Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi G12,

Well yes Tertullian did stray into heresy later on.

Don’t think condemnation came in first church over just what was real presence , even if pure symbolism. Christology was more the problem , rather than “real presence”.

We don’t agree on Last Supper words meaning or John 6 or Paul’s Corinthian words about eucharisting, so we certainly won’t agree on father writings (and they were not unanimous). So you may have "facts’’ where I can only have evidences for my faith on their statements. So, I see Tertullian explicitly speaking of symbolic, figurative , presence.

Blessings

Greetings ben;

Tertullian recanted of his heretical disciplines, and died in full communion with the Catholic Church. His writings border lined heresy. Had Tertullian taught a symbolic presence in the Eucharist, he would of been condemned a heretic and excommunicated.

I agree with you, the real presence was never questioned by those like Paul in full communion with the Church. I don’t believe the real presence ever reached the status of denial until the Protestant revolt 1500 years after the resurrection.

As far as condemnation is concerned; All the Church Fathers following the apostles all taught and believed in the real presence, and followed Paul’s teaching on condemnation of the real presence.

The bible reveals a condemnation by Paul, to those Corinthian believers who did not discern the body and blood of the Lord properly here; I Corinthian 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore *whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. *28
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For *anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. **

NO Church Father after this biblical teaching, ever taught or believed in a symbolic Jesus or symbolic Eucharist.

The real presence is never in refute by the Apostles, the early Church Fathers who did not fall into heresy. All, **I repeat ALL **early Church Fathers in full communion with the Catholic Church in every age believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, and never a symbolic Eucharist was ever believed by these.

Just a friendly reminder. Any Church Father in full communion, Tertullian in particular here, or a Canonized Saint all believed in the real presence as believed and taught by the Catholic Church today, unchanged.

If you can find an early Church Father that taught a symbolic presence in the Eucharist, you will be naming a known heretic excommunicated by the Church.

I assure you, Tertullian died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Good to see you

Peace be with you

 

[susanlo]

The bible reveals a condemnation by Paul, to those Corinthian believers who did not discern the body and blood of the Lord properly here; I Corinthian 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore *whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. *28
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For *anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. **

Paul isn’t instructing them about their understanding of the elements of the Eucharist. He is condemning them because at their Agape/Eucharist gatherings some people were feasting and getting drunk while others had very little. This “unworthy” behavior was causing a division among the “body” of believers at this church. Paul writes that they will be judged if they do not judge the body rightly (v. 29). Some versions use ‘discern’ instead of ‘judge’ in verse 29. “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (v. 31). He instructs them that the solution to this “unworthy” behavior is to eat at home first so they will not be subject to judgment (v. 34). This ‘body’ in verse 29 is the body of believers, not the substance of the Eucharist.

I don’t think this passage shows a clear explanation of whether Paul taught transubstantiation, a spiritual presence or a symbolic Eucharist.

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 NASB
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together [p]as a church, I hear that [q]divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become [r]evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
The Lord’s Supper
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 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.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

 

[susanlo]

The real presence is never in refute by the Apostles, the early Church Fathers who did not fall into heresy. All, **I repeat ALL **early Church Fathers in full communion with the Catholic Church in every age believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, and never a symbolic Eucharist was ever believed by these.

Just a friendly reminder. Any Church Father in full communion, Tertullian in particular here, or a Canonized Saint all believed in the real presence as believed and taught by the Catholic Church today, unchanged.

If you can find an early Church Father that taught a symbolic presence in the Eucharist, you will be naming a known heretic excommunicated by the Church.

I assure you, Tertullian died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Tertullian
On the Resurrection on the Flesh
Chapter 37
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; (John 6:63) but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. (John 5:24) Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, (John 1:14) we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, (John 6:51) impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: The flesh profits nothing. Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it profits nothing itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit profits, for it imparts life. The flesh profits nothing, for it is subject to death.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

Against Marcion Book IV Chapter 40
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.”
newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Do you know of any place where Tertullian explains a conversion of bread and wine that contradicts this? I haven’t seen any quotes by him that seem to go beyond a metaphor.

 

[susanlo]

The real presence is never in refute by the Apostles, the early Church Fathers who did not fall into heresy. All, **I repeat ALL **early Church Fathers in full communion with the Catholic Church in every age believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, and never a symbolic Eucharist was ever believed by these.

Just a friendly reminder. Any Church Father in full communion, Tertullian in particular here, or a Canonized Saint all believed in the real presence as believed and taught by the Catholic Church today, unchanged.

If you can find an early Church Father that taught a symbolic presence in the Eucharist, you will be naming a known heretic excommunicated by the Church.

I assure you, Tertullian died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Eusebius
Demonstratio Evangelica Book 8 Chapter 1
“The words, “His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,” again I think secretly reveal the (c) mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. “His eyes are cheerful from wine,” seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which 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,” shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself (d) 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.” This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, “Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.”” tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm

Clement of Alexandria
The Instructor
Book I Chapter 6
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; (John 6:34) describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.” newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
Book II Chapter 2
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood— the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word shed for many, for the remission of sins— the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.” newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

Cyprian Letter 62
“2. Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. For when Christ says, I am the true vine. John 15:1 the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures.” newadvent.org/fathers/050662.htm

In the 9th century, monks Ratramnus and Radbertus disagreed about whether the Eucharist became identical with Christ’s actual body and blood or if it was figurative. Neither were declared to be a heretic or excommunicated. In the 11th century Berengar of Tours brought up the controversy again which led to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which was approved in 1215. I don’t think he was excommunicated either. There were people excommunicated after the Lateran Council in 1215.
Most scholars recognize a wide variety of interpretations of the Eucharist before this time. There may be some good arguments to believe in transubstantiation/real presence, but the argument that everyone believed this way for 1500 years is just not true.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Clement of Alexandria
The Instructor
Book I Chapter 6
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; (John 6:34) describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.” newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
Book II Chapter 2
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood— the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word shed for many, for the remission of sins— the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

Cyprian Letter 62
“2. Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. For when Christ says, I am the true vine. John 15:1 the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures.” newadvent.org/fathers/050662.htm

In the 9th century, monks Ratramnus and Radbertus disagreed about whether the Eucharist became identical with Christ’s actual body and blood or if it was figurative. Neither were declared to be a heretic or excommunicated. In the 11th century Berengar of Tours brought up the controversy again which led to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which was approved in 1215. I don’t think he was excommunicated either. There were people excommunicated after the Lateran Council in 1215.
Most scholars recognize a wide variety of interpretations of the Eucharist before this time. There may be some good arguments to believe in transubstantiation/real presence, but the argument that everyone believed this way for 1500 years is just not true.

St. Clement of Alexandria:

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. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

Not symbolic here. Cant be sanctified by a symbol…

Tertullian:

When the Lord’s Body has been **received and reserved **each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.

newadvent.org/fathers/0322.htm

This guy doesn’t exactly sound like a Baptist minister to me.

A quote from a protestant scholar cautioning people about applying modern thought to ancient texts:

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].

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num29.htm

I’m assuming there are no Oxford scholars here in this forum who can refute that?

 

[benhur]

. Had Tertullian taught a symbolic presence in the Eucharist, he would of been condemned a heretic and excommunicated.

Hi G12,

Well, my point was that he did seem to teach symbolic, as in a figure (which would be a weird way of teaching literal ), and that he was not condemned, because such teaching was allowed, and no CC formal teaching had congealed yet, even allowing the 3 or 4 types of presence or symbolism we discuss today.

As far as condemnation is concerned; All the Church Fathers following the apostles all taught and believed in the real presence,

The Fathers did not have “unanimous consent”, as we do not today.

The bible reveals a condemnation by Paul, to those Corinthian believers who did not discern the body and blood of the Lord properly here; I Corinthian 11:26

Again, kindly disagree, as Susanio points out also.Has nothing to do with "real presence/symbolism’’ theology , but more about something we all agree on, and that is to participate properly, with a clean conscience horizontally, towards our fellow brethren as Christ would have it .

A symbolic eucharist still remembers a real Calvary, for our propitiation thru His broken body and shed blood, enabling and demanding repentance and a changed life, even to imitate Christ.

NO Church Father after this biblical teaching, ever taught or believed in a symbolic Jesus or symbolic Eucharist.

Again kindly disagree, even all the way up to Augustine some say we have a "debate’’, that is not as clearcut as you say…just like scripture…left up to discernment, both personal and ecclesial/corporate

The real presence is never in refute by the Apostles

Again, real presence has at least several viewpoints. The apostles speak nothing of transubstantiation, nor a "sacrifice’, nor that a priest must be used in that transformation request. Agree that they do not also explain explicitly as symbolism only… the most we get is "do it’’ and in remembrance , and thanksgiving (eucharist became the traditional thrust, not sacrifice) , with the repeating of the Lord’s consecratory words

If you can find an early Church Father that taught a symbolic presence in the Eucharist, you will be naming a known heretic excommunicated by the Church.

Yes, there finally came a time when to teach that it would be heretical, certainly at Trent, but not sure what century it began (5th or 6th century ?), but not at Tertullian’s time.

I assure you, Tertullian died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Thank you for that info.

Good to see you

You too

Blessings

 

[po18guy]

Eusebius

It is both a substantive presence and a sign/symbol of that which it represents. This “either/or” argument is a canard and a logical fallacy. We must not make half an argument, but a complete argument.

The fact that you reject Christ’s presence is no different from a Buddhist or atheist rejecting it - it is immaterial to the long-established fact at hand. The exception (disbelief) proves the rule (belief). Orthodox and Catholic have known, believed and practiced the true presence for 2,000 years. 500 years ago, a deeply disturbed, rebellious, Priest in Germany decided that he alone was correct on theology. He was incited to believe that he knew better. Follow his man-made doctrines at your own risk.

You’ve been shown the scriptures innumerable times here. Why do you still doubt?

 

[JMM1957]

Eusebius
Demonstratio Evangelica Book 8 Chapter 1
“The words, “His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,” again I think secretly reveal the (c) mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. “His eyes are cheerful from wine,” seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which 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,” shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself (d) 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.” This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, “Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.”” tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm

And Eusebius also said in Book 1:

“Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgiveness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself.”

So the daily Eucharist is a participation in Christ’s perfect Sacrifice (but not a re-Sacrifice of Christ, as he makes clear, but a Memorial). And he notes that we Christians don’t need to fall back upon “the first beggarly elements” which are mere symbols. Clearly, then, his understanding of the Eucharist wasn’t that it was a mere symbol. The view of the Lord’s Supper that some Protestants take (that It’s simply symbolic, a reminder of the true Sacrifice) is a mirror image of what Eusebius describes as now-worthless in the first paragraph.

Lets use the whole context of what Eusebius said, and not just pick out select statements based on your preconceived prejudice, ok?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is both a substantive presence and a sign/symbol of that which it represents. This “either/or” argument is a canard and a logical fallacy. We must not make half an argument, but a complete argument.

The fact that you reject Christ’s presence is no different from a Buddhist or atheist rejecting it - it is immaterial to the long-established fact at hand. The exception (disbelief) proves the rule (belief). Orthodox and Catholic have known, believed and practiced the true presence for 2,000 years. 500 years ago, a deeply disturbed, rebellious, Priest in Germany decided that he alone was correct on theology. He was incited to believe that he knew better. Follow his man-made doctrines at your own risk.

You’ve been shown the scriptures innumerable times here. Why do you still doubt?

Good post po18guy:thumbsup: It shortens my response to our dear posters. I would like to mention in addition, when it comes to the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Catholic Eucharistic Liturgy.

When the words symbol or sign is used by the Early Church Fathers including the Liturgy. Bread and wine are the symbol or sign of the body and blood of our dear Lord before the consecration. We have to be clear here. The early Father’s practiced their Liturgy as practiced today in the Catholic Liturgy unchanged (in substance). We have proof of this, from the early Church Father’s, when they write about the consecration or the liturgy, they all record the Lord’s word, “This is my body, This is my blood”, followed by their proclaimed apostolic faith in the real presence., Tertullian in particular.

When our early Church Father’s write a catechesis teaching or apology, they do good to reference the symbols and signs of bread and wine, to detract enemies of the Church who accused them of cannibalism. We must recall, it was illegal to be Christian for the first 400 years after the resurrection.

The mystery of the liturgy, especially the Eucharist was a mystery only taught to catechumens before baptism and communion. I believe those non-Catholic Christians miss and do an injustice to the early Church Father’s apostolic faith in the Real Presence, when they confuse their catechumen or apologist teaching and take it out of context from their believed apostolic faith.

Spirit in biblical understanding, takes on a meaning that pertains to the whole being of a person that supersedes the flesh, that distinguishes the temporal order from the eternal order of the things. Spirit in the bible is never used to imply a metaphorical or symbolic sense.

Forgive me, po18guy for piggy backing from your post to address our dear poster’s sunsalo and ben, When I get more time, I hope to speak to some of their subjects not addressed here, such as Paul’s language used in the Liturgy today “Parousia” that defines a true presence, more on this later.

Peace be with you

 

[Lenten_ashes]

It is both a substantive presence and a sign/symbol of that which it represents. This “either/or” argument is a canard and a logical fallacy. We must not make half an argument, but a complete argument.

The fact that you reject Christ’s presence is no different from a Buddhist or atheist rejecting it - it is immaterial to the long-established fact at hand. The exception (disbelief) proves the rule (belief). Orthodox and Catholic have known, believed and practiced the true presence for 2,000 years. 500 years ago, a deeply disturbed, rebellious, Priest in Germany decided that he alone was correct on theology. He was incited to believe that he knew better. Follow his man-made doctrines at your own risk.

You’ve been shown the scriptures innumerable times here. Why do you still doubt?

To your point about Luther, he essentially threw the baby out with the bath water in his “reform”…but even he knew w/o a doubt, that Christ was present in Holy Communion and he held it in such high regard even after his split. Because he saw the scriptures and the overwhelming body of work of the ECF’s declaring this…it was undeniable to anyone with even partial objectivity, imo.

I don’t think they were united on transubstantiation - but real presence? Without a iota of doubt they were.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Good post po18guy:thumbsup: It shortens my response to our dear posters. I would like to mention in addition, when it comes to the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Catholic Eucharistic Liturgy.

When the words symbol or sign is used by the Early Church Fathers including the Liturgy. Bread and wine are the symbol or sign of the body and blood of our dear Lord before the consecration. We have to be clear here. The early Father’s practiced their Liturgy as practiced today in the Catholic Liturgy unchanged (in substance). We have proof of this, from the early Church Father’s, when they write about the consecration or the liturgy, they all record the Lord’s word, “This is my body, This is my blood”, followed by their proclaimed apostolic faith in the real presence., Tertullian in particular.

When our early Church Father’s write a catechesis teaching or apology, they do good to reference the symbols and signs of bread and wine, to detract enemies of the Church who accused them of cannibalism. We must recall, it was illegal to be Christian for the first 400 years after the resurrection.

Peace be with you

Exactly. And if people actually take the time to read this stuff instead of just cherry picking from anti-Catholic polemic websites, they will see it for themselves.

You don’t learn about something from it’s enemies, you learn from it’s sources.

 

[MikeHammer]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

And yet Christ is to be ‘in’ every single believer. They can’t have it both ways.

 

[benhur]

It is both a substantive presence and a sign/symbol of that which it represents. This “either/or” argument is a canard and a logical fallacy. We must not make half an argument, but a complete argument.

Hi po,

Perhaps, but it is substantive or it is not? We all agree on the elements as symbols. Both sides have “complete arguments” to the substantive question.

The fact that you reject Christ’s presence is no different from a Buddhist or atheist rejecting it

Yes and no again. The fact that is another Christian I would think bears more weight than from an atheist. I mean some have said what you say is not different than some ancient false religions and some of their ceremonial practices. It bears more witness than when it is from within Christendom.

We are not Atheist or buddhists or Dosetists, and you are not of ancient false religion either.

The exception (disbelief) proves the rule (belief). Orthodox and Catholic have known, believed and practiced the true presence for 2,000 years. 500 years ago, a deeply disturbed, rebellious, Priest in Germany decided that he alone was correct on theology. He was incited to believe that he knew better. Follow his man-made doctrines at your own risk.

Much said here… Luther believed in real presence by the way…variations of eucharisting have existed from early on within the church, and was not an invention of reformation. …dialogues like ours have been taking place since the beginning…transubstantiation was not an apostolic teaching and had to be developed, taking centuries…transubstantiation became a required article of faith, when 1215 council ?

You’ve been shown the scriptures innumerable times here. Why do you still doubt?

Your better point indeed is that it all begins with scriptures. We disagree with the meaning of the Lords consecratory words, so I am sure we would then disagree on father writings.

When you say it is both symbolic and literal, both/and it becomes very difficult to discern a father writing about “figures/types/symbol” and just how they are substantive ,or representative. So I agree with you that Eusebius sounds very scriptural by referring to the symbols as the Body and Blood, just as Jesus did. Still does not explicitly say that it is substantive vs symbolic or how.

Again we both believe we are being true to the meaning of the exact same relevant scriptures. We both believe we have the same length of long standing tradition…being apostolic… ( I will grant you that the CC and trans gained final authority at some point and became status quo in the west until the reformation, and an undefined real presence in Orthodoxy).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

And Eusebius also said in Book 1:

“Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgiveness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself.”

So the daily Eucharist is a participation in Christ’s perfect Sacrifice (but not a re-Sacrifice of Christ, as he makes clear, but a Memorial). And he notes that we Christians don’t need to fall back upon “the first beggarly elements” which are mere symbols. Clearly, then, his understanding of the Eucharist wasn’t that it was a mere symbol. The view of the Lord’s Supper that some Protestants take (that It’s simply symbolic, a reminder of the true Sacrifice) is a mirror image of what Eusebius describes as now-worthless in the first paragraph.

Lets use the whole context of what Eusebius said, and not just pick out select statements based on your preconceived prejudice, ok?

Hi JMM,

So a protestant symbolic or spiritual presence communion relies on "beggarly elements " ? Your interpretation of Eusebius infers that. …I read your quote as being in perfect alignment and understanding with all communion views, including symbolism only. Eusebius was referring to OT sin sacrifices, of goats and bulls, which we all agree did not suffice, and that Calvary is the full propitiation…

Again, no eucharisting falls back onto “beggarly elements”, but on the full truth and power of Calvary…

Blessings

 

[Memaw]

First, to everyone who took time out of their day to respond to my question, and to share your thoughts, I am extremely grateful. Thank you!

This person was coming from a angle in which he already rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence. I think what the gentlemen was hung up on was the concept of Christ’s physical body being present, i.e. Christ’s physical glorified body.

Upon further reflection it seems that this argument assumes that because Christ was fully man, that He could not practically act outside the limits of a typical human, or what human nature would permit.

Naturally, on it’s face, this is absurd.

Has he ever seen or even studied some of the awesome Eucharistic Miracles??? Who else besides the Catholic Church has such amazing proofs of Christ’s real presence in the Holy Eucharist !!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

susanlo;14517085]Paul isn’t instructing them about their understanding of the elements of the Eucharist. He is condemning them because at their Agape/Eucharist gatherings some people were feasting and getting drunk while others had very little

.
Hello susanlo Your comment touches on the teaching from Paul to the Corinthian Church, but it lacks the full comprehensive undertaking that Paul instructs regarding the Sacred Ritual Jesus instituted at the Last Supper, which Paul received from Jesus, and has handed down the Sacred Tradition to the Corinthian Church to practice. Yet, the Corinthian Church is found to be abusing the Last Supper Rites with their social injustices during their agape meals in community.

That said,;here is what your commentary lacks.
**Paul is exposing to the Corinthians, due to their Liturgical abuses, they have no Eucharist **due to their divisions, not waiting for one another, eating sacrificed meals to false idols etc.
When the Corinthians “proclaim the Lord’s death” in the Eucharist Liturgy, which is an act of Love (Gal.2:20), which is proclaimed existentially (2 Cor.4:10-11) in and through the shared eating and drinking (1Cor.10:16-17). The Authenticity of their remembering is to imitate Christ (1Cor.11:1). When God’s saving Love is made present to them (Rom. 8:39).
(See Raymond Brown biblical commentary pg.810).

From Paul’s Jewish/Christian Liturgical understanding of the Real presence in Eucharist, which he has handed down to the Corinthian Church, makes the Last Supper Eucharist impossible due to their abuses.
**Paul warns them due to their abuses of the Eucharistic Liturgy; “**will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”. Paul continues with a discipline for the Corinthian’s to correct their abuses, by; "Let a man examine himself (Reconciliation), and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup, for any one who eats and drinks without DISCERNING THE BODY (this is the Eucharist, not a social meal as you point out) eats and drinks judgment on himself ", Parenthesis mine.

The Corinthians abuses are not judged for profaning the body and blood of the Lord, for eating and drinking a shared community meal. It is the disposition of the Corinthians abuse’s, when they come to the Liturgy of the Eucharist (see 1Cor.11:23-26).
ICor.11:27-29, here Paul disciplines them and speaks to them the result of their disunity and lack of love which judges them, when they partake of the Lords’ body and blood in an unworthy manner.

A shared community meal does not judge one for profaning the body and blood of the Lord. “But” as Paul instructs, If you come to the Last Supper Eucharist, without discerning the real presence of God’s Act, God’s Love, God’s presence in the “body and blood of our Lord”, are to be found guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

One can only be judged for a real substantial presence in the Eucharist. One cannot be judged for a symbolic remembrance and symbolic bread and wine, which cannot do nothing by itself.

I agree with you, Paul does not give a detailed teaching of the real presence, Jesus does so in John’s Gospel chapter 6. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is addressing the already baptized (learned) Christians who are abusing the Eucharistic Liturgy, Paul gave them through Oral Sacred Tradition, and now writes to them.

I don’t think this passage shows a clear explanation of whether Paul taught transubstantiation, a spiritual presence or a symbolic Eucharist.

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

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Hic,

Beg to differ that John 6 is “quite clear” about a literal interpretation of eating…for we still die when eating Him, though He said we would not.

Following this same logic, faith becomes meaningless and Jesus becomes a fraud. John 3:16 says those who believe in Him shall not perish, but will have eternal life. Yet we know those who have faith still die. So was Jesus lying?

 

[benhur]

Following this same logic, faith becomes meaningless and Jesus becomes a fraud. John 3:16 says those who believe in Him shall not perish, but will have eternal life. Yet we know those who have faith still die. So was Jesus lying?

Hi hockey,

John 3:16 is John 3:16(a spiritual reality/literalness) and John 6 is an entire chapter dealing with bread of life. No one is denying spiritual implications but some certainly deny some metaphorical language in john 6. That is my point, that one must discern the literal and symbolic and spiritual literal linguistic tools.

John 6 Jesus specifically says if you eat His bread they would not die like their fathers in the wilderness. They (fathers) all certainly died physically , but I am not sure they all died spiritually (all went to gehenna and none paradise ?). So I am just saying Jesus was not talking about bypassing physical death as He was also not talking about physically eating Him. It is a spiritual eating as it is a spiritual reward (not dying the second death).

Read it again literally only , and somehow come to an understanding of how if you eat Him you will not die “like your fathers in the wilderness”.

One must go beyond the physical literal for the one (death), and then so the other(eating) . The CC takes one as spiritual literal(death) and one as physical literal (eating) though both are in the same "story/dialogue’’ , which to me is incongruous, not in harmony.

At this juncture of john 6, way before any Last Supper, the understanding is of spiritual death/life and a spiritual eating/understanding/believing per my harmonious understanding.

The whole thrust of John 6 is dealing with their spiritual unbelief, as Jesus knew them to be lacking before the discourse even began, even as false followers, not called of the Father. This was not the time to give them the pearl that is “communion” understanding, and was not the primary context. He played on their misunderstanding of the “eating” (physical instead of spiritual ) because and to reveal their misunderstanding of the Messiahship nature (death-resurrection-ascension vs. immediate Davidic King)), and to separate the sheep from the goats. Hindsight that we have may give you secondary meanings, as in "communion’’ , but should not override primary context for those presently listening to Jesus back then in that precise moment of ministry.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi hockey,

John 3:16 is John 3:16(a spiritual reality/literalness) and John 6 is an entire chapter dealing with bread of life. No one is denying spiritual implications but some certainly deny some metaphorical language in john 6. That is my point, that one must discern the literal and symbolic and spiritual literal linguistic tools.

John 6 Jesus specifically says if you eat His bread they would not die like their fathers in the wilderness. They (fathers) all certainly died physically , but I am not sure they all died spiritually (all went to gehenna and none paradise ?). So I am just saying Jesus was not talking about bypassing physical death as He was also not talking about physically eating Him. It is a spiritual eating as it is a spiritual reward (not dying the second death).

Read it again literally only , and somehow come to an understanding of how if you eat Him you will not die “like your fathers in the wilderness”.

One must go beyond the physical literal for the one (death), and then so the other(eating) . The CC takes one as spiritual literal(death) and one as physical literal (eating) though both are in the same "story/dialogue’’ , which to me is incongruous, not in harmony.

At this juncture of john 6, way before any Last Supper, the understanding is of spiritual death/life and a spiritual eating/understanding/believing per my harmonious understanding.

The whole thrust of John 6 is dealing with their spiritual unbelief, as Jesus knew them to be lacking before the discourse even began, even as false followers, not called of the Father. This was not the time to give them the pearl that is “communion” understanding, and was not the primary context. He played on their misunderstanding of the “eating” (physical instead of spiritual ) because and to reveal their misunderstanding of the Messiahship nature (death-resurrection-ascension vs. immediate Davidic King)), and to separate the sheep from the goats. Hindsight that we have may give you secondary meanings, as in "communion’’ , but should not override primary context for those presently listening to Jesus back then in that precise moment of ministry.

Blessings

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…and if we didn’t have a whole host of Early Church Fathers, to include a student of the guy who authored John 6 (Ignatius) appearing much more Catholic in their understanding than reformed. And if Bethlehem didn’t actually mean “house of bread”. And if we didn’t have Manna prefiguring Holy communion in the Old Testament. 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.

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:

John 2:19-21Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

19 Jesus answered them, Destroy (undo) this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.
20 Then the Jews replied, It took forty-six years to build this temple (sanctuary), and will You raise it up in three days?
21 But He had spoken of the temple which was His body.

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.

When Jesus refers to Himself as a door or gate, we see no such harsh reaction, therefore no explanation given. So I think understanding the writing style of the author in question is important as well. 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.

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.

Pax

 

[susanlo]

St. Clement of Alexandria:

Not symbolic here. Cant be sanctified by a symbol…

Tertullian:

This guy doesn’t exactly sound like a Baptist minister to me.

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.

A quote from a protestant scholar cautioning people about applying modern thought to ancient texts:

I’m assuming there are no Oxford scholars here in this forum who can refute that?

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.