The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The way it works is, you are full of Grace during your first communion. But if you fall into mortal sin, then you need to return to this state of Grace before you can receive it again (i.e. through the Sacrament of Penance).
But don’t you have to be full of grace before communion, i.e., already baptized in a state of grace? You can’t already have life within you before you receive the Eucharist, if receiving the Eucharist is what gives you life. If we follow the Protestant interpretation, there is no problem, but the Catholic one still seems to not make much sense, though this is probably a result of my ignorance.
 
But don’t you have to be full of grace before communion, i.e., already baptized in a state of grace? You can’t already have life within you before you receive the Eucharist, if receiving the Eucharist is what gives you life. If we follow the Protestant interpretation, there is no problem, but the Catholic one still seems to not make much sense, though this is probably a result of my ignorance.
Aren’t you filled with Grace at Baptism? Weren’t the 3000 Jews at the first Christian Pentecost filled with Grace. Any time Christ forgives us of our sins, isn’t He filling up the vacuum in our souls with His Grace?

Note: After re-reading your post, it seems like you are saying the Catholic teaching says that ONLY communion fills you with Grace, and that is not the case. Many things fill us with Grace. But in regards to (what I think is) your point, the rejection of the Eucharist, even while knowing that it is a great Gift of Jesus’ is a rejection of Christ. This is a rejection of all the Church teaches, and places ones soul in jeopardy.

But note, I’m saying that the rejection of what the Church teaches - all the while knowing that the Church is the Bride of Christ - is sinful; just as rejection of Christ - all the while knowing that He is our Lord and Savior - is sinful. To those who reject the Church’s teaching, out of ignorance of the truth (i.e. what they’ve been taught by the parents and teachers) is a completely different story.
 
Aren’t you filled with Grace at Baptism? Weren’t the 3000 Jews at the first Christian Pentecost filled with Grace. Any time Christ forgives us of our sins, isn’t He filling up the vacuum in our souls with His Grace?

Note: After re-reading your post, it seems like you are saying the Catholic teaching says that ONLY communion fills you with Grace, and that is not the case. Many things fill us with Grace. But in regards to (what I think is) your point, the rejection of the Eucharist, even while knowing that it is a great Gift of Jesus’ is a rejection of Christ. This is a rejection of all the Church teaches, and places ones soul in jeopardy.
I’m not saying the Catholic Church teaches that only communion fills you with grace, quite the opposite in fact. I’m saying that the Church believes you must already have grace in order to receive communion. Whereas the Bible says you will not have life within you unless you eat the body and blood of Christ. That’s my whole point, if Christ is talking about the Eucharist here, that would cause a contradiction with Catholic teaching, because if He’s talking about the Eucharist here, then that would mean you would not have life within you until you consumed the Eucharist, which according to the Catholic Church, you’re not supposed to consume unless you already have life within you. That’s why I don’t think He is talking about the Eucharist here.
 
I’m not saying the Catholic Church teaches that only communion fills you with grace, quite the opposite in fact.
There are many conduits of grace. The Eucharist is one of them.
I’m saying that the Church believes you must already have grace in order to receive communion.
Yes you must be in a state of grace, (not in mortal sin) to receive the Eucharist. That’s specifically what St. Paul is saying in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30. So here we have the Catholic Church teaching exactly the same thing that the New Testament does. How then can it be a contradiction?
Whereas the Bible says you will not have life within you unless you eat the body and blood of Christ.
The Bible says both, as I just showed you, therefore the Catholic Church is correct in her Eucharistic doctrines and those who oppose them are in error.
That’s my whole point, if Christ is talking about the Eucharist here, that would cause a contradiction with Catholic teaching, because if He’s talking about the Eucharist here, then that would mean you would not have life within you until you consumed the Eucharist, which according to the Catholic Church, you’re not supposed to consume unless you already have life within you.
I’m sorry but the only confusion here is yours. You’re talking in circles because you are trying to accept something that some man has taught you from outside of the Catholic faith and he has misled you.

I suggest that you go back and read the first 4 or 5 posts on this thread because they show very clearly that the only contradiction in belief is the one that tries to perform the mental and theological gymnastics that has got you so badly fouled up.

Look at the quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch about this. It’s very clear that he and the rest of the early church fathers shared the same belief as St. Paul and this man was discipled by St. John the Evangelist, so he couldn’t have been taught wrong.

You won’t find a single source prior to the so-called “reformation” that offers this errant interpretation. Why? Because it’s dead wrong.

The fact is that the reformers had to dump the Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist or else their whole errant system would have come apart at the seams.

My Reformation Theory
That’s why I don’t think He is talking about the Eucharist here.
Unfortunately you are wrong because you are trying to reject the scriptural position.

(Edited)
 
Yes you must be in a state of grace, (not in mortal sin) to receive the Eucharist. That’s specifically what St. Paul is saying in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30. So here we have the Catholic Church teaching exactly the same thing that the New Testament does. How then can it be a contradiction?
The Bible says you will not have life within if you don’t eat the body and drink and drink the blood of Christ. So if Christ was talking about the Eucharist here, you would not receive grace until your first communion, since up to that point you would not have eaten the body of Christ or drank His blood, right? Which goes against the Catholic position on grace, I believe.

(Edited)
 
The Bible says you will not have life within if you don’t eat the body and drink and drink the blood of Christ. So if Christ was talking about the Eucharist here, you would not receive grace until your first communion, since up to that point you would not have eaten the body of Christ or drank His blood, right? Which goes against the Catholic position on grace, I believe.
No, it does not. Your interpretation does though.

There is nothing in the New Testament that says that the Eucharist is the only way to have life in us. Stop doing mental gymnastics and take the Word of God at its face value.

Re-read what you have written on this page. It’s a desperately circular attempt to try to embrace something that I believe you already suspect is wrong because if not you wouldn’t have presented it here at CAF where you know faithful Catholics like me are going to respond.

But look again at the passage in 1st Corinthians 11. It is very clearly stating exactly what the Church has always taught.

(Edited)
 
Stop doing mental gymnastics and take the Word of God at its face value.
I am taking them at their face value, that’s my exact point. Jesus says unless you eat the body and drink the blood you do not have life with in you. If He was talking about the Eucharist, than that means anyone who had not partaken in the Eucharist would not have life within them, right? You can’t get any more face value than that.
Telling them to “buzz off” IS being charitable.
You’re joking, right? You’re telling me there isn’t a nicer way to say it?
I don’t play around when it comes to the truth and frankly, I’ve been on a number of n-C forums and I am the very soul of charity by comparison to the way they speak to me and my fellow Catholics.
I know, I’ve visited CARM before and was completely disgusted with the fact that almost all of them lacked Christian charity. But that makes you the “very soul of charity”? Does this make any sense, “Hey Hitler killed millions, I only killed a few people, I’m the very soul of charity”?
I debate…I don’t play, because this is truth that may make the difference between Heaven and Hell for another human being and that is some very serious business.
What are you implying, that kindness and Christian charity are good in casual conversation, but as soon as things get serious, then courtesy no longer applies? Charity and compassion get thrown out the window the second things get serious, cause once it’s serious, you can be overbearing and insulting and anything else it takes to win the argument?
 
I’m not saying the Catholic Church teaches that only communion fills you with grace, quite the opposite in fact. I’m saying that the Church believes you must already have grace in order to receive communion. Whereas the Bible says you will not have life within you unless you eat the body and blood of Christ. That’s my whole point, if Christ is talking about the Eucharist here, that would cause a contradiction with Catholic teaching, because if He’s talking about the Eucharist here, then that would mean you would not have life within you until you consumed the Eucharist, which according to the Catholic Church, you’re not supposed to consume unless you already have life within you. That’s why I don’t think He is talking about the Eucharist here.
But Christ doesn’t teach that the only means of receiving life is in the Eucharist. Rather, He teaches that one who rejects the Eucharist will have no life in them.

Let’s look at a parallel. The phrase, “By Faith are you saved”, does not mean “By Faith alone are you saved”, correct?
 
The Bible says you will not have life within if you don’t eat the body and drink and drink the blood of Christ. So if Christ was talking about the Eucharist here, you would not receive grace until your first communion, since up to that point you would not have eaten the body of Christ or drank His blood, right? Which goes against the Catholic position on grace, I believe.
Sinner06, let’s look at a Type of the Eucharist which may explain the point. We’re talking about this very subject on another thread, so those reading both may find me redundant.

In Exodus, the Jews prepared for the feast their last night in slavery while the Angel of Death went through Egypt. They ate the Lamb and were passed over by the Angel. But those who did not eat of the Lamb were slain (those who were first-born).

In the OT, the punishments and rewards were all temporal, but as Jesus teaches, they point us toward the New Covenant where are rewards are for our souls.
 
Hi, Church Militant,

Yes, this is a confused individual… thanks for the clarification. 🙂
Look at the quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch about this. It’s very clear that he and the rest of the early church fathers shared the same belief as St. Paul and this man was discipled by St. John the Evangelist, so he couldn’t have been taught wrong.

You won’t find a single source prior to the so-called “reformation” that offers this errant interpretation. Why? Because it’s dead wrong.
Thanks for the link - enjoyed reading it.
40.png
Church_Militant:
My Reformation Theory

Have a most Blessed Easter.
 
Sinner06, let’s look at a Type of the Eucharist which may explain the point. We’re talking about this very subject on another thread, so those reading both may find me redundant.

In Exodus, the Jews prepared for the feast their last night in slavery while the Angel of Death went through Egypt. They ate the Lamb and were passed over by the Angel. But those who did not eat of the Lamb were slain (those who were first-born).

In the OT, the punishments and rewards were all temporal, but as Jesus teaches, they point us toward the New Covenant where are rewards are for our souls.
I find it interesting that you use the example of the Passover. Christ was, of course, the new Passover lamb, sacrificed so as to save us, just like the original lamb was slain to protect the Israelites. However, look at what happened after the sacrifice of the original lamb. The Jewish feast of the Passover was then instituted as a memorial of the original sacrifice. The Jews did not believe they were eating the actual Passover lamb that had been sacrificed. Also, you talk about the temporal effects pointing towards the spiritual ones. If 100 years after Moses a Jew did not celebrate the Passover, would their firstborn son have been smited? Of course not. And what happened with the Passover, an original sacrifice for protection, followed by a memorial to commemorate the event, is exactly what Protestants say happened with Jesus. He offered a sacrifice, once and for all, and had a memorial instituted, just like what happened with the original Passover. If my logic is flawed, which I’m sure it is, please correct me.
 
I find it interesting that you use the example of the Passover. Christ was, of course, the new Passover lamb, sacrificed so as to save us, just like the original lamb was slain to protect the Israelites. However, look at what happened after the sacrifice of the original lamb. The Jewish feast of the Passover was then instituted as a memorial of the original sacrifice. The Jews did not believe they were eating the actual Passover lamb that had been sacrificed. Also, you talk about the temporal effects pointing towards the spiritual ones. If 100 years after Moses a Jew did not celebrate the Passover, would their firstborn son have been smited? Of course not. And what happened with the Passover, an original sacrifice for protection, followed by a memorial to commemorate the event, is exactly what Protestants say happened with Jesus. He offered a sacrifice, once and for all, and had a memorial instituted, just like what happened with the original Passover. If my logic is flawed, which I’m sure it is, please correct me.
Sinner, you are so close. But yes, your logic is flawed.

First of all, look at the term the Jews use for “memorial” in the Passover - “anamnesis” is the Greek translation. Anamnesis means to “make present”, not as a memorial. The Jews, when eating the Passover meal, are not eating a memorial meal. They are “made present” with their brothers of 3400 years ago in Egypt. Jesus used this exact term, “anamnesis”, in his words that we (poorly) translate as “Do this in memory of me”. Here’s some thoughts on that phrase.
Code:
During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, "***Do this in memory of me***." In Greek, this statement reads, "*Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin*." There are two aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase *touto poieite *can be translated as *do this *or as *offer this. *In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites "***you shall offer*** (*poieseis*) ***upon the altar two lambs***" (Ex. 29:38). This use of *poiein *is translated as *offer this *or *sacrifice this *over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.
The second key aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word *anamnesin. *If you were to ask someone to look in a Greek Translation of their Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context, such as in Numbers 10:10, “…you shall blow the trumpets over your holocausts and your peace offerings; this will serve as a reminder of you before your God. I, the LORD, am your God". It also can be translated as *memorial offering *or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.
And furthermore, to answer your question regarding the one time event of Christ’s Sacrifice - Read Revelation. You’ll find that the Apostle John sees a Lamb standing as though slain. You see, the Sacrifice is ongoing - it is perpetual. And, at the Mass, no matter what Protestants may tell you, we are made present at Calvary with Christ at the Perpetual Sacrifice. The Church has taught this since Her infancy.

You’ll notice that it wasn’t 1st generation Protestants (the original Reformers) that talk of this one time Sacrifice. It’s Protestant churches that fall further and further away from the vine. The ones that have removed the altar from the Church, for example. No altar, no Sacrifice.
 
Here’s some thoughts on what St. Paul says of the Eucharist:
Code:
Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1st Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice - ***By offering polluted food on my altar! Then you ask, "How have we polluted it?" By saying the table of the LORD may be slighted***!) and drink from the cup of the Lord.  Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice.
Look at his words in verse 16, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” When we participate in the blood of Christ, we are participating in His sacrifice. This is done during the Mass.
 
Hi, NotWorthy,

That was a really great explanation. I had not known of this before - thanks for helping me on this one! 🙂
Sinner, you are so close. But yes, your logic is flawed.

First of all, look at the term the Jews use for “memorial” in the Passover - “anamnesis” is the Greek translation. Anamnesis means to “make present”, not as a memorial. The Jews, when eating the Passover meal, are not eating a memorial meal. They are “made present” with their brothers of 3400 years ago in Egypt. Jesus used this exact term, “anamnesis”, in his words that we (poorly) translate as “Do this in memory of me”. Here’s some thoughts on that phrase.

And furthermore, to answer your question regarding the one time event of Christ’s Sacrifice - Read Revelation. You’ll find that the Apostle John sees a Lamb standing as though slain. You see, the Sacrifice is ongoing - it is perpetual. And, at the Mass, no matter what Protestants may tell you, we are made present at Calvary with Christ at the Perpetual Sacrifice. The Church has taught this since Her infancy.

You’ll notice that it wasn’t 1st generation Protestants (the original Reformers) that talk of this one time Sacrifice. It’s Protestant churches that fall further and further away from the vine. The ones that have removed the altar from the Church, for example. No altar, no Sacrifice.
You know, the 'Slippery Slope" is a real danger in every aspect of our lives - once we leave the true path - we just keep on going down into further error and depravity. You can see it throughout history - and, if we are honest, we can see it in our own lives.

God bless
 
Sinner, you are so close. But yes, your logic is flawed.

First of all, look at the term the Jews use for “memorial” in the Passover - “anamnesis” is the Greek translation. Anamnesis means to “make present”, not as a memorial. The Jews, when eating the Passover meal, are not eating a memorial meal. They are “made present” with their brothers of 3400 years ago in Egypt. Jesus used this exact term, “anamnesis”, in his words that we (poorly) translate as “Do this in memory of me”. Here’s some thoughts on that phrase.

And furthermore, to answer your question regarding the one time event of Christ’s Sacrifice - Read Revelation. You’ll find that the Apostle John sees a Lamb standing as though slain. You see, the Sacrifice is ongoing - it is perpetual. And, at the Mass, no matter what Protestants may tell you, we are made present at Calvary with Christ at the Perpetual Sacrifice. The Church has taught this since Her infancy.

You’ll notice that it wasn’t 1st generation Protestants (the original Reformers) that talk of this one time Sacrifice. It’s Protestant churches that fall further and further away from the vine. The ones that have removed the altar from the Church, for example. No altar, no Sacrifice.
Please try, if possible, to explain to me exactly what you mean by us being “made present” at Calvary(since we obviously aren’t physically present there), so I can compare this to what the Jews believed about Passover.
 
Please try, if possible, to explain to me exactly what you mean by us being “made present” at Calvary(since we obviously aren’t physically present there), so I can compare this to what the Jews believed about Passover.
I’ll try and see what I can find. The explanations some times can get real technical, and technicalities make my head hurt, so I’ll try and find something that simple, but clear and accurate.
 
“Christ held Himself when He gave His body to his disciples.” ~ St. Augustine 405 A.D.

Sinner06, I think this goes for you.

newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm
  1. Did Christ Receive His Own Body?
Objection 1. It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ’s doings or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact.

GOOD STUFF 👍

:blessyou:
 
While not actually Scripture, here is what the Early Church Fathers thought (and they often quote Scripture):

DIDACHE (ca. 70 – 110)
Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who 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.” Matthew 7:6

**St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 107 – 110) **
But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6,2 – 7,1
I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. Letter to the Romans, 7
… you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ. *Letter to the Ephesians, 20
For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with *the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. *Letter to the Philadelphians, 3,2-4,1 *
-For the word “altar” Ignatius uses the Greek θυσιαστήροιν, the same word used in Hebrews 13:10 and 1 Corinthians 10:18 in referring to the altar on which the Eucharistic consecration is performed.

**
St. Justin the Martyr (ca. 100/110 – ca. 165)**
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, 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. First Apology, 66
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. First Apology, 65
-Other Fathers who spoke of carrying the Eucharist to the houses of members are Cyprian, On the Lapsed, 26; and Basil, Epistles, 93. Similarly, Cyril of Alexandria states “I hear that it is said that the mystic Eulogy (the Eucharist) is of no avail unto sanctification, if a remnant of it is left over for the next day. But those who maintain this are foolish; for Christ does not alter and His sacred body is not remolded, but the power of blessing and the quickening grace is constantly in Him.” *Epistle to Calosyrium
*
St. Iraeneus of Lyons (ca. 140 – ca. 202)
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, 32-33

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? — even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; *Against Heresies, 5, 2, 2-3
*

He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body., etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles. Against Heresies, 4, 17, 5

St. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 – ca. 216)

The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.
The Instructor, 1,6
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. 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.
The Instructor, 2, 2

Tertullian (ca. 160 – ca. 220/225)

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. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh.
Against Marcion, 4, 40
There 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.
On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 8

St. Hippolytus (ca. 160 – 235)

And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’. . . 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

Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254)

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the Divine Mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the Consecrated Gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. Homilies in Exodus

But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. Origen Against Celsus, 8, 33

To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, “Except ye drink My blood, you have no life in you. . .” Commentary on John, 6, 26

**St. Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200 – 258) **

Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you.’ That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works.
The Treatises of Cyprian, 12, 3, Testimonies, 25, 26

Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies, and says, And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine. Now he was a priest of the Most High God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son: Before the morning star I begat You; You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek; which order is assuredly this coming from that sacrifice and thence descending; that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His Body and Blood?
Epistle to Caecilius, 62, 4

As the prayer goes forward, we ask and say, Give us this day our daily bread. And this may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation. For Christ is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is ours. And according as we say, Our Father, because He is the Father of those who understand and believe; so also we call it our bread, because Christ is the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ’s body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ’s body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you And therefore we ask that our bread— that is, Christ— may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body. *The Treatises of Cyprian, 4, 18
*
St. Aphraates the Persian Sage (ca. 280 – ca. 345)

After having spoken thus, 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

St. Athanasius (ca. 295 – ca. 373)

The Savior also, since He was changing the typical for the spiritual, promised them that they should no longer eat the flesh of a lamb, but His own, saying, “Take, eat and drink; this is My body, and My blood.” When we are thus nourished by these things, we also, my beloved, shall truly keep the feast of the Passover.
Easter Letter, 5, 4-5

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.
Fragments of Sermon to the Newly Baptized

St. Ephraim the Syrian (ca. 306 – ca. 373)

Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.
Homilies, 4, 4

And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven. But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.”
Homilies, 4, 4

After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out. . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.
Homilies, 4, 6

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315 – ca. 386)

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

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.
Catechetical Lectures, 22, 6 &9

He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood , and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber, shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood ?
Catechetical Lectures, 22, 4
  • Cyril uses the Greek μεταβάλλειν (“to change, to convert”), here translated “turned,” to describe the event of consecration.
Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.
Catechetical Lectures, 22, 4, 6

Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.
Catechetical Lectures, 23, 5, 7
  • Cyril here refers to what is commonly known as the Epiclesis – the calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts. Cyril uses the Greek word μεταβέβληνται (“to change, to transform”) to describe the consecration.
    **
    St. Basil the Great (ca. 329 – ca. 379)**
What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, an that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him Who dies for us and rose again.
The Morals
**
St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335 – ca. 394)**

Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh.
The Great Catechism, 37, 9-13
Code:
-Here Gregory uses the Greek word μεταστοιχειώσας (“to transelement”) to showan alteration in the relation of the constituent elements of the bread and wine of which they acquire the form of Lord’s body and blood, and corresponding properties.
St. Ambrose (ca. 340 – ca. 397)

Now we, as often as we receive the sacramental elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, ‘do until the Lord’s Death.”
On the Christian Faith, 4, 125
Code:
-Ambrose uses the Latin word “transfigurarentur,” here translated as “are transformed,” to describe what occurs at the consecration. A Latin word using the “trans-“ prefix usually means that eh thing signified by the root word has been substantially altered.
Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. Christ, then feeds His Church with these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is strengthened.
On the Mysteries, 9, 50-55
**
St. John Chrysostom (ca. 344 – ca. 407)**

Since then the word says, This is my body, let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ has given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if you had been incorporeal, He would have delivered you the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul has been locked up in a body, He delivers you the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! you see Him, Thou touchest Him, you eat Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He gives Himself to you not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within you. Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82, 4
It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.
Homilies on the Treachery of Judas, 1, 6
Code:
-Chrysostom uses the Greek word μεταρρυθμίζειν,(“to change the form of fashion of a thing”)  here translated “transform,” to describe the consecration.
St. Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350 – ca. 428)

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

St. Augustine (ca. 354 – ca. 430)

Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’. For he carried that body in his hands.
Explanations of the Psalms 3, 1, 10

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

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.
Sermons 227
 
Please try, if possible, to explain to me exactly what you mean by us being “made present” at Calvary(since we obviously aren’t physically present there), so I can compare this to what the Jews believed about Passover.
I don’t think anyone answered his question. What do you mean by being made present, and what is your source for believing the Jews believed this about Passover?
 
Hi, Sinner06,

Let me try my hand at answering this question.
Please try, if possible, to explain to me exactly what you mean by us being “made present” at Calvary(since we obviously aren’t physically present there), so I can compare this to what the Jews believed about Passover.
There is only so far you can take an analogy…all of them ‘limp’ but, if pushed too far then they just fall flat on their faces! 😃 Passover is an analogy in the sense that it was God’s preparation of the Jews for the First Coming of His Son. As I appreciate the situaiton, Passover held the following at the least the following three concepts:
1- Freedom from slavery (Egyptian masters treated the Hebrews badly - and sin is a much worse slave driver then any Egyptian!)

2- Saving from the death (The Angel of Death passed over the houses of those who smeared the blood of the sacrificed lamb on their door posts. The Blood of Christ spares us from the death caused by our sins.)

3- They Hebrews were to slay a lamb in a particular way and not break any of its bones (Christ - our Pascal Sacrifice was slain upon the Wood of the Cross and none of His bones were broken - even that was Roman policy - to fulfill Scripture.)

Christ was physically born in a manger and He physically died on a cross. Christ rose from the dead - and can die no more! 👍 At the Sacrifice of the Mass, we are taken to the Last Supper where Christ gave His Body - under the appearance of Bread and Wine - to His Apostles to eat. We are taken to the Foot of the Cross to be with Dying Christ who gave His All so that we may live. The Mass is the UN-bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ - as the Gift most Holy and Pleasing to God. We obey Christ’s Command to eat His Flesh when we go to Communion.

Did this help?

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top