P
Philthy
Guest
Where does the belief come from, that in the Eucharist since that time, transubstantiation takes place? Instead of that transubstantiation took place that one time, and ever since we are to do the same thing in remembrance of that one significant event?
Let’s back up a bit. Starting with Christ’s birth. There is significant imagery of the scene from Luke: Jesus, the self described “bread of Life” is born in Bethlehem (means “house of bread”) and placed in a manger (ie a feeding trough - it comes from the same root as the Italian “mangia!” which means “Eat!”) So that would certainly be ONE basis for the belief.
Remember that the disciples were totally confused by the “Bread of Life” discourse where Christ said, repeatedly in various ways, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and “the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.“Now please note 2 things - the universality of the event prophesied as contained in the “whoever” and that he is giving his life for “the world” - it’s not merely for the Apostles one time as you suggested. Both phrases indicate a universality of salvation well beyond the single event at the Last Supper. Everyone remained clueless, however, as to what he meant until the Last Supper when he, as you pointed out, said: “This is my body…this is my blood…” I recommend Scott Hahn’s writings on the true meaning behind the phrase “do this in memory of me” - there’s a lot more to it than meets the english speaking ear. That’s another basis for it.
Furthermore there’s the whole road to Emmaus event where the resurrected Christ spent time with the 2 disciples”… and beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.” So basically he explained all of OT Scripture to them, including the fact that the Christ needed to be crucified. Despite this they didn’t recognize Him - had no idea who he was- until just a bit later… “…it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.” Please note that his actions parallel the Last Supper events. Very excited they return to the others and “…the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.” Think about this - what does this mean exactly - that He was “made known to them”? Why would he choose this vehicle to “reveal” himself? This another basis for the belief.
A little later on in Acts the tremendous events of Pentecost occur and the Church is born. And here’s what Scripture tells us about that nascent Church: “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” So interesting and so Catholic! A hierarchy has already formed with the Apostles as the leaders to teach and gather the faithful - and what are they doing? They are devoted to the “…breaking of the bread " How is it possible to be “devoted to” a symbol or a memory? All of those activities impart CHRIST to the participant - the Way, the Truth and the Life. Teaching leads us into the Truth; the communal life leads us into the Way; the breaking of the bread and prayer lead us into Life - to living the Truth and the Way. This is yet another basis for the belief - and a really good one.
Lastly I’ll mention 2 other significant events: the first is that Paul - who wasn’t around during Christ’s earthly life - received these same teaching directly from Christ (See 1Cor 11) Paul adds an interesting thing - he says”…whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” and then goes on to say"…anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." You can’t merit “judgment” (ie condemnation) through participation in a mere “memory” of an event.
Lastly, familiarize yourself with St Ignatius of Antioch and his letter to the Smyrneans. He was a disciple of St John (author of the Gospel) and a martyr for the faith (ca 110 AD).
His writings leave no doubt - absolutely none that the early Church - which he called the Catholic Church - regarded the Eucharist as the literal body and blood of Christ exactly as the Church teaches it now.“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” He’s speaking of the Docetists who denied that Christ ever physically existed. For this reason they didn’t participate in the Eucharist because the Eucharist is “the flesh of our Savior” and why would you participate in something you never believe existed?? It’s a powerful testimony to the undeniable, early and reliable belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Read more here: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Blessings!
Very good to know, as that fact is not too well known among us Latins. 
