The Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[dornita]

There is so much good information in all the posts here, but I have one question that I have not every found a satisfactory answer to…If indeed the Church interprets all the passages on the body and blood in the bread and wine literally, then what are we to do with John 6:53 where Jesus says, " unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." in light of the Church’s attitude to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. As I understand the Church’s teaching, we are not to believed that other Christians are not really Christians and are spiritually dead so how do we reconcile the two? If anyone who does not receive the body and blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist is spiritually dead then my understanding of the teaching of our Church is completely off in regards to Protestants and nondenominational Christians. The Ecumenical movement within the Church seems to be stating the opposite, that we do see them as possessing the same Spirit of God as we do, just not participating in the fullness of the truth.

 

[JonNC]

=Verbum Caro;6224395]
It just causes me to wonder. I understand, I think, the approach that says it doesn’t matter if someone believes either a)the appearances of bread and wine are appearances only or b)the appearances of bread and wine indicate that the bread and wine are really there too. (Although one must be right and the other wrong). Catholics, however, think it can have repercussions on one’s spiritual life if one were to get that bit wrong.

Lutherans would agree that getting things wrong have the potential of, as you say, repercussions in one’s spiritual life, and our goal should always be to get it right.
ISTM that whether a or b is correct is not addressed in scripture, leading to the conclusion that it is a mystery, as John of Damascus points out, "if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit” So, I am willing to accept that speculation on this issue between believers is not necessarily damaging, so long as there is a discernment of the fact that it is His body and His blood, the disposition of the bread and wine notwithstanding.

What I am wondering is if there are theological conclusions that you feel similarly about, i.e. that you can’t bear your fellow pilgrims to be mistaken on.

Well, on this issue, it always concerns me that fellow believers do not discern His true and substantial body and blood. This, to me, is far more Church dividing than disagreements over the disposition of the bread and wine.

If that is the case, perhaps what we disagree about is what is at stake in getting a particular thing right or wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. It may depend on what those things are. For example, my marian beliefs are generally in line with Catholic teaching, with the exception of invocation. Marian doctrine is considered adiaphoron by Lutherans, so while my pastor might not agree with me on, say, perpetual virginity, it is not a matter that would divide us.
And on invocation, I personally cannot bring myself to condemn it, due to its long practice in west and east.
But marian doctrines are not articles of faith for Lutherans, either. Articles of faith, on the other hand, has a great deal more at stake.

Thanks for the discussion. You’ve given me some food for thought.
VC

I, too, appreciate and am enlightened by our discussion.
Jon

 

[Pax]

There is so much good information in all the posts here, but I have one question that I have not every found a satisfactory answer to…If indeed the Church interprets all the passages on the body and blood in the bread and wine literally, then what are we to do with John 6:53 where Jesus says, " unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." in light of the Church’s attitude to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. As I understand the Church’s teaching, we are not to believed that other Christians are not really Christians and are spiritually dead so how do we reconcile the two? If anyone who does not receive the body and blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist is spiritually dead then my understanding of the teaching of our Church is completely off in regards to Protestants and nondenominational Christians. The Ecumenical movement within the Church seems to be stating the opposite, that we do see them as possessing the same Spirit of God as we do, just not participating in the fullness of the truth.

The Church’s view includes additional teachings on God’s mercy as well as such things as invincible ignorance. Baptism is another case in point. It is the norm in order for us to receive the washing away of original and actual sin, and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit . Baptism is the norm for salvation. Nevertheless, the Church recognizes the clear exception in scripture in regards to the good thief on the cross. He had no opportunity for baptism, but he is clearly saved. Non-catholic Christians may be trapped in a form of invincible ignorance when it comes to the Eucharist. Thus non-catholic Christians will only be held accountable for what they know just as pagans will only be accountable for what they know and do not know.

We can easily see this come through in scripture where Paul says the following in Rom 2:14-16:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

God’s infinite mercy always comes first and is then followed by his perfect justice.

I hope this helps.

 

[dornita]

The Church’s view includes additional teachings on God’s mercy as well as such things as invincible ignorance. Baptism is another case in point. It is the norm in order for us to receive the washing away of original and actual sin, and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit . Baptism is the norm for salvation. Nevertheless, the Church recognizes the clear exception in scripture in regards to the good thief on the cross. He had no opportunity for baptism, but he is clearly saved. Non-catholic Christians may be trapped in a form of invincible ignorance when it comes to the Eucharist. Thus non-catholic Christians will only be held accountable for what they know just as pagans will only be accountable for what they know and do not know.

We can easily see this come through in scripture where Paul says the following in Rom 2:14-16:

God’s infinite mercy always comes first and is then followed by his perfect justice.

I hope this helps.

Thank you Pax. That is the best reasoning I could come up with as well. From those to whom much is given, much is expected. We can pray for them to receive understanding and a willing spirit to respond.

 

[budgie2]

With regards to the OP, I believe that the Eucharist could contain Jesus’ genes or Christ’s essential oil. It contains Christ’s essence rather than his whole body. The term transubstantiation is related to Aristotle who said that substance is the same as essence and means a change in essence or inner reality.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

Take a look in a fuller context. Notice how he avoids dwelling on the physical body of Christ and directs attention to His ecclesial body.

I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which yo can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostles says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be. In this loaf of bread you are given clear to understand how much you should love unity. I mean, what that loaf made from one grain? Weren’t there many grains of wheat? But before they came into the loaf they were all separate; they were joined together by means of water after a certain amount of pounding and crushing. Unless wheat is ground, after all, and moistened with water, it can’t possibly bet into this shape which is called bread. In the same way you too were being ground and pounded, as it were, by the humiliation of fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

Again full context.

It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You’ve bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.” Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody’s mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man’s estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That’s where he lifted his body up to; that’s where he’s going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that’s where he is now, seated on the Father’s right. How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.
So why in bread? Let’s not bring anything of our own to bear here, let’s go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it’s as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it’s as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it’s as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn’t said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves. Turning to the Lord, God the Father almighty, with pure hearts let us give him sincere and abundant thanks, as much as we can in our littleness; beseeching him in his singular kindness with our whole soul, graciously to hearken to our prayers in his good pleasure; also by his power to drive out the enemy from our actions and thoughts, to increase our faith, to guide our minds, to grant us spiritual thoughts, and to lead us finally to his bliss; through Jesus Christ his Son. Amen.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Tertullian

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

Tertullian rejected transubstantiation:

“Will not your [unbelieving] husband know what it is which you secretly taste before taking any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that bread which it is said to be?” (To His Wife, 2:5)

“Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life.” (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

“Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.” (Against Marcion, 1:14)

“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.” (Against Marcion, 4:40)

John 6
Tertullian

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Origen

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

Origen didn’t believe in transubstantiation. He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ:
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

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

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

*Irenaeus on Presence

Irenaeus denied transubstantiation. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example:*
“For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)
“For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: ‘Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, ‘He who hath renewed the face of the earth.’ He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.” (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)

Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that’s from the earth. He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ’s future kingdom, after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26).
Irenaeus on the Sacrificial nature
*
Irenaeus believed that the eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, not a sacrifice in the sense that Roman Catholicism teaches:*
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to the declaration of Malachi the prophet. For, ‘from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;’ as John also declares in the Apocalypse: ‘The incense is the prayers of the saints.’ Then again, Paul exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ And again, ‘Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.’ Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth.’ And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.” (Fragments, 37).pirit." (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

Cyprian of Carthage

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

Cyprian

Cyprian apparently didn’t believe in transubstantiation. When arguing against those who wanted to use water alone rather than water mixed with wine in communion, Cyprian responds by referring to how water mixed with wine more accurately represents the blood of Christ. He says that the blood of Christ is made to appear **to be in the cup by wine being in the cup. He goes on to describe the **drinking of wine by Noah and other Old Testament figures as similar to Christian communion, thus suggesting that Cyprian saw the wine as remaining wine even when Christians drink it. Notice that he repeatedly refers to wine and blood together. He refers to the water in the communion cup as signifying the people of the world, citing Revelation 17:15. He obviously didn’t think that the water was transubstantiated into people. Whatever view of the eucharist Cyprian held, and we aren’t sure what it was, it wasn’t transubstantiation:

"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…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Cyprian

Cyprian apparently didn’t believe in transubstantiation. When arguing against those who wanted to use water alone rather than water mixed with wine in communion, Cyprian responds by referring to how water mixed with wine more accurately represents the blood of Christ. He says that the blood of Christ is made to appear **to be in the cup by wine being in the cup. He goes on to describe the **drinking of wine by Noah and other Old Testament figures as similar to Christian communion, thus suggesting that Cyprian saw the wine as remaining wine even when Christians drink it. Notice that he repeatedly refers to wine and blood together. He refers to the water in the communion cup as signifying the people of the world, citing Revelation 17:15. He obviously didn’t think that the water was transubstantiated into people. Whatever view of the eucharist Cyprian held, and we aren’t sure what it was, it wasn’t transubstantiation:

"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…

continued…
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." (Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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]).

BTW, your snippet here has parts from 1:6 and from 43:3 combined to make 1 statement, in the future you should at least give the courtesy of seperating with the standard(…) Below is 1:6 in full context…ANYWAY, CLEMENTS STUFF IS BIG, here it is!

On John 6

Clement of Alexandria

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)
On Matthew 26
Clement of Alexandria refers to Jesus drinking wine at the Last Supper, citing Matthew 26:29, and he refers to the Last Supper as an example of how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking wine:
Clement of Alexandria

“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: ‘For the Son of man,’ He says, ‘came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.’” (The Instructor, 2:2)

 

[sablouwho]

This is an issue with which I struggled, even after becoming Catholic (I was raised Baptist). I wrote the following article for New Oxford Review some time ago and you may find it of some help:

Kneel: A Eucharistic Healing

Michael,

Thank you so much for sharing this. I cried (in a good way) as I read about what happened to you at Mass that day.

As someone who is really grappling with many issues as I come closer to becoming Catholic, I must tell you that the sharing of your story is a great gift to me.

 

[sablouwho]

So, what was once mere bread and wine changes into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but remains, to the senses, mere bread and wine? Sounds like an invisible substance change to me. I can certainly understand why many Protestants find this hard to believe.

First, good point and I appreciate the humor in your observation.

Second, speaking from personal experience as a relatively new Christian (I never considered myself Protestant, but more of a generic Christian, as I had nothing against which to protest!) I think that the reason a virgin birth and physical resurrection were “easier” to accept (at least for me) is that they happened “a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away”. They are more abstract than the Eucharist, which is something that is happening right in front of me at mass, and which, when I am able to partake, will involve me quite personally in a very physical way. To have to confront God in a very real way, rather than abstractly thinking about something that happened to Mary and/or Jesus 2000 years ago, makes faith more “real” for me. It raises the stakes, so to speak.

So, it has been a harder thing for me to accept, but it has little by little been something in which I have found myself believing more and more with every passing day.

Boy, I look forward to finally making my 1st communion.

 

[Carlan]

First, good point and I appreciate the humor in your observation.

Second, speaking from personal experience as a relatively new Christian (I never considered myself Protestant, but more of a generic Christian, as I had nothing against which to protest!) I think that the reason a virgin birth and physical resurrection were “easier” to accept (at least for me) is that they happened “a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away”. They are more abstract than the Eucharist, which is something that is happening right in front of me at mass, and which, when I am able to partake, will involve me quite personally in a very physical way. To have to confront God in a very real way, rather than abstractly thinking about something that happened to Mary and/or Jesus 2000 years ago, makes faith more “real” for me. It raises the stakes, so to speak.

So, it has been a harder thing for me to accept, but it has little by little been something in which I have found myself believing more and more with every passing day.

Boy, I look forward to finally making my 1st communion.

Sablouwho.Thank you for sharing that very beautiful expression , Dear God continue to bless abundantly.Carlan

 

[sablouwho]

Sablouwho.Thank you for sharing that very beautiful expression , Dear God continue to bless abundantly.Carlan

Awww, Carlan! You’re making me teary eyed!

 

[JonNC]

First, good point and I appreciate the humor in your observation.

Second, speaking from personal experience as a relatively new Christian (I never considered myself Protestant, but more of a generic Christian, as I had nothing against which to protest!) I think that the reason a virgin birth and physical resurrection were “easier” to accept (at least for me) is that they happened “a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away”. They are more abstract than the Eucharist, which is something that is happening right in front of me at mass, and which, when I am able to partake, will involve me quite personally in a very physical way. To have to confront God in a very real way, rather than abstractly thinking about something that happened to Mary and/or Jesus 2000 years ago, makes faith more “real” for me. It raises the stakes, so to speak.

So, it has been a harder thing for me to accept, but it has little by little been something in which I have found myself believing more and more with every passing day.

Boy, I look forward to finally making my 1st communion.

I appreciate your observation, here. You make an interesting point. I share your excitement and joy at your upcoming 1st Holy Communion. May it be a blessing to you.

Jon

 

[dornita]

Rolltide,
In and earlier post you stated that Ignatius may have been trained by John and ordained by Peter. Is there any hard evidence for that? I would think that would be very significant in terms of he validity of Ignatius views on the real presence in the Eucharist.