The Eucharist and Transubstantiation (Split from "Protestants do not really believe...")

[Rolltide]

I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.

First, a couple of assumptions:

1. I think we can both agree that the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is established by the Reformation, so I will leave any discussion from that era out.
2. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Real Presence in the Orthodox Eucharist), we can assume that the doctrine predates the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox.

(Now, that said, the Orthodox will not use the word “Transubstantiation”. They leave the miracle of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a mystery, but they DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ, and in basically the same way as Catholics.)

Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.

While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:
**
Council of Ephesus**

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.

 

[Rolltide]

We can now proceed to push the date of the doctrine of the Real Presence back even further, using quotes from St. Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. Ambrose:

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” **(ibid., 272).
**
Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

**
Ambrose of Milan**

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

These are all mainstream figures in the Catholic Church. Ambrose and Augustine were both important bishops. These statements are clear, and they define the position of the Catholic Church, which is then stated more formally at the Council of Ephesus. As a result, it’s clear that the idea of the Real Presence develops absolutely no later than the late 4th century

 

[Rolltide]

I should mention that most of these quotes are coming from the Catholic Answers library on the front page of this site. I’m just adding some additional commentary.

In 350 A.D., we have another very important document from Cyril of Jerusalem. He states:

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Again, we have a clear indication of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now we begin with some quotes that are slightly less clear, but offer some strong evidence for the Real Presence:

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Now granted, this particular quote could be interpreted as merely symbolic, but given the documentary evidence from other sources and the fact that the Real Presence is clearly believed in 350 A.D., it strongly suggests that this quote is to be taken literally.

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Here we have a reference to the Eucharist in one of the most important of all Church councils, the Council of Nicaea. The important parts of this quote are the reference to the sacrificial, rather than symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that it is regarded as something special and important enough that only priests and bishops may offer it.

Next, we have Cyprian of Carthage talking about how the Eucharist must be eaten only by those who have confessed of their sins. The sacrifice of the Eucharist may only be consumed by the pure, because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He then proceeds to back up his opinion through Holy Scripture:

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).*

 

[Rolltide]

Here are several more quotes:
**
Origen**

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

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
**
Clement of Alexandria**

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Here is what J. N. D. Kelly has to say in his book Early Christian Doctrines about the above quotes. (pgs 211-212):

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. (see my last post) Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”.

Now, out of these last few passages, no single quote would support belief in the Real Presence all by itself. However, taken as a collection, it provides strong evidence that the belief was widespread. In light of even earlier documentary evidence (which I’ll give in my next post) that is far more clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence, these quotes become important as evidence of continuity.*

 

[Rolltide]

And finally, we come to the most important quotes of all:

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

Now this IS significant! We have Iraneus of Lyons, in 189 A.D., writing an entire tract to refute the heresy of the Docetists. Here is what Wikipedia says about the Docetists:

"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], “to seem”) is the belief that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence “the Word was made Flesh” (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

Christology and theological implications

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view. Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, largely dying out during the first millennium A.D. . Other surviving gnostic movements, such as Catharism incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229)."

Irenaeus is arguing against Docetism because it denies the sacrifice of Jesus. If God could never take true human form because it was evil, then Jesus’ death was simply an illusion with no real value. Irenaeus HAD to emphasize the Real Presence as part of his argument to prove that Jesus actually DID become flesh. How could someone reject the Real Presence as possible if it didn’t already exist?! The document by Irenaeus is long, but clear, and combined with the other quotes above, helps to push the date for the Real Presence all the way back to the late 2nd century. Keep in mind that Irenaeus was born a mere 25-30 years after the death of the Apostle John, so we are now getting VERY close to the New Testament era

 

[Rolltide]

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Here, we have Justin Martyr writing an Apology (a defense of the Christian faith) to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to try and defend the practices of the Christians and thus end the illegality and persecution of the Church. As such, it had to be very accurate as to the current beliefs of the Catholic Church, as it would be read by high officials, and possibly Antoninus Pius himself. As a classically trained philosopher, he was well-versed in the debating methods of the time, as well as the arguments of the Romans themselves. The First Apology was written in 151 A.D., so the Real Presence is now clearly a Catholic doctrine just a mere 121 years after the death of Christ, and about 50 years after the death of John, the last surviving apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And finally, we have the most important quote of all. Our existing evidence suggests that Ignatius was trained by none other than the Apostle John himself, and that he was personally ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is a man who intimately knew and conversed with the Apostles, and even HE is professing belief in the Real Presence. He is doing this in his letters to his congregations, and we have written records of it as early as 110 AD. The Didache, written about 70 AD (not by Ignatius, but by an unknown author), is the oldest non-Biblical surviving document that we have about Christianity, and it too emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

So what’s the bottom line? If the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a false teaching, then the Apostles themselves incorrectly trained and appointed a bishop with false beliefs, and are responsible for the perversion of the Catholic Church. It is very clear that this would not be likely. There are other documents that also support this opinion, but I’ve only listed the most important and significant ones. I should also point out some relevant Bible passages:

1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71

It would also do you well to read “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. It describes in detail how the Catholic Church has always taught that the Book of Revelation by John is in fact an analogy describing the Sacrifice of the Mass. Most of the images used are direct symbolic representations of the various parts of the Catholic Mass. His interpretation is not new (nor is it the only acceptable one), but it does demonstrate how the Mass IS highly Biblical, as is the Real Presence and its sacrificial nature.

I now give you some time to digest all of this…*

 

[Rolltide]

I should also note that the vast majority of Christian denominations believe in the Real Presence. By numbers:

Those that believe in the Real Presence
Catholics - 1,120,000,000
Eastern Orthodox - 225,000,000
Oriental Orthodox - 72,000,000

Total - 1,417,000,000

Anglicanism - 77,000,000 (Some believe in the Real Presence, some do not)

Those that reject the Real Presence
Protestantism (mainline) - 590,000,000
Pentacostalism - 105,000,000
Non-Trinitarian - 28,500,000
Restorationaism - 18,000,000

Total - 741,500,000

Total number of Christians - 2,235,500,000
Percentage of those that believe in the Real Presence - 63.38%
Percentage of those that reject the Real Presence - 33.17%
Percentage of Anglicans - 3.44%

Now, of course, I realize that this says nothing about whether the belief is actually true or not, but is a powerful indication of what the MAJORITY of Christians believe.

Edit: I forgot to add in Lutherans, which ALSO believe in a form of the Real Presence…

 

[Rolltide]

I’d also like to present the following Biblical argument, spelled out expertly in **The Lamb’s Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. **Perhaps you would like to re-read Revelation in light of the following idea. Compare the imagery of Revelation to the parts of the Catholic Mass:

Sunday worship 1:10
a high priest 1:13
an altar 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:18
priests (presybteroi) 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
vestments 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
consecrated celibacy 14:4
lamp stands, or Menorah 1:12, 2:5
penitence ch. 2 and 3
incense 5:8; 8:3-5
the book, or scroll 5:1
the Eucharistic Host 2:17
chalices 15:7; ch. 16; 21:9
the Sign of the Cross (the tau) 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
the Gloria 15:3-4
the Alleluia 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts 11:12
the “Holy, Holy, Holy” 4:8
the Amen 19:4; 22:21
the “Lamb of God” 5:6 and throughout
the prominence of the Virgin Mary 12:1-6; 13-17
intercession of angels and saints 5:8; 6:0-10; 8:3-4
(You will want to pay attention to these three in particular. Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” in Revelation (and almost exclusively in Revelation) to emphasize his ongoing sacrifice. He becomes the one perfect sacrifice for all, and replaces eternally all other sacrifice. His sacrifice, which continues for all time in the Catholic Mass, is a foreshadowing of the worship we will have for God in Heaven.)
devotion to St. Michael, archangel 12:7
antiphonal chant 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
readings from Scripture ch 2-3; 5; 8:2-11
(again, note the strong importance of Scripture with regard to the Mass)
the priesthood of the faithful 1:6; 20:6
catholicity, or universality 7:9
silent contemplation 8:1
the marriage supper of the Lamb 19:9, 17

I could go into much greater detail, but Dr. Hahn does it much better than I.

 

[Nita]

Description from my post:
It would be with the accidents of bread and wine remaining, but the underlying substance would be Him]

Are there any passages in the NT that describes the Lord’s supper in this way?

Yes. The Last Supper gospel passages in the synoptics. They describe what actually took place - that the apostles ate what still appeared to be bread, but it was bread which Jesus had broken, blessed, and, holding it in His hands declared, “This is My body”. The Word of God at the Last Supper has the same power (to carry out what He decrees) as it did at the creation of the universe.

Matt 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."

John is the only gospel writer who gives no details of the last supper. If John thought that John 6 was related directly to the supper then why did he not make the connection in his Gospel or other letters?

I don’t know. We’ll have to ask him when we get to heaven.

John’s gospel was the last of the four gospels to be written. As you may have noticed, most of his gospel is not contained in the synoptics. He does not repeat a lot of what they contain, but fills in a lot that they don’t have. Whereas the synoptics give less than a chapter to record the events and words of Jesus at the Last Supper, John devotes 5 whole chapters to it! (Chapters 13 thru 17) Yet, he doesn’t record the actual Eucharistic institution narrative. Hence no connection made by him to the Bread of Life discourse.

As to his letters, the Eucharist wasn’t a topic in them.

As you know that Jesus mentions eternal life with “eating” His flesh and yet none of the gospel accounts never mention this.

Again, I don’t know the “why”. I guess this one we’ll have to ask Jesus when we get to heaven.

My guess is that understanding “eternal life” was not part of what the apostles (and the others) found hard to understand at the Bread of Life discourse. As Peter said at the time, “…You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

Nita

 

[nuntym]

John is the only gospel writer who gives no details of the last supper. **If John thought that John 6 was related directly to the supper then why did he not make the connection in his Gospel or other letters? **
As you know that Jesus mentions eternal life with “eating” His flesh and yet none of the gospel accounts never mention this.

I was waiting for this kind of response

You see, according to most biblical scholars, the Gospel according to John was one of the latest Gospel narratives to be composed, most probably in 90-100 AD. Therefore, it was argued by them that the details of the Last Supper were not filled in by St. John because other Gospels had already done so.

But make no mistake, John DID make a connection of John chapter 6 with Jesus’ last Passover meal, the Last Super, in his Gospel narrative. It is however quite subtle, and it was done in a poetic way, in line with St. John’s very poetic style of writing.

Let us go back to the end of John Chapter 6, where it said:

[66]After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
[70] Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"
[71] He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

John 6:66-71 (RSV), emphasis mine

Now, what anyone should know about John’s style of narration is that John only includes in his narrative what is important in the evangelist’s Christology, or his exposition of Jesus’s nature and His purpose in the world. In the whole gospel, aside from Jesus’ resurrection, there are only 7 miracles, each with long discourses and discussions after each. One of these miracles is the miracle of the feeding of the 5000, which immediately precedes John chapter 6.

What all that means is that the Gospel of John is a very tightly structured work, with each statement very important for the evangelist in conveying what he wants to say, and thus each statement was meant to be where it should be.

So the question now is, why would Jesus mention Judas Iscariot as a devil in this particular episode of John’s Gospel? It must be important. The answer becomes apparent when one searches the whole Gospel for the associations made between Judas Iscariot and the devil, or Satan, or demon, or demons: there are only two, in John chapter 6, and in the Last Supper narrative, in John chapter 13.

If anyone wants, he/she can try searching using this website, which is what I use in quoting from the Bible.

Let us go to John Chapter 13:

John.13
[1] Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
[2] And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,

…

[21] When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”
[22] The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.
[23] One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus;
[24] so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.”
[25] So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, “Lord, who is it?”
[26] Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
[27] Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

John 13:1-2, 21-27 (RSV), emphases mine

Read that? After Judas Iscariot received the bread, Satan came into him; he became possessed by Satan. Why?

In the same Gospel, Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” (John 8:31b-32). Therefore, the only answer why Judas was possessed (in my opinion…if anyone has another opinion, please post it here), is that Judas ate that bread without believing in Jesus’s Words. Which Words? That what he was eating was the Bread of Life. THAT is why Jesus in chapter 6 mentioned Judas Iscariot was the devil, because Judas did not believe Jesus’s Words about the Bread of Life. And because of this, Judas lost his freedom in the end.

 

[Jack_245814]

Viewing the scripture totally naked - which is the root of protestantism - can cause you to believe things like this (and other heresies). The truth is you can’t merely interpret the bible by reading it at face-value - particularly not the New Testament since that’s so essential to Christians, and especially not the Gospels. As Catholics we believe that there’s much more to the Word of God than what was written down, and of early church ceremonies in particular the apostles are rather silent.

You have to look back on history in manners such as this. And what you will find, in the earliest records available, shows that the Early Christians did practice the sacrament of Communion in much the same way that it’s practiced today in the apostolic churches - almost two millennia after those times. For example, a quote from the Didache, which was written something like A.D. 50 - 120:

“But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, ‘Give not that which is holy to the dogs.’”

We can see from this that they at least considered it holy, and therefore probably something more than a “symbol” or “memorial”.

Then, more convincingly and from the same time period (probably the earlier part of the second century), we have St. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnaeans; unfortunately the web-site with his epistle won’t load, so instead I’ll give you this second-hand quote from wikipedia (there’s more in the actual epistle iirc):

“tand aloof from such heretics . . . they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

And another wikipedia quote, which is sourced to the First Apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter 66 (circa A.D. 150)

“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.”

Just because transubstantiation seems “fantastic” doesn’t make it pagan . . . Christ performed many miracles but nobody considers those to be pagan relics do they? Unless you believe the apostles ran around spreading lies about Our Lord and Savior, the evidence is fairly strong that transubstantiation has been with the Church from the beginning, given that the writings of those taught directly by the apostles support it.

 

[justasking4]

Nita;4151968]*
[Description from my post:
It would be with the accidents of bread and wine remaining, but the underlying substance would be Him]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are there any passages in the NT that describes the Lord’s supper in this way?

Nita
Yes. The Last Supper gospel passages in the synoptics. They describe what actually took place - that the apostles ate what still appeared to be bread, but it was bread which Jesus had broken, blessed, and, holding it in His hands declared, “This is My body”. The Word of God at the Last Supper has the same power (to carry out what He decrees) as it did at the creation of the universe. *
If you are right then, what the apostles thought that they not only had Jesus sitting in front of them but He was now a piece of bread. In other words they must have thought that Jesus now had 2 phyiscal bodies. Correct?

Matt 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

Even here there are major problems if we take this saying literally. In the entire Scriptures there is no place i can think of where it is said that bread = human body. Secondly, we know that there has been no changes in the nature of the bread. If you had some physical evidence that there was a change then you might have something. But the fact is there is none.
It is best to understand that Jesus was not speaking literally but figuatively as He did on many many occasions.

Quote:justasking4
John is the only gospel writer who gives no details of the last supper. If John thought that John 6 was related directly to the supper then why did he not make the connection in his Gospel or other letters?

Nita
I don’t know. We’ll have to ask him when we get to heaven.

John’s gospel was the last of the four gospels to be written. As you may have noticed, most of his gospel is not contained in the synoptics. He does not repeat a lot of what they contain, but fills in a lot that they don’t have. Whereas the synoptics give less than a chapter to record the events and words of Jesus at the Last Supper, John devotes 5 whole chapters to it! (Chapters 13 thru 17) Yet, he doesn’t record the actual Eucharistic institution narrative. Hence no connection made by him to the Bread of Life discourse.

You make some good points. However, since John makes no connection with the chapter 6 and his supper account he certainly did not believe that the supper account was the expression of what he wrote in chapter 6 of his gospel.

As to his letters, the Eucharist wasn’t a topic in them.

True. However he does again mention that eternal life is found in Christ with no mention of the supper.

Quote:justasking4
As you know that Jesus mentions eternal life with “eating” His flesh and yet none of the gospel accounts never mention this.

Nita
Again, I don’t know the “why”. I guess this one we’ll have to ask Jesus when we get to heaven.

This weakens the case that John meant John 6 to be taken literally and physically eating Christ.

My guess is that understanding “eternal life” was not part of what the apostles (and the others) found hard to understand at the Bread of Life discourse. As Peter said at the time, “…You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

Nita

i don’t think later they found it hard to accept that John 6 has nothing to do with the supper accounts.

 

[nuntym]

SNIP

You make some good points. However, since John makes no connection with the chapter 6 and his supper account he certainly did not believe that the supper account was the expression of what he wrote in chapter 6 of his gospel.

SNIP

This weakens the case that John meant John 6 to be taken literally and physically eating Christ.

i don’t think later they found it hard to accept that John 6 has nothing to do with the supper accounts.

Someone’s not reading my post…hmmm…

 

[nuntym]

Even here there are major problems if we take this saying literally. In the entire Scriptures there is no place i can think of where it is said that bread = human body.

You expect a piece of bread to transform to a human body during consecration?

Secondly, we know that there has been no changes in the nature of the bread. If you had some physical evidence that there was a change then you might have something. But the fact is there is none.

How about a change in physical outcome to the eater of the Bread after eating? Would that be a good enough evidence?

Let’s look at 1 Corinthians chapter 13:

[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, 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] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] **That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. **
1Cor 11:23-30 (RSV), emphasis mine

Well, if upon eating a bread or wine “in an unworthy manner” can make you ill or even kill you, when any other wine or bread, or even the same bread and/or wine before consecration, will not otherwise, then I would say that that Bread and Wine must have a change in nature.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It’s almost laughable to see Non-Believers in the Real Presence making their argument here. Many times, they are refuted by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which we Catholics hold to be the Word of God.

 

[justasking4]

nuntym;4154195]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Even here there are major problems if we take this saying literally. In the entire Scriptures there is no place i can think of where it is said that bread = human body.

nuntym
You expect a piece of bread to transform to a human body during consecration?

That’s what you are claiming is it not when it is said that the bread at consecration is changed into the body of Christ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, we know that there has been no changes in the nature of the bread. If you had some physical evidence that there was a change then you might have something. But the fact is there is none.

nuntym
How about a change in physical outcome to the eater of the Bread after eating? Would that be a good enough evidence?

The changing of the bread into the body of Christ is not dependent on the outcome of the eater.

Let’s look at 1 Corinthians chapter 13:

Quote:
[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, 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] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Cor 11:23-30 (RSV), emphasis mine

Well, if upon eating a bread or wine “in an unworthy manner” can make you ill or even kill you, when any other wine or bread, or even the same bread and/or wine before consecration, will not otherwise, then I would say that that Bread and Wine must have a change in nature.

Not so. What matters is a person’ inward disposition. If a person fails to realize what Christ has done by His sacrifice on the cross then that person would be guilty of taking in an unworthy manner.

 

[nuntym]

That’s what you are claiming is it not when it is said that the bread at consecration is changed into the body of Christ?

Isn’t it when a host is consecrated it becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, if I remember my Catechism right, and not just a human body?

That is what you said, right?

The changing of the bread into the body of Christ is not dependent on the outcome of the eater.

How come?

Let’s look at 1 Corinthians chapter 13:

Not so. What matters is a person’ inward disposition. If a person fails to realize what Christ has done by His sacrifice on the cross then that person would be guilty of taking in an unworthy manner.

EXACTLY. Oh goodness justasking, you really got it all, yet you’re missing it…

And yes, you are taking in what in an unworthy manner?

By the way, what do you say about John not making any connection between John chapter 6 and the Last Supper after reading my previous post?

 

[Rolltide]

Justasking4,
Have you examined my admittedly lengthy post above? One of the most important pieces of evidence in favor of the Real Presence is the fact that virtually every early Christian account outside of the Bible refers to it! At the very least, we can be sure that the belief dates to the first generation of Christians…

 

[HamtramckSteve]

If a person fails to realize what Christ has done by His sacrifice on the cross then that person would be guilty of taking in an unworthy manner.

You’re trying too hard to avoid the truth of the passage.

It’s not “what Christ has done by His sacrifice” that we are to discern, but THE BODY.

[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

 

[nuntym]

You’re trying too hard to avoid the truth of the passage.

It’s not “what Christ has done by His sacrifice” that we are to discern, but THE BODY.

[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Wow, HamtramckSteve, thank you for that insight, I have missed that, and I learned something new.

God bless you.