they can take it further by studying the Jewish understanding of Jesus statement…to do this in remembrance of Him. To a 1st century Jew that meant to make it alive again. To a 21st century American that means make a headstone and print some details on it and come once per year to visit.

And watch a Journey Home program of a Jew who converts to the Catholic Church. They go to a Mass for the first time and they feel at home as many Jewish customs are incorporated into the Mass. This is how it should be…yes we are saved by grace and not Jewish law, but Jesus did not come to abolish, he came to fulfill. And we should see the fingerprints of Judaism in our faith.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness;14520768:

I believe, on our part, remembrance is keeping His life and Sacrifice in our minds and hearts, while on God’s part, He is making present His life and Sacrifice with the mere bread and wine we have to offer. .[/5QUOTE]

I am not a theologian of any kind but this sentence seems to me to be the best description of what could become a universal understanding of what Christ intended the Last Supper to be.

Sweet! Let’s await our dear friend susanlo’s pending ratification!

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.
I would be in agreement with you of the CC’s lack of harmony in John 6,*** if ***Matthew 26:26, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 and Luke 24:30-31 didn’t exist…

Hi La,

that was my point, to come to a primary understanding of John 6 per its own context , not future revelations, which are secondary understandings. As I posted , “but should not override primary context for those presently listening to Jesus back then in that precise moment of ministry”.

And if Bethlehem didn’t actually mean “house of bread”. And if we didn’t have Manna prefiguring Holy communion in the Old Testament.

Bethlehem and its meaning fit any understanding of Christian communion. Manna prefigured Christ primarily, and communion secondarily. That is Christ is the "manna’’, not the remembrance rite, per the symbolic understanding.

And if we didn’t have the fruit of Mary’s womb as the anti-dote to the*** fruit ***EATEN by Adam and Eve in the garden. And if baby Jesus wasn’t placed in a food container for sheep (Manger) and if we didn’t have Jesus instructing Peter to “Feed my sheep”, etc.

Again, fitting for any understanding of Christian eucharist.

Jesus speaks metaphorically at times, true, but all factors need to be taken into consideration here. We have a similar situation to John 6 found just 4 chapters earlier:
Notice the reaction there, just like John 6 the audience is outraged and/or confused and that same author(John) provides a explanation for the reader. But he does not do so in John 6 when the disciples are walking away from him.

This cuts both ways. For sure John or Jesus could have explained the symbolic eating that I ascribe to. They could have also explained the unbloody eating thru transubstantiated elements, but they didn’t…even though the stakes were higher than your temple example, for here we have actual disciples and followers departing. Again, why did He let them walk away, for they clearly took the eating in a bloody manner, or for sure, having no idea of eating in an unbloody matter.

I have explained already why, and it has nothing to do with rejecting a communion understanding, though Jesus clearly made sure they did misunderstand.

It’s not just a matter of him quoting metaphoric statements that form a pattern, it’s also a matter of when does he feel the need to give the reader explanations and is there consistency there.

Again you are under the assumption he implied a transubstantiated eating. I say that is inconsistent with the entire chapter’s underlying problem…folks not believing in Christ Messiahship as it was to unfold in the future (death, resurrection, and ascension), false believers, not called of the Father, and that they unbelieved from the beginning. *John does put this into the story to help explain the background of the entire eating dialogue *. It has its origins in :

ch2:23 , "..many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,…for he himself knew what was in man."

I’m of the opinion that you feed on Him in both Word and Sacrament, so I don’t have a huge problem with reformed view outside Lutheranism and Anglicanism, they just lack total understanding, imo.

Ok. Thank you.

I can only say we are shown many ways to indeed in which to be fed spiritually, such as the Word etc, but do not see any where it is the eucharist. (yes, we are blessed in obedience to it, and we are blessed in His praise for Calvary, that is participation) Otherwise, I would think writ would extol it more explicitly for feeding , and more often, and not just subsequent obedience and thanksgiving. I will agree in Acts they daily fed upon the Word and "broke bread’’. But is the breaking of bread for further feeding equally , or a byproduct of feeding on the Word and praising Him for Calvary ?

I would kindly submit His effectual presence and nourishing is not limited by any particular understanding of the chosen elements save as symbols of an ever more powerful reality.

Pax/Blessings

 

[benhur]

.
Correction; Here are some canonized Christian Saints who record their apostolic faith in a real substantial presence in the Eucharist, ‘please note’, that some of these Saints record that a change has taken place from the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I included Tertullian in the list for you. Please note that Tertullian is not listed as a canonized Saint.
I hope you and other’s here take the time to read how a true Christian of the apostolic faith expressed His Catholic faith in the real presence.

St. John Chrysostom; “For His Word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. His Word has never failed, but our senses in most things go wrong”…"For as bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains nowhere appear, they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction, so we are co-joined both with each other and with Christ.
"He also co-mingles Himself with us, and not by faith only, but also in very deed makes us His body…what then ought not he to exceed in purity that has the benefit of this SACRIFICE?

St. Ambrose; “Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are TRANSFORMED into the flesh and the blood”… Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, How is it that you assert that i receive the Body of Christ? “Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed”.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem; “For in the figure of bread is given to you His body, and in the figure of wine His Blood, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become Partakers of the divine nature…and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ, and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the blood of the Christ…after the invocation the bread BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST”

St. Gregory of Nyssa; “He gives these gifts by virtue of benediction through which He TRANS-ELEMENTS the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing”

St. John of Damascus; …“but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood…So the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (heaven forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself…but if some persons called the bread and wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration”…

St. Augustine; "That bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the Word of God, is the body of Christ…

St. Justin Martyr; “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these…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”…

St. Cyprian; “Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread he lives forever, as it is manifest…receive the Eucharist”…

St. Hilary; “it is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and blood”…

St. Leo the Great; “you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s body and blood. For that which is taken in the mouth which is believed in faith”…

TERTULLIAN; “up to the present time, Christ has not disdained the water which the Creator made… nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS HIS OWN PROPER BODY, thus requiring in his very sacraments the beggarly elements of the Creator”…

St. Clement of Alexandria; “The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist…for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically”…

St. Gregory the Great; “He is again immolated for us in the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice. Where His body is eaten, there His flesh is distributed among the people for their salvation”…

St. John Chrysostom; “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon earth”?

Your quote by Tertullian only deals with the nature of Christ’s humanity (flesh) that defeats his contemporaries who are denying that Christ had a human nature. Tertullian from your quote is not specifically addressing the real presence in the Eucharist as you have misinterpreted Tertullian’s apology on the human nature of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

Well thank you. Is it unanimous though? That is what the CC teaches, unanimous.

Your Tertullian explanation can also apply to Ignatius, and others (where they are not addressing communion views per say but Christology) Some of these quotes do not conflict with symbolic or spiritual presence. Many are no more explicit than the Lord’s words Himself. It is clearly bread and wine before and after consecration, and the Lord all intact, amidst a Passover rite abounding in food symbols.

Blessings

PS- Hopefully, no one denies that some fathers and quotes indeed are of a real presence that you would ascribe to. I just wish some would not deny any symbolic or spiritual presence fathers/quotes also.

 

[benhur]

anamnesis: “a recalling, remembrance, memory.” - Strong’s Concordance

This is used in the New Testament 4 times. 3 times in relation to Eucharist and once in Hebrews in referring to Jewish sacrifices.

Luke 22:19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25*In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Hebrews 10:3But in [c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
biblehub.com/greek/364.htm

I can’t find Zikaron in Strong’s Concordance, but I do find: zakar: “remember.” This is used 232 times in the Old Testament. biblehub.com/hebrew/2142.htm

I find Zikaron on this Hebrew website and it means: “Memory. Memorial. Yom Zikarom is Israeli Memorial Day.” hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Hebrew_Glossary_-Z/hebrew_glossary-_z.html

What do these words have to do with transubstantiation?

Thank you sausanio

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

that was my point, to come to a primary understanding of John 6 per its own context , not future revelations, which are secondary understandings. As I posted , “but should not override primary context for those presently listening to Jesus back then in that precise moment of ministry”. Bethlehem and its meaning fit any understanding of Christian communion. Manna prefigured Christ primarily, and communion secondarily. That is Christ is the "manna’’, not the remembrance rite, per the symbolic understanding.Again, fitting for any understanding of Christian eucharist.
This cuts both ways. For sure John or Jesus could have explained the symbolic eating that I ascribe to. They could have also explained the unbloody eating thru transubstantiated elements, but they didn’t…even though the stakes were higher than your temple example, for here we have actual disciples and followers departing. Again, why did He let them walk away, for they clearly took the eating in a bloody manner, or for sure, having no idea of eating in an unbloody matter.

I have explained already why, and it has nothing to do with rejecting a communion understanding, though Jesus clearly made sure they did misunderstand.
Again you are under the assumption he implied a transubstantiated eating. I say that is inconsistent with the entire chapter’s underlying problem…folks not believing in Christ Messiahship as it was to unfold in the future (death, resurrection, and ascension), false believers, not called of the Father, and that they unbelieved from the beginning. *John does put this into the story to help explain the background of the entire eating dialogue *. It has its origins in :

ch2:23 , "..many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,…for he himself knew what was in man."
Ok. Thank you.

I can only say we are shown many ways to indeed in which to be fed spiritually, such as the Word etc, but do not see any where it is the eucharist. (yes, we are blessed in obedience to it, and we are blessed in His praise for Calvary, that is participation) Otherwise, I would think writ would extol it more explicitly for feeding , and more often, and not just subsequent obedience and thanksgiving. I will agree in Acts they daily fed upon the Word and "broke bread’’. But is the breaking of bread for further feeding equally , or a byproduct of feeding on the Word and praising Him for Calvary ?

I would kindly submit His effectual presence and nourishing is not limited by any particular understanding of the chosen elements save as symbols of an ever more powerful reality.

Pax/Blessings

Greetings Ben

I do realize the point you are making about John 6, in and of itself. However, while John 6 is a nice proof text, that doesn’t paint the full picture. This is why I made so many other citations…

I think the symbolic interpretation would hold much more weight if Sola Scriptura was the norm early on, and if the bible was in textbook form, basically a giant catechism with everything spelled out for us. But the bible actually points us to the Church: Matt 18:17 and to Tradition, 2 Thess 2:15 and to councils ACTS 15. It is there where you get the complete picture. It is there that we get explanations and terminology like “Trinity” and “Communicatio idiomatum”…and… “Transubstantiation”

But all that said, Jesus didn’t initiate his ministry with a blow horn shouting I AM THE MESSIAH. Quite the contrary, in fact, he told people on several occasions to tell no one of what he was doing for them. He was rather stealth at times, picking his spots and not fully and unambiguously revealing Himself publicly until he was on trial. Mark 14:61-62. So in John 6 he actually singles out one individual in particular, not a mob of folks not believing in his Messiahship. And that individual was Judas, the betrayer:

John 6:70-71Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve

We know this to be true because in verse 64 in which the mob*** is ***referenced, Judas is the point of emphasis once again:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

And it’s Judas who would betray him…at the last supper.…or as Catholics would say…the consecration of the elements.

So It’s my contention that John 6 actually points to the last supper and the institution of the Eucharist. Because Jesus, being God, knows when the betrayal takes place.

So we need more than John 6 to paint this picture for us, imo.

God bless you.

 

[benhur]

And they can take it further by studying the Jewish understanding of Jesus statement…to do this in remembrance of Him. To a 1st century Jew that meant to make it alive again.

Hi La,

If I may jump in, they do not merely mentally recollect, but imitate the original, as in their Passover. It is a reenactment, with full description of the original event, using original words, and original symbols.They however do not claim that the food becomes the same actual food as the original. There is no transubstantiation of anything. It is a spiritual ceremony, irregardless of lack of divine presence in any of the symbols. The ceremony brings the reality of the original to the" present" as much as is effectually needed. It is much more than “mental recollection”. Reenactment is ''make alive again", and is all obedience requires for all Christian communion views.

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;14522792]Well thank you. Is it unanimous though? That is what the CC teaches, unanimous.

ben, I promise you all the Early Church Fathers and all canonized Saints and Martyrs were all unanimous in the real presence in the Eucharist.

Here is St. Ignatius when he describes his apostolic faith of the real presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist.
**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH **(c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Please see here for more info on the unanimous faith in the real presence since apostolic times (biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num34.htm)

Please read more of sunsalo’s source; JND Kelly on the early Church Fathers:

JND Kelly’s Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers
“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist…It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper…**Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised’. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ’s body…Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]…**So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5]…The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA under Eucharist (as Sacrament)
"Nothing is more solid than the UNANIMITY of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of the Church. The spontaneous uproar caused by men such as Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088) only attests the more to the unquestioned acceptance of the Real Presence. This UNANIMOUS belief of 1,500 years is itself an argument to its truth. For it is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, could leave the Church in error over a long period of time about one of the central doctrines of Christianity, according to the argument from prescription." (NCE, volume 5, page 604)

PS- Hopefully, no one denies that some fathers and quotes indeed are of a real presence that you would ascribe to. I just wish some would not deny any symbolic or spiritual presence fathers/quotes also

I could support the spiritual presence as it pertains to the Holy Spirit, but I am defiantly opposed to having a faith in a symbolic presence in the Eucharist.

Please visit the site mentioned above, it answers yours and sunsalos’ questions more at length than I can do here, you will also find here a more understanding of the biblical term anamnesis when used in the Eucharist liturgy than a Strongs short definition, that does not reach our subject matter here of the real presence and when it is used from the scriptures.

Peace be with you*

 

[rcwitness]

Thank you sausanio

Blessings

Hey ben! I did offer my understanding of susanlo’s question:
What do these words have to do with transubstantiation?
It is in post 61

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

If I may jump in, they do not merely mentally recollect, but imitate the original, as in their Passover. It is a reenactment, with full description of the original event, using original words, and original symbols.They however do not claim that the food becomes the same actual food as the original. There is no transubstantiation of anything. It is a spiritual ceremony, irregardless of lack of divine presence in any of the symbols. The ceremony brings the reality of the original to the" present" as much as is effectually needed. It is much more than “mental recollection”. Reenactment is ''make alive again", and is all obedience requires for all Christian communion views.

Blessings

Hi Ben

Just for lurker/reader clarification, this is what happens in a Catholic Mass. It’s a representation of what already happened. Not a re-sacrifice.

Pax

 

[rcwitness]

Hi La,

If I may jump in, they do not merely mentally recollect, but imitate the original, as in their Passover. It is a reenactment, with full description of the original event, using original words, and original symbols.They however do not claim that the food becomes the same actual food as the original. There is no transubstantiation of anything. It is a spiritual ceremony, irregardless of lack of divine presence in any of the symbols. The ceremony brings the reality of the original to the" present" as much as is effectually needed. It is much more than “mental recollection”. Reenactment is ''make alive again", and is all obedience requires for all Christian communion views.

Blessings

Are you saying the OT passover did not posses Transubstantiation? Of course not! They offered another sacrifice for that event, each year. The New Testament Passover partakes in the Once And For All sacrifice, which satisfies God always, for those who partake in a worthy manner.

You won’t see animal sacrifices at a Catholic Mass! I promise you!

 

[susanlo]

I believe, on our part, remembrance is keeping His life and Sacrifice in our minds and hearts, while on God’s part, He is making present His life and Sacrifice with the mere bread and wine we have to offer. .

I am not a theologian of any kind but this sentence seems to me to be the best description of what could become a universal understanding of what Christ intended the Last Supper to be.

Sweet! Let’s await our dear friend susanlo’s pending ratification!

It sounds like a good description to me.

 

[benhur]

Hey ben! I did offer my understanding of susanlo’s question:
What do these words have to do with transubstantiation?
It is in post 61

Hi rc,

thanks , took a look.

Understand. Transubstantiation is not needed to make a communion be true to the Greek of Hebrew word. That is, it is something else, certainly an unprecedented view of them. Certainly trans brings Calvary and the Lord to be “present” per CC teaching. Just that a spiritual or symbolic view do also…they are true to the greek/hebrew remembrance etc , that we are commanded to do.

If I may be nitpicky, you twice mentioned that we offer the bread and wine, as in offering up to God. Not sure that is part of original Passover , or the last supper. Totally understand it to be a CC thought. I believe the rite requires a blessing over the food,and from there we offer up praises for God offering His son for us. It is a reverse offering , for which we give remembrance and praise, and hence the greek word for that -“eucharist”.

Blessings