The Very Early Eucharist---Jesus not present in the Bread and Wine?

[Church_Militant]

ExRc and other Prots present let me ask you this question:

In 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 St. Paul clearly says:
“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” (Douay-Rheims Version)

Now…IF this passage is taken “spiritually” as some tell me we must, it becomes nonsense. That would mean that Christ is not really present in the bread & wine but it is only a symbol of His body. IF that is true then Paul is talking crazy nonsense because one can abuse a symbol of a person all day long and never become guilty of that person’s body and blood because that person’s body and blood was never present to abuse. HOWEVER; that isn’t what Paul says here. He says “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” which tells us that St.Paul (and by extension the whole NT church) plainly believed that Jesus meant exactly what He said in John 6 and therefore IS most definitely physically present in the bread & wine of the Eucharist.

Further, I posit that with this verse “Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” St. Paul makes it even more clear as he speaks of the very grave consequences of receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin. If Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, then this whole passage is complete nonsense; but if it means what is says, (and so proves that the Catholic Church has been right in its Eucharistic doctrine & practice for over 2,000 years) then it not only makes sense, but demands our moral obedience to an absolute truth.

 

[Berean]

Grolsch:

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 Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

-Justin Martyr
First Apology
ca. 150 A.D.

If you study Justin Martry you will find he did not support the Doctrine of “transubstantiation”.
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a “remembrance of His being made flesh”, not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as “in remembrance of His own blood” not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70) God Bless you and Love in Christ Jesus.

 

[Kurt_G]

Berean - Here is another of Justin Martyr’s writings:

"…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. **(From Justin’s First Apology, Chapter 66)

I would think with your previous quote, and this one above to counter, the most one could say about Justin the Martyr would be “it’s ambiguous”. I think you stretched it to say Justin did not believe in Jesus’ Real Presence. To me, though, the quote above is stronger FOR Jesus’ real presence than your quote is AGAINST Jesus’ Real Presence. But without a difference of opinion these forums would be pretty boring, yes?

God Bless Us All!

 

[dennisknapp]

Berean:

If you study Justin Martry you will find he did not support the Doctrine of “transubstantiation”.
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a “remembrance of His being made flesh”, not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as “in remembrance of His own blood” not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70) God Bless you and Love in Christ Jesus.

Berean,

If you refer to Justin’s First Apology, specifical the section regarding Christian Worship you will read:

“This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and he has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s work took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

It seems like St.Paul would be an early enough testimony to the Eucharist You can’t profane a symbol.God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

Lisa4Catholics:

It seems like St.Paul would be an early enough testimony to the Eucharist You can’t profane a symbol.God Bless

Thank you Lisa! :tiphat:

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

I can’t see any other way to read the 6th chapter of John & it always bothered me when I was outside the church that these passages are so clearly Catholic. I still wonder how any honest person can spiritualize them and not see the Eucharist there big as life eternal.

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

Grolsch:

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.

No one can partake unless he has the Life of Christ, but in fact no one can have the Life of Christ unless he partakes…

INTERESTING…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Dr. Colossus:

Biblical References:

:bible1: "So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. " John 6:32-35

Will NEVER hunger? And some people hunger before the next Eucharist…
Dr. Colossus:

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

Who are those heterodox?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

The Didache was not inspired…therefore could err

Just like all the Fathers of the Church.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Luke1_48]

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” ( John 6:53 )

No one can partake unless he has the Life of Christ, but in fact no one can have the Life of Christ unless he partakes…

INTERESTING…

When a person is guilty of a mortal sin, they lose God’s grace. Through confession and the Eucharist a person regains it. The Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life, it aids us, that is what John 6:53 is talking about. A baptized child who never recieved their first communion can still enter heaven, as long as they are not guilty of mortal sin.

 

[Luke1_48]

YAQUBOS:

Peace be with you!

Just like all the Fathers of the Church.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

The father’s individually are falliable, but when they are together at a council and declare dogmas and doctrines, they are infalliable, you really don’t understand the Catholic Church. Each agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

 

[Kurt_G]

YAQUBOS:

…

No one can partake unless he has the Life of Christ, but in fact no one can have the Life of Christ unless he partakes…

INTERESTING…

In Love,
Yaqubos†

Yaqubos, your “paraphrase” of Justin Martyr’s commentary sets the stage for the apparent contradiction, as you think you have found (but which really isn’t there):

Justin actually said “… 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 …”

This means that to participate in the Eucharist, one needs 2 conditions, for sure, to exist:

1. We must be baptized.
2. We must believe what the Church teaches.

There may be more denominations, but I can think of one Church for sure which teaches and practices this.

---

And to mention a small item once again, Justin documents

“…those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” [65]

This is what we call Homebound Ministry, in action in Justin’s time (150 AD), and still in action today… Maybe I’m the only one, but I just think that’s amazing!​

Yaqubos, just my opinion, but there have been some very good answers to your comments by some really sweet people, and you still seem to be grasping for any possible flaw in these Early Church Fathers.

I guess keep grasping, just don’t close your mind to the overall theme followed by these early folks. That theme looks pretty Catholic to me, Yaqubos.

GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[Berean]

Hello Kurt: Many scholars have examined the writings of the early fathers on the subject of Transubstantiation (henceforth referred to as “T”) Many Catholics wonder why something that appears so obvious in scripture is scrutinized by non-Catholic Christians. I thought I would give you a smattering of reasons why I never believed the doctrine of “T” while I was a Roman Catholic. I use the Word Roman with no malice as it only serves to distinguish the rite I belonged too. First I would like to refer to God’ Word in John "6:53 “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”. “John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”

The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus’ day; it points to a taking within one’s innermost being. Look at John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. The non-Catholic Christian understands this to mean that Jesus clarified the whole dilemma with John 6:63 where he says, “the flesh profiteth nothing”. John 4:24 says “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”. Notice the scripture does not say we worship his flesh and blood as in “Eucharistic Adoration”. This is where I believe Catholic Dogma and Canon are considered to be on parity with the written Word of God. No where in the Bible does the Word of God suggest that the elements of bread and wine be changed. Interesting to note that Catholics use unleavened bread but not unleavened wine, why is this? As I recall there were always several bottles of Gallo table wine in the back room behind the alter? Some of my friends who were Alter boys would sneak some of the wine and as I recall they got in to some serious trouble.

As I stated earlier many scholars have studied the early father’s writings and I find it interesting to discover so many contrasting views of the Eucharist. On a side note I would like to point out at this time something you may or may not be aware of Constantine was a Pagan Sun worshiper and it is disputed whether he ever converted to Christianity? The Ancient Egyptians actually used a form of “T” in there religious ceremonies. They also believed they could eat their deity. The Church of Rome teaches that when the priest in the Mass blesses the bread, it is no longer bread but Jesus Christ himself and similarly the wine is Jesus Christ himself.

This poses a question? Has this Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation always been taught since the time of the Apostles? Has this doctrine that the bread and wine of communion actually transforms into the actual body of Christ, been understood and accepted by the early Christian laity and Apostles? In the book of Acts, Chapter 2, verse 42 and in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 10 verse 16, the term used for what we know as communion today was “breaking of bread.” The term communion seems to become the common vernacular by the Councils of Elura and Arles in AD 314 and again at Nice in AD 325. In AD 418, the term the Lord’s Supper is used in the notes from the Council of Carthage. Irenaeus used the term Oblation to agree with biblical terminology found in 1 Corinthians Ch. 11:20. Pliny uses the term Sacrament in a letter to Trajan and also to Tertullian and Cyprian. The original meaning of the term Eucharist, was simply thanksgiving and in this sense was used by Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen and others. Justin Martyr, Origen, Eusebius and Chrysostom also call the communion ‘‘Memorial’’. The Latin terminology of the “Mass” originally signified the dismissal of a Church assembly. It then came to be applied to the assembly itself, as Eusebius uses it in his History of the Church, and from there it came to denote the Communion Service. It was not until Ambrose, that the term Mass was used to denote communion. At no time in the early history of the church was the doctrine of Transubstantiation used or employed to mean that the bread and wine turn into the body of Jesus. But we do know there seems to be an introduction of heresy that would affect how the Roman Catholic Church would eventually practice “communion,” in the 4th

 

[Berean]

continued:

century when the queen of heaven, under the name of Mary, was beginning to be worshiped in the Christian Church, this ‘’ unbloody sacrifice’’ was also brought in. Epiphanius states that the practice of offering and eating it began among the women of Arabia; and at that time it was well known to have been adopted from the Pagans. (Se Epiphanius, Adversus Hoereses, Vol.1 P 1054.)

With the passage of time and further introduction of pagan practices into Roman Catholicism, a friar named Anastatius, In A.D. 637, rejected the figurative language and employed the doctrine of ‘‘Real Presence’’. In AD 754, at the Council of Constantinople, John Damascene, a condemned image-worshipper wrote: “The bread and wine are supernaturally changed by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two, but one and the same… The bread and wine are not the type or the figure of the body and blood of Jesus Christ - ah, God forbid! - but the body itself of our Lord deified.” Pashus Radbert the Abbot of Corbie advanced this doctrine even further. In A.D. 818 he wrote a treatise, which finally overthrew both the Scriptural belief and the early church history. He stated, “What was received in the Sacrament is the same flesh as that which was born of the Virgin Mary, and which suffered death for us; and though the figure of bread and wine doth remain, yet you must absolutely believe that, after consecration, it is nothing but the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.” This doctrine was further developed and finally made a dogma by Pope Innocent III.
However, it was not without opposition from within the Roman Catholic Church that this doctrine came to pass. Pashus Radbert writes '‘that there are many that in these mystical things are of another opinion." Others who were against this doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church were Aefric, Abbot of Malmesbury (A.D.905) and Berengarius, Peter Lombard (A.D.1150) and Bede in the 8th Century. The early church fathers opposed this doctrine. They never acknowledged any change in the elements or believed in any corporal presence. Tertullian stated "Christ, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, made it His body by saying, "This is my body’, that is, the figure of my body." Even Orgien, acknowledges “that they (bread and wine) are figures which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual not as carnal, examine and understand what is said. For if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you.” Both Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Caesarea denied Transubstantiation. Cyril stated, “Under the type of bread His body given unto thee, and under the type of wine His blood given unto thee.” Eusebius qualifies communion as “Christ Himself gave the symbols of the Divine ceremony to His own disciples that the image of His own body should be made. He appointed to use bread as a symbol of His own body.” Furthermore, supporters of Rome and the papacy suggested that “there was nothing in the Gospels that may enforce us to understand Christ’s words properly, yea, nothing in the text (‘This is My body’) hinders but those words may as well be taken in a metaphysical sense, as the words of the Apostle, ‘the Rock was Christ’… That part, which the Gospel hath not expressed, viz., the conversion of the bread in the body and blood of Christ, we have received expressly from the Church.” Bellarmine, another Roman scholar admitted “there is no express place of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church.” This only depicts my opinion of “T” and as you know this belief one way or the other has no bearing upon salvation in my opinion. I tried to list all of my sources, and some of the info is plagiarized from books. I have omnipagepro12 (OCR) I hope this explains how I believe on the Eucharist. I certainly don’t want to change the way you believe. Love in Christ Jesus

 

[Kurt_G]

Berean:

Hello Kurt: Many scholars have examined the writings of the early fathers on the subject of Transubstantiation (henceforth referred to as “T”) Many Catholics wonder why something that appears so obvious in scripture is scrutinized by non-Catholic Christians…

The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus’ day; it points to a taking within one’s innermost being. Look at John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. The non-Catholic Christian understands this to mean that Jesus clarified the whole dilemma with John 6:63 where he says, “the flesh profiteth nothing”…

Berean, thanks for the “lengthy” but relevant alternative view. I would like to give you my take on all your posted issues (except the altar boys sneaking wine / I don’t doubt that one!). However, allow me to break your statements up into a few pieces… hence first your quote above.

I, for one, do not wonder “why something so obvious is scrutinzed by non-Catholics”. The Real Presence must be scrutinized, for to admit otherwise brings one mighty close to the front door of the Catholic Church… so the scrutiny doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise us sometimes are the “creative” explanations for passages which appear pretty obvious.

Can you find good, honest, non-Catholic Christians who find no evidence for Christ’s Real Presence? Of course.

But you can also find good, honest, non-Catholic Christians who found plenty of evidence for Christ’s Real Presence… these being the rather growing list of converts (and “reverts”) who see something in the Church they did not see before.

---

Now, for John 6:63. Berean, we are talking in John 6 about Jesus’ flesh. If you are suggesting that Jesus’ flesh profiteth nothing, then I must disagree strongly with you. It is by His flesh that we are redeemed. OK?

But in addition to the above all-important counter-comment, look at the flow of happenings in John 6. When does Jesus lose the bulk of his disciples, who had been happily following him up to this point? He loses them in John 6:66, which is AFTER your “supposed” metaphorical explanation in John 6:63! Do you see the importance of this?

Those people had just heard Jesus talk about “the flesh profiteth nothing”. According to you, this should have clued them in that He was not speaking literally. But they still left Him! You seem to suggest that they left because they misunderstood Jesus. I suggest they left because they*** did not believe* Jesus**. In fact, when we read Simon Peter’s response, it looks like the 12 took Him literally, not figuratively.

Do we have other places in the Gospels where Jesus corrects his disciples’ understanding, when He was speaking figuratively and they took him literally? Of course we do, you know that. I only mention it to help make my point, that we should have expected Jesus to correct all those disciples, if they misunderstood Him.

So one might ask: What, then, does John 6:63 mean, “the flesh availeth nothing?” I suggest “the flesh” is used like Paul used it, as a phrase for “human abilities / human reasoning”.

Then we would have Jesus basically saying “What I have just told all of you - do not depend on your human nature/human reasoning to understand this (Real Presence)… it will not take you where you need to go!” It makes more sense to me than for Jesus to be saying His own flesh profiteth nothing!

This is all totally original and quick, and I may not be saying it the best way, but you get the point.

One can make all of this figurative, and bend and twist things to get them to fit, but that’s just it with the Catholic version… you don’t have to “bend and twist” it to get it to fit!

More on Constantine later… Thanks, Berean, for your post…

God Bless Us All!

 

[manualman]

Well, I’m late to the game. But if EXRC is still out there, here’s some thoughts to stew on. I’m not going to engage in verse slinging or quote dueling with you. But consider these two thoughts:

1. Your objections about timing betray an unconscious defect in your understanding of God and creation. TIME is part of creation. Something that happend 2,000 years ago and something that won’t happen until 2,000 years from now are both equally present to God. That’s what ETERNAL means. So all your objections about timing and REpresenting a sacrifice are moot. God has been gracious and given us the gift of experiencing the sacrifice of Christ no matter what period of history we live in. He is GOD! He can do that. But it is all one event to Him.
2. I think you misunderstand what the Catholic church teaches about doctrine and infallibility. I think you strain the Trent quotes a little hard to get what you want out of them. When they claim that transubstantiation has ALWAYS been the teaching of the Church, you are trying to force that to mean that the full understanding of it has always been present and fully articulated since the day of the Ascension, apparently. What it more likely was intended to mean was that there had never been a DIFFERENT explanation accepted and promulgated as TRUE by the Church. Then, as is the case today, the Church was not dictated to by a thunder cloud. Reasonable and holy men and women had to think through what they knew, discern, compare trusted scriptures and teachings, and draw conclusion and deductions from them. So it should be no surprise that anyone sifting through ancient writings can find examples of imperfect language or metaphor regarding particular teachings during a period when the perfect description had not yet been arrived at. (Even when the writings are by holy and respected people.) Given this second, more reasonable understanding of the Trent quote, the rest of your arguement is also moot.

So now we’re back to the clear, no-spin text of the Gospel of John, amply explained above. Cheers!

 

[Kurt_G]

Berean:

…The early church fathers opposed this doctrine. They never acknowledged any change in the elements or believed in any corporal presence… Both Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Caesarea denied Transubstantiation. Cyril stated, “Under the type of bread His body given unto thee, and under the type of wine His blood given unto thee.”…

OK, Berean, I know the above is just a small part of your larger quote, but the easiest way to respond to your statements is to take them pieces at a time.

Regarding “early church fathers” allegedly opposing the Real Presence - Numerous teachings to the contrary from Justin the Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyon, have been quoted and requoted by able folks on this thread several times. I won’t go over them again now.

But when your authors suggested Cyril of Jerusalem never believed in a Real Presence, I just had to speak up.
Here are some choice teachings I found of St. Cyril’s:

Cyril of Jerusalem: Lecutre XIX - First Lecture on the Mysteries

7 - “…For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan… become profane…”​

and, wow, the next one,

from Cyril’s Lecture XXIII - On the Mysteries of the Sacred Liturgy and Communion:

7 - “…we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.”​

And, here are Cyril’s instructions to receive communion:

#21 “…And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? **Wilt thou not carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?” **

Folks, St. Cyril believed in the Real Presence of Christ’s Body!
To say otherwise can only be Ignorance or Dishonesty. I would pray that it’s ignorance.

Berean, I agree with you that we should always look for points of agreement, but when I see your authors misguide readers like they have, someone has to say something! Among other things, they have totally misread at least Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Cyril of Jerusalem! I would have to be suspicious of the slant they would give to everything else they have printed, wouldn’t you?

As for those many who did not believe in the Real Presence at those times, and watching the Church make a stand for the Real Presence, I see nothing unexpected. That is exactly what should happen! It is similar to the Nicene Creed being formulated to further define the Holy Trinity, in the face of much disagreement at that time.

We can’t toss out every Christian doctrine that got argued about, because if we did, our Christian faith would be gutted!

Let’s take up Constantine Monday!

GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[Berean]

Kurt G.:

OK, Berean, I know the above is just a small part of your larger quote, but the easiest way to respond to your statements is to take them pieces at a time.

Regarding “early church fathers” allegedly opposing the Real Presence - Numerous teachings to the contrary from Justin the Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyon, have been quoted and requoted by able folks on this thread several times. I won’t go over them again now.

But when your authors suggested Cyril of Jerusalem never believed in a Real Presence, I just had to speak up.
Here are some choice teachings I found of St. Cyril’s:

Cyril of Jerusalem: Lecutre XIX - First Lecture on the Mysteries

7 - “…For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan… become profane…”​

and, wow, the next one,

from Cyril’s Lecture XXIII - On the Mysteries of the Sacred Liturgy and Communion:

7 - “…we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.”​

And, here are Cyril’s instructions to receive communion:

#21 “…And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? **Wilt thou not carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?” **

Folks, St. Cyril believed in the Real Presence of Christ’s Body!
To say otherwise can only be Ignorance or Dishonesty. I would pray that it’s ignorance.

Berean, I agree with you that we should always look for points of agreement, but when I see your authors misguide readers like they have, someone has to say something! Among other things, they have totally misread at least Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Cyril of Jerusalem! I would have to be suspicious of the slant they would give to everything else they have printed, wouldn’t you?

As for those many who did not believe in the Real Presence at those times, and watching the Church make a stand for the Real Presence, I see nothing unexpected. That is exactly what should happen! It is similar to the Nicene Creed being formulated to further define the Holy Trinity, in the face of much disagreement at that time.

We can’t toss out every Christian doctrine that got argued about, because if we did, our Christian faith would be gutted!

Let’s take up Constantine Monday!

GOD BLESS US ALL!

ok have a great weekend God be with you.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Church Militant:

In 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 St. Paul clearly says:

“23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” (Douay-Rheims Version)
How can a man eat the bread and drink the cup WORTHILY?
Church Militant:

Now…IF this passage is taken “spiritually” as some tell me we must, it becomes nonsense. That would mean that Christ is not really present in the bread & wine but it is only a symbol of His body. IF that is true then Paul is talking crazy nonsense because one can abuse a symbol of a person all day long and never become guilty of that person’s body and blood because that person’s body and blood was never present to abuse.

Strange! Then why are some people feeling insulted when others burn the flag of their country? After all, they are not present in that flag!!!
Church Militant:

HOWEVER; that isn’t what Paul says here. He says "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

" which tells us that St.Paul (and by extension the whole NT church) plainly believed that Jesus meant exactly what He said in John 6 and therefore IS most definitely physically present in the bread & wine of the Eucharist.
Again: How can I eat and drink WORTHILY?
Church Militant:

Further, I posit that with this verse "Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

" St. Paul makes it even more clear as he speaks of the very grave consequences of receiving the Eucharist in mortal sin.
How can I receive forgiveness for “mortal” sin?

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!
Luke1:48:

When a person is guilty of a mortal sin, they lose God’s grace. Through confession and the Eucharist a person regains it. The Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life, it aids us, that is what John 6:53 is talking about. A baptized child who never recieved their first communion can still enter heaven, as long as they are not guilty of mortal sin.

I thought the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ…

I thought Jesus was serious when He said that we can’t have Life unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood…

But it seems, as I read in this quote, “The Eucharist is not necessary for eternal life”…

This is the teaching of the Roman heresy…

As for the Apostles of Christ, they teach clearly that we cannot be saved unless we eat the flesh of our Lord and drink His Blood.

In Love,
Yaqubos†