The Eucharist,transubstatiation,belief and miracles

[Lisa4Catholics]

I was on another thread and a couple of my favorite debators,were having adebate on the Eucharist and the acceptance of the Real Presence,they stopped debating due to they hijacked athread I am eager to see this continue,but I want the debators to also point out and give examples of Eucharistic miracles. It is quite obvious to me that we partake of the body and blood of Jesus.i have to admit I love to read your dialogs.So go for it you guys!Michaelp,Denniskapp,Pax and all the wonderful debators,go ahead MAKE MY DAY God Bless

 

[rlg94086]

Bear with me, I’m copying and pasting…

michaelp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by john ennis
Help me. I was wondering if this interpreting of Scripture is infallible. Maybe I’d be more convinced if someone could quote me two or three of the early Fathers who didn’t believe the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, just as a counterbalance against the myriad who did.

Really, just any evidence from anywhere in the, oh, first fourteen centuries.

“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance” (Athenagoras On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

 

[rlg94086]

“For when Christ says, ‘I am the true vine.’ the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord’s passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord…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?..Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord’s sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, ‘Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.’ He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted…To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, ‘He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.’ But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?..The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink…In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup…the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, ‘The waters which thou sawest, upon which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,’ which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated…But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ.” (Cyprian, Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

 

[dennisknapp]

Lisa4Catholics:

I was on another thread and a couple of my favorite debators,were having adebate on the Eucharist and the acceptance of the Real Presence,they stopped debating due to they hijacked athread I am eager to see this continue,but I want the debators to also point out and give examples of Eucharistic miracles. It is quite obvious to me that we partake of the body and blood of Jesus.i have to admit I love to read your dialogs.So go for it you guys!Michaelp,Denniskapp,Pax and all the wonderful debators,go ahead MAKE MY DAY God Bless

While it is true that the term transubstantiation was not defined until well into the medieval period a case cannot be made for a soley symbolic view of the Eucharist prior to the middle 16th century. Not even Luther or Calvin, for that matter, held to a soley symbolic view (while not holding to the official Churches teaching that came to be called transubstantiation).

Doctrines do develope over time as the Body of Christ (His Church) reflects upon the meaning and purpose of the deposit of Faith. It has been my contention with Michael that what he would accept as proper doctrinal development is in fact doctrinal negation. For it stands against that which came before it.

I hope this gets us started Lisa.

I will do some research on Eucharistic miracles but I am more of the philosophy and theology guy, but I love to do research.

Peace

 

[rlg94086]

“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…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:40)

---

 

[rlg94086]

dennisknapp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelp
“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance” (Athenagoras On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

Come on Michael, this is speaking of cannibalism, not the Eucharist.

Peace

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

dennisknapp:

While it is true that the term transubstantiation was not defined until well into the medieval period a case cannot be made for a soley symbolic view of the Eucharist prior to the middle 16th century. Not even Luther or Calvin, for that matter, held to a soley symbolic view (while not holding to the official Churches teaching that came to be called transubstantiation).

Doctrines do develope over time as the Body of Christ (His Church) reflects upon the meaning and purpose of the deposit of Faith. It has been my contention with Michael that what he would accept as proper doctrinal development is in fact doctrinal negation. For it stands against that which came before it.

I hope this gets us started Lisa.

I will do some research on Eucharistic miracles but I am more of the philosophy and theology guy, but I love to do research.

Peace

I used to have a book on Eucharistic miracles and I lent it to someone,sadly I have it no more:crying: Thankyou very much for starting this you guys at my humble request God Bless

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisknapp
*Come on Michael, this is speaking of cannibalism, not the Eucharist.

Peace*

Hey Dennis,
Athenagoras denies that anybody can cite “any” example of God telling us to eat human flesh. He repeatedly uses the word “never”, without making any exemptions.

How likely is it that all of these fathers believed in transubstantiation, yet repeatedly denied that they consume human flesh and blood, in numerous ways in numerous contexts, without ever making any exemption for the eucharist?

 

[rlg94086]

dennisknapp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelp
“For when Christ says, ‘I am the true vine.’ the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord’s passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord…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?..Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord’s sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, ‘Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.’ He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted…To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, ‘He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.’ But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?..The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink…In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup…the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, ‘The waters which thou sawest, upon which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,’ which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated…But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ.” (Cyprian, Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

Really, then how do you justify this comment?

“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]).

Wow, this is actually two Sacraments, confession and the Eucharist, cool!

Peace

​

​

 

[rlg94086]

dennisknapp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelp
“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…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:40)

What does Tertullian mean when he says,

“[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]).

Peace

​

​

 

[rlg94086]

dennisknapp:

Originally Posted by michaelp
*Hey Dennis,
Athenagoras denies that anybody can cite “any” example of God telling us to eat human flesh. He repeatedly uses the word “never”, without making any exemptions.

How likely is it that all of these fathers believed in transubstantiation, yet repeatedly denied that they consume human flesh and blood, in numerous ways in numerous contexts, without ever making any exemption for the eucharist?*
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).

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]).

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]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“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).

Oh, and John 6.

Peace

​

​

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisknapp
*Really, then how do you justify this comment?

“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]).

Wow, this is actually two Sacraments, confession and the Eucharist, cool!

Peace

I would agree with this statement since I think that “violence” can be done against the the body and blood being sybolically represented in the eucharist.

The question is, what do you do about his quote I placed above?

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dennisknapp
*What does Tertullian mean when he says,

“[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]).

Peace

I have no problem with this either. You can make such statements and believe that the eucharist is symbolic, can’t you? Obviously you can since the quote that I provided shows that he truly believed it was a symbol.

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

dennisknapp:

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelp
*I would agree with this statement since I think that “violence” can be done against the the body and blood being sybolically represented in the eucharist.

The question is, what do you do about his quote I placed above?

Michael*

What again is the problem with your Cyprian quote? I don’t see how it teaches against the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Peace

 

[rlg94086]

Now y’all get back to debatin’ so Lisa and I can enjoy. I might even pipe up, if I think I can add anything. So far, “yeah, what Dennis said!”

Robert.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I am going to throw my two cents in(I am not an apologist yet so you will only get two cents) When Jesus said that the Eucharist was in fact His Body and Blood,people walked away because they couldn’t take it.Reflecting on just that scene,if Jesus only meant this in a symbolic nature he would have had to clarify himself to the followers as they walked away or he would have been decieving them.Gos can not decieve or be decieved.God Bless

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

rlg94086:

Now y’all get back to debatin’ so Lisa and I can enjoy. I might even pipe up, if I think I can add anything. So far, “yeah, what Dennis said!”

Robert.

I agree and I:bowdown: to your paste and copy skills God Bless

 

[rlg94086]

Lisa4Catholics:

I am going to throw my two cents in(I am not an apologist yet so you will only get two cents) When Jesus said that the Eucharist was in fact His Body and Blood,people walked away because they couldn’t take it.Reflecting on just that scene,if Jesus only meant this in a symbolic nature he would have had to clarify himself to the followers as they walked away or he would have been decieving them.Gos can not decieve or be decieved.God Bless

That’s exactly what came to my mind when Michael posted the cannibalism thread. We were accused of being cannibals by the pre-Constantine Romans as well. I don’t think this would have happened if we taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol.

BTW…when I started devoting time with the Blessed Sacrament, one of the perpetual adoration chapels I frequented had a little library outside of the entrance. Reading *Miracles of the Eucharist (Book 1 & 2) *during adoration was very inspiring. I need to get copies of those…

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[dennisknapp]

Michael states,

“I have no problem with this either. You can make such statements and believe that the eucharist is symbolic, can’t you? Obviously you can since the quote that I provided shows that he truly believed it was a symbol.”

I do not see how your Tertullian quote in any way refers to the Eucharist as soley symbolic. You have to come up with one better than that. I mean, how can the doctrine of transubstatiation develope out of a soley symbolic view of Eucharist anyway?

Also, how can one sin against a symbol? We sin against people and things, but abstract comcepts that have not counterpart in reality? I don’t see how one could use such harsh language as Paul and Tertullian uses against a mere symbol. The harshness of their language infers the Person to whom they are sinning against, not the symbol.

Peace

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

dennisknapp:

Michael states,

“I have no problem with this either. You can make such statements and believe that the eucharist is symbolic, can’t you? Obviously you can since the quote that I provided shows that he truly believed it was a symbol.”

I do not see how your Tertullian quote in any way refers to the Eucharist as soley symbolic. You have to come up with one better than that. I mean, how can the doctrine of transubstatiation develope out of a soley symbolic view of Eucharist anyway?

Also, how can one sin against a symbol? We sin against people and things, but abstract comcepts that have not counterpart in reality? I don’t see how one could use such harsh language as Paul and Tertullian uses against a mere symbol. The harshness of their language infers the Person to whom they are sinning against, not the symbol.

Peace

In addition to that St.Paul said people were sick and dying for not discerning the state of their soul before taking the Eucharist.After the resurrection Jesus was talking and walking with a couple of the apostles and they didn’t recognise Him,it was not until He went with them and broke the bread and disappeared that they realised who He was.This was obviouly another confirmation of the reality of His Body and Blood truly being present.God Bless