Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[steve_b]

There are a few categories of non-Catholic saints:1. validly baptized infants
2. martyrs
3. non-Catholics with valid sacraments, and worthily receiving communion

a. of the Assyrian Church of the East
b. of the Oriental Orthodox
c. of the Eastern Orthodox
d. of the Polish National Catholic Church and Polish-Catholic Church
e. of the Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches4. non-Catholics without valid sacraments, and worthily receiving communion in the Catholic Church​

Principles and Norms on Ecumenism125. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed. In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.129

129 ,… in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life.133 For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.134vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

Vico

do you have specific names of saints you’re thinking of from any of those groups named?

That Vatican doc used saints in a general way. No specific saint was named from those groups

 

[Cathoholic]

Vico. I am sure you know this but there are lurkers here who may not.

The non-Catholics who are allowed to receive Communion in your number 4 (from this post) are people who “manifest Catholic faith in respect to the sacrament” they seek AND “cannot approach a minister of their own community”, AND “seek such of their own accord”, AND there is some “grave necessity” present.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Since this is the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, it would not surprise me if Pope Francis modifies those preconditions, but right now at least, those are the requirements.

Manifesting such faith concerning Holy Communion includes for example the bread and wine get transformed into the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, by Christ working IN and through a proper ministerial priest (a priest or bishop and not a lay person or Bible only Christian minister). It also assumes the recipient is validly Baptized.

In other words, it almost has to be someone who is of an Easter Orthodox tradition.

Pope John Paul II expounded on those preconditions more in his encyclical, ut unum sint.

 

[Vico]

…

Good idea.

 

[rcwitness]

Today’s Gospel reading (John 4:5-42) highlights the symbolic elements also found in John 6.

Jesus tells the woman at the well:
“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst, the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
So this “water” Jesus is talking about, is His Spirit. It is similar language that Jesus uses in John 6. So Jesus’reference to His flesh and blood cannot be separated from His Spirit. We are nourished and strengthened by His Spirit.

Then Jesus institutes His Supper with bread and wine! This adds another huge dynamic to receiving His Spirit. It’s not that His Spirit is put aside from His flesh and blood. On the contrary! Jesus reveals that receiving His Spirit is also receiving His body and blood of the Lord’s Supper!

And in this understanding of the dual nature of our Communion, we can understand how the Word of God became flesh and blood in order for us to live in the Spirit (receive His Spirit).

Without the obedient death of the Son, who was spotless from all sin, we would not be made worthy of eternal life and reconciled with the Father. Consider this saying of Jesus:

John 12
“The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

 

[benhur]

Except if you read the excerpts I posted, those Protestant scholars are clear that you would actually be eating the actual Easter bunny. Which is why Augustine said that in the Eucharist, we are eating the actual flesh with which He walked the Earth.

Augustine says, like Justin Martyr, that after the blessing (consecration), it is no longer bread or wine. He says what you see there, is not what is actually there. Though the word was not in use yet, what Augustine says, fits the definition of transubstantiation, and can only fit that definition. For if it is not transubstantiation, then what I see there, would still in part be bread and wine, even if Jesus is added to it.

Justin, says after the blessing, the bread and wine is the flesh of Jesus. He doesn’t say it is bread **and **Jesus. He says the bread is Jesus’ flesh.

Many Orthodox admit that while they do not call it transubstantiation, what takes place at their Divine Liturgy fits the definition of transubstantiation.

Hi D, agree that some scholars say that. I just kindly submit others do not.

Not sure Martyr says bread ceases to be. He simply asserts it is no longer ''common" , like with which to make a peanut butter sandwich. It is holy after the consecration. Holy meaning “set apart” , for the religious remembrance, as figure for the Body.

Blessings

 

[Wannano]

YES He does; BUT in it’s RIGHT context it means HERE precisely HE WHO BELIEVES THAT “I AM” REALLY, TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PRESENT REALLY] IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION.

JOHN SIX IS ONE OF THOSE CHAPTERS THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY TO ACTUALLY GET THE TEACHING RIGHT. PLEASE SEE POST #228

GBY

Patrick

The verse we are referring to is John 6 :47. You have explained above what you feel this verse is precisely saying. I have looked all over the net for Catholic commentary that would back up your claim. I have found no reference at all anywhere that says what you are saying. If you can show me differently I am interested. Otherwise I am left with the feeling this is just your personal interpretation, which you abundantly point out is unacceptable.

 

[benhur]

benhur.

I mentioned how there is ONLY ONE PRIEST – Jesus Christ.

I showed how there are differing SHARES in that ONE Priesthood of Jesus’.

I told you Catholicism teaches about episcopoi (bishops), presbyteroi (ministerial priests), and the priesthood of all the faithful. Three priestly offices that have differing SHARES or PARTICIPATIONS (koinonia) in the ONE PRIESTHOOD of Christ.

This is the way it has been since apostolic times.

I showed in post 155, how you can be BOTH an accountant and an economist (but it doesn’t NECESSITATE both). You and I agree on that.

You said that these two offices that have been present since the Apostolic age, presbyter and bishop, are . . . “interchangeable”.

I asked for ANY Biblical evidence of this (reminding you that ALL Bishops ARE Ministerial Priests too, but ONLY Ministerial Priests that have been ordained by the laying on of hands to the episcopate were . . . Bishops).

You said in post 176:

I asked for some Biblical evidence of this (in post 184) asking . . . .

You said in post 197:

I’m not trying to be a smart alek benhur, but you are not going to be able to find those verses because they don’t exist.

The best you will be able to do is see Bishops describing themselves as Priests which I already affirm (Jesus is even a “Priest” . . . Jesus is THE Priest in fact).

You will also be able to find ministerial Priests described as Bishops (which I also agree with).

What you won’t be able to find is that their offices are the same.

All Bishops are ministerial priests.

Some Priests (presbyters) are Bishops.

But ALL ministerial priests are NOT Bishops.

You went to history in post 176 mentioning St. Irenaeus and St. Clement of Alexandria quoting . . .

But I already affirm this.

You still have not shown how the office of the Ministerial Priest or presbyteroi, is identical to the office of episcopoi, or bishop.

You also appealed to St. Jerome . . . .

**THIS is the quote I want. **

You brought it up. I want to read it.

I could not find it (from an original citation source).

Since YOU brought this St. Jerome quote up . . . . Would you be so kind as to tell me WHERE St. Jerome said this so I can read it in context?

I found it on Wiki (allegedly quoting a Catholic text from the 1800’s). I also found some Protestants sharing this same quote with the same absence of context.

I’m not saying it is a bogus quote. I am sure it is authentic. I am just saying I want to read it for myself in CONTEXT.

**So again . . . Would you be so kind as to tell me WHERE St. Jerome said this so I can read it in context? **

Hi C,

yes very difficult to bring up jeromes quote ,which is from his commentary on Titus…but here is another site and another quotes
newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D, agree that some scholars say that. I just kindly submit others do not.

Actually, you will find it hard to find even one Latin linguistic scholar, of the past two centuries who does not agree with what those Protestant scholars stated. Please let me know when you find one. I’d love to read what s/he says on the use of the word figure in the Latin in the Roman empire. One of the scholars that I posted a quote from, was the Lutheran Adolphus Harnack. Dr. Harnack was considered the leading Latin linguistic scholar of the early twentieth century, for that time period of the Roman empire.

Not sure Martyr says bread ceases to be. He simply asserts it is no longer ''common" , like with which to make a peanut butter sandwich. It is holy after the consecration. Holy meaning “set apart” , for the religious remembrance, as figure for the Body.

Blessings

Except, Justin Martyr is quite clear. He says the bread is Jesus’ flesh, stating that the bread ***is ***the same flesh that Jesus walked the Earth in.

A.) He says after the consecration the bread ***is ***the same flesh Jesus walked the Earth in. (This immediately rules out figurative or symbolic.)

B.) He says it is no longer common bread, denoting a change of some sort has actually taken place to the bread. (This immediately rules out consubstantiation, as the substance of the bread would be unchanged.)

C.) This can only mean he believes what has taken place is that which later came to be termed transubstantiation.

You said we do not participate. I grant you that you do not participate.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi C,

yes very difficult to bring up jeromes quote ,which is from his commentary on Titus…but here is another site and another quotes
newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

Read the link. St. Jerome says something in the letter that clearly shows that he realizes presbyters and bishops are not equal. He admits there is something that bishops can do that presbyters cannot.

 

[susanlo]

Except, Justin Martyr is quite clear. He says the bread is Jesus’ flesh, stating that the bread ***is ***the same flesh that Jesus walked the Earth in.

A.) He says after the consecration the bread ***is ***the same flesh Jesus walked the Earth in. (This immediately rules out figurative or symbolic.)

B.) He says it is no longer common bread, denoting a change of some sort has actually taken place to the bread. (This immediately rules out consubstantiation, as the substance of the bread would be unchanged.)

C.) This can only mean he believes what has taken place is that which later came to be termed transubstantiation.

You said we do not participate. I grant you that you do not participate.

I don’t think it is so simple to understand what Justin Martyr believed about the Eucharist.

In Chapter 65 he wrote:
“…There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”

He goes on in Chapter 66:
“…For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke*22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone…”
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

The term ‘transmutation’ is referring to the change occurring with digestion after the elements are consumed and not referring to a change before they are eaten. He does call it flesh and blood, but he doesn’t specify a literal conversion or a symbolic representation. He could mean by this that it literally converts or that it represents and carries the meaning of flesh and blood. For example pointing to a piece of paper with an image and stating “this is a flower” when in fact you are merely pointing to a piece of paper which did not undergo a conversion. I wonder if sometime in the distant future a later civilization will uncover the 1980’s “This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs” commercials and believe that we thought eggs were actually brains.

To find out more about whether Justin Martyr thought bread and wine were not common food and common drink because they represented something much more meaningful or whether he thought an actual conversion took place, we need to look to what else he wrote about the topic. In Chapter 26 of this same writing he sharply criticized the mystery cults for possibly eating human flesh: “And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not;…”
In his Dialogue with Trypho he wrote about the Eucharist numerous times. He wrote:
Chapter 70: “…Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks…”
newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
Chapter 117: “…Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind,…”
newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm

These quotations seem more likely show a symbolic understanding than showing an indication of a concept that would later be called transubstantiation. The concept of transubstantiation had not yet developed by his time and is not clearly evident in his writing.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hey Susan,

Sorry about the broken link. The “http” portion copied twice.

For “Mary being a big deal” to the early Church, here’s that link again:

earlychristians.org/index.php/origins/item/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church

This is just one of many. “Theotokos” was very much a part of the ancient Church.

And on the nature of communion, there’s very little doubt that from the early Church all the way to the protestant reformation, there was the nigh-universal belief that Christ existed within communion in a greater way than He existed in your bread at home. The concept of “The Real Presence” is as old as the Church - just like the notion that “Mary was a big deal”.

We can debate consubstantiation, transubstantiation, impanation and so on. But what is asserted is “The Real Presence”. This is more than a mere symbolism and it’s as old as Christianity.

Here is a decent summary of the Early Fathers on the matter:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I don’t think it is so simple to understand what Justin Martyr believed about the Eucharist.

In Chapter 65 he wrote:
“…There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”

He goes on in Chapter 66:
“…For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke*22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone…”
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

The term ‘transmutation’ is referring to the change occurring with digestion after the elements are consumed and not referring to a change before they are eaten. He does call it flesh and blood, but he doesn’t specify a literal conversion or a symbolic representation. He could mean by this that it literally converts or that it represents and carries the meaning of flesh and blood. For example pointing to a piece of paper with an image and stating “this is a flower” when in fact you are merely pointing to a piece of paper which did not undergo a conversion. I wonder if sometime in the distant future a later civilization will uncover the 1980’s “This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs” commercials and believe that we thought eggs were actually brains.

To find out more about whether Justin Martyr thought bread and wine were not common food and common drink because they represented something much more meaningful or whether he thought an actual conversion took place, we need to look to what else he wrote about the topic. In Chapter 26 of this same writing he sharply criticized the mystery cults for possibly eating human flesh: “And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not;…”
In his Dialogue with Trypho he wrote about the Eucharist numerous times. He wrote:
Chapter 70: “…Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks…”
newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
Chapter 117: “…Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind,…”
newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm

These quotations seem more likely show a symbolic understanding than showing an indication of a concept that would later be called transubstantiation. The concept of transubstantiation had not yet developed by his time and is not clearly evident in his writing.

Hi Susan.

Justin’s first apology implies a change takes place…after consecration:

but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Same thing happens in a Catholic Mass. The same Words used by our Lord at the last supper are used by our clergy.

As Augustine pointed out centuries later, it is symbolic in a sense…to the human eye. But somehow, someway, it becomes Jesus after the consecration.

Important to note the early Christians are actually being accused of cannibalism, thus the reason for these defenses in the first place. THAT, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the importance of Eucharist in the early Church. Had the early church had a strictly symbolic understanding of Eucharist they could have sent out leaflets to emperors or whoever else objected with a one word sentence…we think it’s a symbol of the Lord, not really him. No need for detailed explanations in that scenario.

Pax

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t think it is so simple to understand what Justin Martyr believed about the Eucharist.

Actually, it’s incredibly that simple.

He goese goes on in Chapter 66:
“…For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke*22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone…”
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
The term ‘transmutation’ is referring to the change occurring with digestion after the elements are consumed and not referring to a change before they are eaten. He does call it flesh and blood, but he doesn’t specify a literal conversion or a symbolic representation. He could mean by this that it literally converts or that it represents and carries the meaning of flesh and blood. For example pointing to a piece of paper with an image and stating “this is a flower” when in fact you are merely pointing to a piece of paper which did not undergo a conversion. I wonder if sometime in the distant future a later civilization will uncover the 1980’s “This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs” commercials and believe that we thought eggs were actually brains.To read this passage the way you have read it, requires that the author made a grammatical mistake so huge that you only see elementary students who have no concept of grammatical rules make. First off you are asking us to suspend the rules of semi-colon usage, where everything that directly comes after the semi-colon, directly pertains to what comes before. This is basic elementary grammar. Perhaps more egregious is your asking us to believe that Justin wrote a sentence in which he says:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these;

He is condemning cannibalism. But in cannibalism, the victim is quantitatively diminished. Jesus is in no way diminished in the eating of the Eucharist, so cannibalism does not apply. This passage has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

These quotations seem more likely show a symbolic understanding than showing an indication of a concept that would later be called transubstantiation. The concept of transubstantiation had not yet developed by his time and is not clearly evident in his writing.

Susan, I am going to assume you have read very little of Justin Martyr. If you had, you would know he was well versed on Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, whence the concept which would later become known as transubstantiation was born. Justin would have been very well acquainted with the concept.

 

[PJM]

The verse we are referring to is John 6 :47. You have explained above what you feel this verse is precisely saying. I have looked all over the net for Catholic commentary that would back up your claim. I have found no reference at all anywhere that says what you are saying. If you can show me differently I am interested. Otherwise I am left with the feeling this is just your personal interpretation, which you abundantly point out is unacceptable.

Hi

I’m not entirely sure what it is exactly that your asking of me [MY ignorance], but if what follows is insufficient PLEASE let me know.

[1] Here is Haydock’s Bible Commentary on John six: verse #47

“Ver. 47. Thus Jesus Christ concludes the first part of his discourse: “Amen, amen, he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life;” which shews that faith [BELIEF] is a necessary predisposition to the heavenly bread.”

[2] It occurs to me that you might find reading ALL of Haydock’s commentary on John Chapter six worth while, which you can do here:

haydock1859.tripod.com/id99.html

[3] I would point out that the bible is a Catholic Book, fully authored and collected by the end of the 1st Century, or VERY early second century, when the ONLY "Christian churches were ALL Catholics.

As the birthers of the bible; the OT, was collected and selected by the Early Catholic Fathers; GUIDED by the HS [2 Tim 3:16-17] and it the Early Catholic Fathers who authored the entire NT; hence it seems prudent that the RCC who alone is guided, guarded and protected [all biblically provable], be the ONE True source for it’s interpretation.

Please read:
2 Peter 1: 19-20

2 Peter 3: 14-18

I truly hope I don’t offend you with my next point, but it seem extremely relevant to this discussion point:

It is the failure to RIGHTLY understand various bible teaching that is the very foundation for the large multiplicity of non-Catholic-Christian faith beliefs, and the large number of competing churches in Christian practices & beliefs, as NO church can be separated from its own set of Faith beliefs; yer TRUTH by definition can be nothing other than singular per defined issue…

If this information does not address your concerns, PLEASE let me know and I’ll try again.

God BLESS You!

Let’s keep talking

Patrick

 

[benhur]

Actually, you will find it hard to find even one Latin linguistic scholar, of the past two centuries who does not agree with what those Protestant scholars stated. Please let me know when you find one. I’d love to read what s/he says on the use of the word figure in the Latin in the Roman empire. One of the scholars that I posted a quote from, was the Lutheran Adolphus Harnack. Dr. Harnack was considered the leading Latin linguistic scholar of the early twentieth century, for that time period of the Roman empire

.Hi D,

Ok, take your word on that. Still does not change the possibility of writ being figurative on this topic.

Still also does not negate for sure consubstantiation, even spiritual presence. Would have to think more if it even negates symbolic, for if "is’’ does not , surely "figure of " should not also.

Except, Justin Martyr is quite clear. He says the bread is Jesus’ flesh, stating that the bread ***is ***the same flesh that Jesus walked the Earth in.

A.) He says after the consecration the bread ***is ***the same flesh Jesus walked the Earth in. (This immediately rules out figurative or symbolic.)

Understand. Again in what way ? Spititual, physical, symbolic? The bread is not the easter bunny.

And as mentioned before, the Lord said the same thing at the Last Supper. Jesus said "is’ also, then when on to call the consecrated cup, “fruit of the vine” as if it did not cease being so.

B.) He says it is no longer common bread, denoting a change of some sort has actually taken place to the bread. (This immediately rules out consubstantiation, as the substance of the bread would be unchanged.)

Totally agree. It begins as bread with which to make my peanut butter sandwich (sorry , I really enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, even for desert!). Once consecrated the bread’s "use’’ is set apart for a religious rite, holy. So a big yes to change.

Again, the Last Supper would agree more with consubstantiation than transubstantiation for the reason noted above, (still being the fruit of the vine).

This can only mean he believes what has taken place is that which later came to be termed transubstantiation.

Agreed if you think “is” can only be literal, and change can only be complete and total from one thing to another, literally.

You said we do not participate. I grant you that you do not participate.

not sure where i posted that.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Read the link. St. Jerome says something in the letter that clearly shows that he realizes presbyters and bishops are not equal. He admits there is something that bishops can do that presbyters cannot.

yeah I agree . jerome here makes it seem it is a late apostloic devlopment.The other writing not so clear.

Somewhere i thought presbyter was first used , due to its jewish roots, and the church was first Jewish. Bishop was more the gentile term , i think.

So Jerome does say they had equal beginnings , but shows the evolution. Do not think one can say they were from the beginning different according to Jerome.

Blessings

 

[susanlo]

To read this passage the way you have read it, requires that the author made a grammatical mistake so huge that you only see elementary students who have no concept of grammatical rules make. First off you are asking us to suspend the rules of semi-colon usage, where everything that directly comes after the semi-colon, directly pertains to what comes before. This is basic elementary grammar. Perhaps more egregious is your asking us to believe that Justin wrote a sentence in which he says: Literal. Literal. Literal. Literal. Literal. Literal.You say symbolic. So after six comments that Justin makes which you have no problem accepting as literal, Justin says something so against the way you have been taught as a Christian, that you have to make him make a grammatical blunder, rather than admit he makes seven literal comments. Do you understand why Catholics find this laughable?

There are a lot of semi-colons in this passage. I am not sure how that is relevant. I did not say that there is a grammatical error. There is scholarly debate, but most of the analysis I have read says that the term ‘transmutation’ is specifically regarding digestion and assimilation into the Christian’s body. This is just one word of the long writing and doesn’t reveal what he believed about the Eucharist.

Your analogy would only work if Justin was calling something bread, that was actually a watermelon.

What does a watermelon have to do with this?

My point is that I often see quotations like this and other quotes from the early centuries which include something like “the bread is the flesh of Christ,” and it is put forth as proof that the writer believed that at the moment of consecration the bread, while continuing to appear like bread, actually changed in substance to become the literal flesh of Jesus in heaven. I wonder if somebody watching a commercial like this one - youtube.com/watch?v=CLqZ3jcQO9I - would think that at the moment he holds up the egg and announces “this is your brain” that the egg, while continuing to appear like an egg, actually changed in substance to become the literal brain of the viewer at home without affecting their whole and intact brain. I don’t think most people understood it that way. Most people see it as using an everyday object to reveal a truth in a tangible way. People use metaphors like this all of the time. Many churches today that participate in a symbolic communion refer to the bread and the cup as body and blood. They use this terminology as a metaphor and not as indication that the substance has changed.

He is condemning cannibalism. But in cannibalism, the victim is quantitatively diminished. Jesus is in no way diminished in the eating of the Eucharist, so cannibalism does not apply. This passage has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

Susan, I am going to assume you have read very little of Justin Martyr. If you had, you would know he was well versed on Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, whence the concept which would later become known as transubstantiation was born. Justin would have been very well acquainted with the concept.

If he was well acquainted with the concept of transubstantiation, why didn’t he and others of his era use the terminology? I think you are right that the concept was not yet “born.” Later in Christianity there is uniformity (despite skeptics), but at this time there was no universal understanding.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

My point is that I often see quotations like this and other quotes from the early centuries which include something like “the bread is the flesh of Christ,” and it is put forth as proof that the writer believed that at the moment of consecration the bread, while continuing to appear like bread, actually changed in substance to become the literal flesh of Jesus in heaven. I wonder if somebody watching a commercial like this one - youtube.com/watch?v=CLqZ3jcQO9I -

Oh my, I feel sooooo old because I remember that 80’s commercial very well…:crying:

 

[Duane1966]

.Hi D,

Ok, take your word on that. Still does not change the possibility of writ being figurative on this topic.

Still also does not negate for sure consubstantiation, even spiritual presence. Would have to think more if it even negates symbolic, for if "is’’ does not , surely "figure of " should not also.
Understand. Again in what way ? Spititual, physical, symbolic? The bread is not the easter bunny.

Hi Ben,

All Latin linguistic scholars admit that the term figura has underwent a substantial change, while the word for is, in the Latin est, has not. So your argument fails on the point you are trying to make.

Tell me, if someone were to say that your neighbor is going to the store, do you actually believe that your neighbor stayed at home and only symbolically went to the store?

And as mentioned before, the Lord said the same thing at the Last Supper. Jesus said "is’ also, then when on to call the consecrated cup, “fruit of the vine” as if it did not cease being so.

[29] Fruit of the vine: These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.

Totally agree. It begins as bread with which to make my peanut butter sandwich (sorry , I really enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, even for desert!). Once consecrated the bread’s "use’’ is set apart for a religious rite, holy. So a big yes to change.

Totally disagree. I don’t care how many times you bless bread, if no change has occurred to the substance, it is still common bread, even if it has been set aside for a religious rite.

An analogy would be someone who makes multiple altar calls. No matter how many times they do it, if they do not change their ways, they are still the same sinner they were before the first altar call.

Again, the Last Supper would agree more with consubstantiation than transubstantiation for the reason noted above, (still being the fruit of the vine).Drawing from the passage in Luke, fruit of the vine did not refer to the chalice of His blood.

Luke’s timeline has Jesus calling it the fruit of the vine before the blessing.

So Jerome does say they had equal beginnings , but shows the evolution. Do not think one can say they were from the beginning different according to Jerome.

Blessings

Read the link carefully. St. Jerome says something that makes it clear that there must have been bishops right from the get go, and he realizes this.

You might be interested in reading St. Robert Bellarmine’s commentary on who Jesus made a bishop. You should be able to find it online. Quite an interesting read, though I know you will disagree with the conclusions he reached.

 

[Duane1966]

There are a lot of semi-colons in this passage. I am not sure how that is … There is scholarly debate, but most of the analysis I have read says that the term ‘transmutation’ is specifically regarding digestion and assimilation into the Christian’s body. This is just one word of the long writing and doesn’t reveal what he believed about the Eucharist.

Susan, please look up how semi-colons are used. When a semi-colon is used in a sentence, EVERYTHING following the semi-colon in that particular sentence directly relates to what came before the semi-colon. To mix phrases that are meant to be taken as literal, with a phrase that the author intends to be metaphorical or symbolic, in one sentence is considered a major grammatical error. This is fifth grade rules of grammar. But that is what you would have us believe that the well educated Justin did. Here is the passage in question:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Notice, one sentence, with a semi-colon. To read the last part as symbolic, whilst reading the rest as literal, does violence to the sentence. It would be grammatically correct to just say the whole sentence is symbolic. But that would mean, in Justin’s eyes, that Jesus did not really become flesh.

The term ‘transmutation’ is referring to the change occurring with digestion after the elements are consumed and not referring to a change before they are eaten.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Justin to use the Latin word for digestion, ***concoctionem, *** rather than a word, transmutatione, which means the changing of one substance to another? Wouldn’t this be another blunder for the educated Justin to make using a word, transmutatione, that most Latin scholars admit was the forerunner to transubstantiation, instead of the common word for digestion, concoctionem?

What does a watermelon have to do with this?

If you remember the commercial, a brain is never shown, but an egg instead. And a change clearly takes place to the egg. Justin does not substitute something else for bread, like a watermelon, and call it bread. Either way, both the commercial, and Justin both say a change takes place. The commercial, by the use of drugs. Justin, by the blessing.

My point is that I often see quotations like this and other quotes from the early centuries which include something like “the bread is the flesh of Christ,” and it is put forth as proof that the writer believed that at the moment of consecration the bread, while continuing to appear like bread, actually changed in substance to become the literal flesh of Jesus in heaven. I wonder if somebody watching a commercial like this one - youtube.com/watch?v=CLqZ3jcQO9I - would think that at the moment he holds up the egg and announces “this is your brain” that the egg, while continuing to appear like an egg, actually changed in substance to become the literal brain of the viewer at home without affecting their whole and intact brain. I don’t think most people understood it that way. Most people see it as using an everyday object to reveal a truth in a tangible way. People use metaphors like this all of the time. Many churches today that participate in a symbolic communion refer to the bread and the cup as body and blood. They use this terminology as a metaphor and not as indication that the substance has changed.

Susan, they are talking to a live audience. One that has been raised to know that what is being referred to is symbolic. In writings by these same communities, there are many times where the authors go out of their way to make clear that no change takes place to the bread and juice.

Justin Martyr was also writing to an audience, one that was raised believing that the bread is actually the flesh of Jesus. You are trying to tell me that Catholics within about one century totally misunderstood what he wrote, while Protestants over 1500 years later understand what he wrote. What do you think the odds are that the Catholic Church, which preserved his writings and his relics all these centuries would somehow misunderstand what he wrote, whilst you got it right? A million to one? A billion to one? But to do this, you have to say that though Justin said this is something, he actually meant something else, even though he never says he actually means something else.

If he was well acquainted with the concept of transubstantiation, why didn’t he and others of his era use the terminology?

He did, look up the definition of transmutation.

I think you are right that the concept was not yet “born.”

Really? I clearly stated that the concept was born of the Greek philosophers, well before Justin’s time. I said the concept that was born well before Justin’s time later became known as transubstantiation, but the concept itself was in existence for centuries before his birth. And I said Justin would have been well acquainted with the concept, as he was well versed in Greek philosophy.

Later in Christianity there is uniformity (despite skeptics), but at this time there was no universal understanding.

I beg to differ. And leading Protestant scholars over the last century, whose writings I have posted, agree that in the writings of the early Church, the understanding of the Real Presence was held by all the fathers.