The Eucharist

[SyCarl]

This makes it sound like the recipient is doing the Consecration (or not), instead of the priest. I don’t think any of the Early Fathers would have agreed with that idea.

Read the quote from Ephraim the Syrian in post 32.

 

[Radical]

From my understanding many Protestants have great respect for St Augustine even though he believed the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ e.g.

“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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

Why do many Protestants follow the teachings of St Augustine yet deny the Eucharist?

May I suggest a few things?

First, get a hold of the sermon 227 in its entirety, post it and see if one must actually interpret Augustine’s words in a fashion that requires a real bodily presence. One of the reasons why I strongly suggest that you get the whole sermon is that Catholics often also quote a sentence or two from sermon 272 thinking if demonstrates Augustine’s belief in a RP. When the whole sermon is examined, however, no such belief is required. I have dealt with that sermon in detail in this thread .

Second, if that doesn’t cause you to reconsider your assumptions wrt Augustine and his view of the Eucharist, consider that a renowned biographer (van der Meer) of Augustine concluded that:

**It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West. **
This is discussed in the thread that I linked and also in this from thread You should ask yourself what you must be missing if a renowned scholar comes to the opposite conclusion.

In any event, if you read through those two threads you will see how a Protestant can think that Augustine didn’t hold to a RP…if you have further questions…simply ask.

 

[Radical]

*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 33, 1, 10).

[Jesus] received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he first adores it… and not only do we not sin by adoring [His flesh], we do sin by not adoring (Explanations of the Psalms 98, 9).

The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body (Sermons 234, 2).*

The middle passage, saying that Christians are required to worship the Eucharist with adoration, rules out the idea that St. Augustine is merely speaking figuratively.

You assume that Augustine was calling for the adoration of the Eucharist, but Augustine didn’t mention the Eucharist when he observed that the flesh must be worshipped first. Elsewhere Augustine clearly specified that:

**Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. ** OCD bk 3 ch 16

As such, when Augustine said “But no one eats that flesh unless he first adores it…” he would have understood himself to be clarifying that ** No one shares in the sufferings of our Lord and retains a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us unless one first worships that flesh. **

Nowhere does Augustine mention worshiping anything but Christ’s actual flesh and nowhere does he say that Christ’s actual flesh will be found in the elements of the Eucharist. Christ’s flesh need not be physically (or really) present for one to worship it.

 

[Radical]

Sy,

I think, too, in fairness to the truth, that we ought to point out that those quotes from the Church fathers need to be studied in context, using critical editions, bolstered by authentic scholarship.

Don’t you agree?

VC

absolutely…I would love it if someone provided the whole of sermon 227…but I only ever see a sentence or two produced.

 

[Stephen168]

How does this compute? Either it is, or it isn’t. It’s not something you can change by having feelings about it one way or the other, any more than you can change the color of the sky or the law of gravity with your mood.

I would think if one was a Protestant who wants to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and one is a Protestant who belongs to a denomination that doesn’t believe, you would want God to be your servant; to do want you want. Sy’s personal Jesus.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I agree and, if you think I have taken them out of context please show me how. I think, however, that other things they may say should be viewed with the quotes I cited in mind as well.

Sy,

I think that, in a certain respect, they are out of context because you haven’t explained when and why they were writing what they wrote, and what the terms they used meant to them as opposed to us right now. But this is, of course, a limitation of the forum – you can’t expound on all the nuances in this format.

I certainly agree with you that the things you posted should be viewed along with their other writings – and that’s the point really, they should be viewed as a whole, and in their proper historical context (with special attention paid to what the terms they used actually convey, or can covey, or could convey.)

Fr. James T. O’Connor in his work The Hidden Manna has an excellent observation. He says that there are different approaches to the the writing of the Fathers. They can, for instance, be viewed as “privileged depositories of Christian Tradition, and thus one can read and present them as witness to the continuity and development of Catholic doctrine,” but that also, with respect to the Eucharist, some insights came quickly and others “developed only gradually and often enough with that lack of clarity in expression or thought that accompanies any initial efforts to probe the riches contained in what God has revealed.”

He goes on to say that this lack of clear expression can sometimes “be a cause of wonder or concern to someone who would expect to find a fully elaborated presentation of the Church’s doctrine.” But that no such expectation should be had in the first place.

So, for us Catholics it should not be a cause of alarm if one passage from a Father seems, as first glance, to be a contradiction to later Church’s doctrine.

I highly recommend The Hidden Manna. I think you will find that is represents the Catholic Church’s view well, but with a fair and scholarly approach to the historical data.

VC

 

[Stephen168]

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for 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 I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. - Ignatius of Antioch, letter to the Rome, 105 AD.

And this food is called among us 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.
Justin Martyr, 155AD, Chapter 66, First Apology to Emperor Antoninus

 

[SyCarl]

How does this compute? Either it is, or it isn’t. It’s not something you can change by having feelings about it one way or the other, any more than you can change the color of the sky or the law of gravity with your mood.

I think this is the only way to make sense of a verse like John 6:51.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (Joh 6:51 NASB)

Jesus says that if anyone eats of the bread he will live forever. He does not put any limitation or qualification on it. If the elements are Jesus’ body for everyone, then all someone, whether Christian or pagan, would have to do is illicitly receive Communion at a Catholic Church to meet the terms of Jesus’ promise. I don’t think this is what Jesus meant. However the promise would make sense if only believers receive the body and blood.

 

[SyCarl]

I would think if one was a Protestant who wants to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and one is a Protestant who belongs to a denomination that doesn’t believe, you would want God to be your servant; to do want you want. Sy’s personal Jesus.

My denomination does not require any particular belief with respect to the Real Presence. In any event, if you receive from a priest who does not believe in the Real Presence, does that mean Christ is not present? The belief of the minister doesn’t affect the validity of the sacrament.

Of course you would not believe that one of our ministers could perform the sacrament. We will have to disagree on this point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Early Church Fathers practiced, taught, and believed in the “True Presence” Of Jesus Christ body, blood, soul and divinity. Just as the Catholic Church still practices, teaches and believes today. If you take each Early Church Fathers quote along with all their other sacramental teachings you hear them proclaim “Transubstantiation” without ever using the Word, because their teachings is what gives definition to “Transubstantiation”.

Transubstantiation is not defining the mystery of the Eucharist, it is defending the “True Presence” of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity against those who wish to give an unorthodox opinion of the Eucharist as being something “other” than the True presence of Jesus Christ body, blood.

Transubstantiation emphatically explains against all unbelievers that Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity are Truly present in his Eucharist. By defining, that the bread and wine after the consecration words of Jesus Christ, remain (bread and wine) these only to our senses, but to our souls and eternity they truly become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, for by “Transubstantiation” the bread and wine (are no longer) become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

As Jesus teaches his doubters about his Eucharist that what matters to the flesh is of no avail, but to the Spirit it is eternal “life”
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus never speaks about a symbolic Spirit.

Let us be clear “Transubstantiation” does not try to exhaust or define the mystery of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation professes the Apostolic Faith against the world’s teaching of a symbolic presence and to proclaim the biblical proclamation of the Apostolic faith that; Anyone who believes (that Jesus does not come in flesh) or makes claims that the confected bread and wine are other than the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is “anti-christ” according to scripture;

1 John 4: 1 **Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, 3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **

4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

 

[SyCarl]

Let us be clear “Transubstantiation” does not try to exhaust or define the mystery of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation professes the Apostolic Faith against the world’s teaching of a symbolic presence and to proclaim the biblical proclamation of the Apostolic faith that; Anyone who believes (that Jesus does not come in flesh) or makes claims that the confected bread and wine are other than the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is “anti-christ” according to scripture;

John is not dealing with the Eucharist in this passage.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
(1Jn 4:1-3 NASB)

John is refuting the Gnostic belief that there is a dichotomy between the flesh, which is totally evil and the spirit, which is good. As flesh is evil the Gnostic teaching was that Jesus had not actually come in the flesh was not actually human.

 

[The_Way]

Please read the following passages of St Augustine in their proper contexts:

I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received. - Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430

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 the Blood of Christ. … How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth. - Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430

Surely these two passages should be as clear as crystal to any Protestant. If a Protestant continues to believe that St Augustine was only speaking symbolically in other passages then they make St Augustine to be liar and a man of contradiction.

God bless,

 

[shawn38]

Your interpretation is implausible. If St. Augustine did not believe the Eucharist is Jesus, then he’s promoting idolatry. Since those are the only two options, I’m going with “St. Augustine was Catholic” rather than “St. Augustine was pagan.”

#3 seems to indicate that it’s not literal body and blood while #6 explains what was meant.

Augustines Tractate 27
3**For they (apostles) supposed that He (Jesus) was going to deal out His body to them but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: **“When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

If they (apostles) understood Jesus to be speaking literally(real body and blood of Christ), what does Augustine suppose here?

1. Hence “the words,” saith He, “which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together. And what but love can effect that unity should join us together? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: “The love of God,” saith he, “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us.”536536 Rom. v. 5. Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickeneth,” for it is the Spirit that makes living members.

 

[shawn38]

Please read the following passages of St Augustine in their proper contexts:

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 the Blood of Christ. … How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth. - Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430

trs.cua.edu/dean/index.cfm
When going through the First Holy Communion class for my daughter, Msgr. Kevin W. Irwin described Christ’s presence this way:

“The eucharist is the spiritual manifestation of Christ.” He went on to add that “it could not be physical because if it were science could prove it.” Those words stuck with me and still do. This is the Dean of the Catholic University of America.

Surely these two passages should be as clear as crystal to any Protestant. If a Protestant continues to believe that St Augustine was only speaking symbolically in other passages then they make St Augustine to be liar and a man of contradiction.,

Read tractate 27. Somewhere John 6:63 has to fit into the equation.

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.

 

[aspirant]

Irenaeus wrote of the Eucharist consisting of two realities.

“Earthly and heavenly,” not “bread and Jesus.” I agree.

Justin Martyr, while referring to the elements as the body and blood of Christ… still refers to the deacons as distributing bread and wine to the people and carrying it to those absent.

A figure of speech still employed among orthodox Catholics.

Clement of Alexandria refers to Jesus speaking in symbols and metaphors.

As a Platonist, a philosophical realist, Clement has a very different understanding of words like “symbol” than most modern Americans, who tend to be nominalist in their philosophical presuppositions (intentionally or unintentionally). For a Platonist, symbols actually participate in the reality they symbolize, making that reality present and communicating the reality to the recipients.

We Catholics have no problem with the use of these terms in this context. The Eucharist is a symbol/figure of Christ.

Any half-decent patristic scholar will tell you the same. J.N.D. Kelly, for example:

Occasionally these [ancient] writers use language which has been held [by some] to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers to the bread as a ‘figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks of ‘the bread by which He represents (representat) His very body.’ Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized. Again, the verb representare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, retained its original significance of ‘to make present.’

Kelly also writes on the Alexandrian Platonic tradition, specifically mentioning Clement. In this tradition, there is orthodox faith regarding the Eucharist: “Clement frequently writes in terms of the equivalence of the elements with Christ’s body and blood, in one passage representing Him as identifying them with Himself.” But the Alexandrians have a tendency to also interpret the same passages as an allegory of true gnosis, in which “feeding on the flesh and blood of the Logos means apprehending the divine power and essence.” The latter is not opposed, in Alexandrian thinking, to the former.

In another place he indicates Jesus was speaking in figures.

Clement said Jesus spoke figuratively of the Word. This passage doesn’t really speak to your point.

But I would agree that Jesus was speaking figuratively, as Augustine said, inasmuch as he was not speaking on a natural level (e.g. “how can an old man return to the womb?”). “[Jesus’ audience in John 6] thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them.” We do not interpret John 6 carnally, but spiritually; we do not cut hunks from Jesus’ body, but receive the whole risen Lord sacramentally.

Theodret indicates that even after consecration the elements are not deprived of their own nature.

This is one of those passages a serious reader would like to see in the original language. But his point is clear enough: “they are visible and tangible as they were before.” We agree, they look and feel as they always did. Yet they are “worshipped as being what they are believed to be,” namely Christ.

Eusebius of Caesarea speaks of Jesus giving the disciples symbols… Tertullian refers to Jesus using figures and that we devour Him with the ear and ruminate on Him with the understanding… He also speaks of the bread as representing Jesus’ body.

All of which is perfectly orthodox Catholicism, if understood in the context of ancient thought.

We don’t disagree that the bread and wine are signifiers - we just don’t say that they are merely signifiers.

Agreed.

 

[aspirant]

You assume that Augustine was calling for the adoration of the Eucharist, but Augustine didn’t mention the Eucharist when he observed that the flesh must be worshipped first.

Yes, he did: “[Jesus] received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he first adores it… and not only do we not sin by adoring [His flesh], we do sin by not adoring.”

Elsewhere Augustine clearly specified that…

Apparently you missed post #40. The passage from On Christian Doctrine is in perfect agreement with what Catholics have always believed, that Jesus is to be offered and consumed in an “an unbloody and sacramental manner,” rather than a natural, carnal manner.

Nowhere does Augustine mention worshiping anything but Christ’s actual flesh

Nor do we. We adore Jesus, whom we eat. The Eucharist is Jesus.

nowhere does [Augustine] say that Christ’s actual flesh will be found in the elements of the Eucharist.

Except, of course, on those occasions when he does, for example:
“‘And was carried in His Own Hands.’ How ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’ …[In verse 8] will He speak openly of the same Sacrament, whereby He was carried in His Own Hands. ‘O taste and see that the Lord is good.’” (Explanations of the Psalms 33)

First, get a hold of the sermon 227 in its entirety… and see if one must actually interpret Augustine’s words in a fashion that requires a real bodily presence.

I see nothing inconsistent with the teaching of his father in the faith, St. Ambrose, nor with the Catholic faith throughout the centuries.

You should ask yourself what you must be missing if a renowned scholar comes to the opposite conclusion.

Indeed. Many Augustinian scholars clearly think that van der Meer overstated himself.

 

[aspirant]

Augustines Tractate 27
3 For they (apostles) supposed that He (Jesus) was going to deal out His body to them but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

Precisely. We do not consume Jesus naturally, cutting and biting him to bits; but sacramentally, living and whole.

1. Hence “the words,” saith He, “which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together. And what but love can effect that unity should join us together? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: “The love of God,” saith he, “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us.” Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickeneth,” for it is the Spirit that makes living members.

Beautiful.

When going through the First Holy Communion class for my daughter, Msgr. Kevin W. Irwin described Christ’s presence this way:

“The eucharist is the spiritual manifestation of Christ.” He went on to add that “it could not be physical because if it were science could prove it.” Those words stuck with me and still do. This is the Dean of the Catholic University of America.

We do not believe Jesus’ flesh and blood are present physically, but sacramentally. This is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Somewhere John 6:63 has to fit into the equation.

Yes! We should not reason carnally, but according to the Spirit.

 

[Stephen168]

My denomination does not require any particular belief with respect to the Real Presence. In any event, if you receive from a priest who does not believe in the Real Presence, does that mean Christ is not present? The belief of the minister doesn’t affect the validity of the sacrament.

True, the belief of the Priest doesn’t change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It is the action of a validly ordained Priest that does it. A carpenter believing he is making a chair doesn’t make a chair. It is his action; the actually making of the chair makes a chair. After the chair is made, it is a chair whether you or I believe it is or not.

Of course you would not believe that one of our ministers could perform the sacrament.

True, for two reasons. One s/he is not validity ordained and there is a better then even chance they are not even pretending to make a chair. They do not make a chair and you believing they do does not make it so.
But your view seems to be common these days; many people believe the humanity of an unborn child depends on the belief of the mother. The reality of it all doesn’t matter.

 

[shawn38]

1. this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood…that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. But that we may be His members, unity joins us together.

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you…

and He abides in us when we are His temple.

1 Cor 3:16 Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you?.. 2 Cor 6:16 …For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrews 13:5 …“Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”

God dwells in us already (2 Cor 6:16), not by eating the bread. Does God leaves us when we sin? God promised never to leave or forsake us (Heb 13:5). The eating of the bread and drinking of the cup is a recollection and proclamation (1 Cor 11:26) of the Lord’s death and the new covenant. For our part we are to abide in Him and He will in us.

Is it spiritual? Most definitely.

 

[jmcrae]

I think this is the only way to make sense of a verse like John 6:51.

Jesus says that if anyone eats of the bread he will live forever. He does not put any limitation or qualification on it. If the elements are Jesus’ body for everyone, then all someone, whether Christian or pagan, would have to do is illicitly receive Communion at a Catholic Church to meet the terms of Jesus’ promise. I don’t think this is what Jesus meant. However the promise would make sense if only believers receive the body and blood.

“This bread” is the bread that is consecrated at a Catholic Mass or at a Divine Liturgy in an Eastern Catholic Church.

How one “eats this bread” is by making a Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church, completing one’s Sacraments of Christian Initiation, and partaking worthily of it at Mass or else at Divine Liturgy.

Anyone can become a Catholic - the only limitations are in the minds of those who for whatever reason freely choose not to do so.

Your ancestors left the Catholic Church - this is not your fault, but their leaving does not require you to remain separated - like the Prodigal Son, you always have the option of returning - there are no barriers on our side of the door.