Truly truly I say to you...

[jmcrae]

Is it your position that the flesh of Christ profitted nothing? If this is not your position, then why do you attempt to use this to disprove the Real Presence of Christ’s flesh (and blood) in the Eucharist?

Jesus is clearly not stating that His flesh “profiteth nothing” since in the very same breath, He is commanding us to eat and drink of it. Rather, it is our flesh - that is, our carnal understanding of the world - that “profiteth nothing.”

He is saying that we must believe His words with true faith, without attempting to explain it away, or even to try to understand how this can happen - after all, it was those who asked, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” who ceased from going about with Him, but it was the one who said, “To whom would we go? Thou hast the Word of eternal life” who became the Head of Christ’s Church - he did not understand, or even attempt to understand - he simply believed, in total faith.

Funny thing about the Bereans. Even though they heard the Apostles themselves, and searched the Scriptures, some of them still came to the wrong conclusion and rejected the true gospel. So the example of the Bereans is simply proof that sola Scriptura doesn’t work. It didn’t even work when the Apostles themselves preached to the Bereans.

How in the world do you get that? The Bereans had the Gospel explained to them by St. Paul; they didn’t discover it for themselves in the Bible.

They searched the Scriptures to see whether “these things” were so - that is, whether the prophecies alluded to by St. Paul were actually in there. They weren’t using “Sola Scriptura” -their source for Christian doctrine was the Apostles; not the Old Testament. Nobody, using the Old Testament alone without first being taught about Jesus, has ever found Jesus in the Old Testament. If this could be done, the Jewish religion would not exist today - the Jews would have already found Jesus in their Scriptures, and would have converted, long since.

Aside from which, as part of the body of the Early Christians, they certainly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, just as every reasonably well-educated Christian before the time of Zwingli did.

 

[justasking4]

What do you mean faith in him? Faith in him is too broad … too general. The faith you describe cannot be based on what he says only what you want him to say. If you have faith/trust in Jesus then you must

have faith/trust in what he says.

What we must first do is to understand what He is saying in context. Its not what i want Him to say but what does the passage teach. You cannot truly trust what He says without first understanding what He means.

The words spoken in John are direct quotes and if you look closely at John 6 it is almost all direct quotes. John does not offer a whole lot of commentary. John must have felt the words spoke for themselves. The difficulty in the faith part is not faith in Jesus … we all believe He is the Christ but trust in his words, even though we do not fullly understand. That is hard part in faith in Jesus.

Actually that is not the case at all. If you read the entire chapter in context, John is certainly trying to make the case that Jesus is to be believed for eternal life and that He will supply the spiritual needs of His people.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

For shame, justasking4, for shame!

Look at what you wrote:

"Truth is never determined by authority but by the facts. If you don’t have the facts to back up a claim, you really can’t say you have the truth."

This is showing you to be a hypocrite (which I hope is mistaken) in view of what assertions you make as to what is meant in scripture and in Church history.

You determine your own facts contra to what smarter and more thoughtful people than you and I did 1800+ years ago closer to the events and oral traditions of our Lord.

You presume (without recourse to answering direct questions based upon scripture -your preferred methodology) that some quotations are metaphorical rather than literal, or that you presume to know the mind of Jesus and what is meant by a phrase or idiomatic expression.

Why are your presumptions more valid than others ? Because you claim the Holy Spirit as inspiration?

Maybe the Holy Spirit needs a vacation from all these well meaning Protestants who feel ‘justified’ in using He/She/It as an end-all-discussion-because-I-just-trumped-your-authority device.

When presented with the “facts” you argue that since they come from the Catholic Church, the original organizer and compiler of scripture and christian customs, they ab initio must be suspect.

Your “facts” are merely a ruse to ignore what has been shown to you (through various threads and links to resources and biblical exegesis) in order to justify your preconceived notions of what constitutes “proper” Christian belief.

If you are truly seeking, then you would engage not cherry pick out of context biblical passages (especially OT ones that have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on salvation and Jesus’ message!) and make vague “feeling” statements as to what Jesus “meant.”

 

[rbarcia]

Is it your position that the flesh of Christ profitted nothing? If this is not your position, then why do you attempt to use this to disprove the Real Presence of Christ’s flesh (and blood) in the Eucharist?

The flesh of Christ being offered on the cross to pay for the sins I have committed, so I would not have to suffer, has benefited me, and all those who come to Him. His body was bruised (breaking of bread) and His blood spilled, so that I may have eternal life.

Have you ever lied? stolen? Looked with lust (same as adultery Mat 5)? (I know I have), then you are guilty and deserve Hell, like me. But Christ died once

**

Hebrews 9

24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

**

So since He is not being offered anymore, the bread at communion cannot be the same one since He is no longer being offered and the Mass is a continuing sacrifice.

**

John 6

55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

**

The bread of Life, who spirtually feeds, was right in front of them. Christ died to offer payment to an all Holy God (the Father) who demands perfection (Matt 5). Christ died offering payment for you an I. He took the punishment once and for all that was suppose to be yours and mine.

He offers this free gift for those who repent (confess your sins, forsake them and turn to God) and believe (with all your heart, mind, and soul). You will be saved once and for all. Then the Holy Spirit will dwell in your heart, giving you new desires for God, sanctifying you.

Funny thing about the Bereans. Even though they heard the Apostles themselves, and searched the Scriptures, some of them still came to the wrong conclusion and rejected the true gospel. So the example of the Bereans is simply proof that sola Scriptura doesn’t work. It didn’t even work when the Apostles themselves preached to the Bereans.

I think you misread, it was the Jews from Thessalonica that stirred up the crowd, confusing them away from the scripture.

**
Acts 17

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds.

**

That is why they were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica.

 

[VociMike]

The flesh of Christ being offered on the cross to pay for the sins I have committed, so I would not have to suffer, has benefited me, and all those who come to Him. His body was bruised (breaking of bread) and His blood spilled, so that I may have eternal life.

But this does not answer my question. Why do Protestants quote “the flesh profits nothing” when arguing against the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or against the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of John 6? For Christ’s flesh did not and does not profit nothing.

The bread of Life, who spirtually feeds, was right in front of them. Christ died to offer payment to an all Holy God (the Father) who demands perfection (Matt 5). Christ died offering payment for you an I. He took the punishment once and for all that was suppose to be yours and mine.

He offers this free gift for those who repent (confess your sins, forsake them and turn to God) and believe (with all your heart, mind, and soul). You will be saved once and for all. Then the Holy Spirit will dwell in your heart, giving you new desires for God, sanctifying you.

Did the people in John 6 understand their own idioms or not? If they did, why did they dispute among themselves, why did they call Christ’s words “a hard saying, who can listen to it?”, and why did many of them walk away? All because Christ told them they must believe in Him? No. Nowhere else do people react that way when Christ tells them they must believe. No, they were not reacting to an idiom, but to the literal meaning of Christ’s words. Christ did not speak in an idiom, and His listeners did not hear His words as idiom.

I think you misread, it was the Jews from Thessalonica that stirred up the crowd, confusing them away from the scripture.

I just like to note, every time the Bereans are held up as an ideal, that when they searched the Scriptures some of them still ended up rejecting the gospel. As I say, a telling point against sola Scriptura.

 

[justasking4]

For shame, justasking4, for shame!

Look at what you wrote:

"Truth is never determined by authority but by the facts. If you don’t have the facts to back up a claim, you really can’t say you have the truth."

This is showing you to be a hypocrite (which I hope is mistaken) in view of what assertions you make as to what is meant in scripture and in Church history.

 

[DesertBrother]

Just because someone may be closer to an event in time doesn’t mean that they have a better understanding. For example, we probably know more today about the JFK assination than they did in 1963 because we have more info about the event.

What do you mean by “oral traditions of our Lord.”? Are you referring to something outside of scripture? If so, where could i find them?

The Apostles went out among nations, and their message was passed on by oral tradition concerning the Divinity of Christ and the Resurrection. There were no Bibles, thus no Biblical authority other than the OT. Without Church authority, the early Christians would have each developed their own version of Christianity the way the Gnostics did and all would be lost.

Who do you think defined the very Canon of Scripture you’re using? It was the Church authority. The final authority of the successors of the Apostles decided on which written Gospels were true and should be included, and which were false and should be thrown out. That’s how the New Testament came to be.

So although you may outwardly dismiss early Church authority, you unknowingly follow them by reading the Canon they established for you. Yet you presume to know how to better interpret it than they did?

No Church authority to interpret Scripture… no established doctrine of Christ’s divinity… no Christianity as we know it. Period.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

justasking4:

1. The hypocrisy refers to your posting at 62: either Jesus fulfilled the OT law or he supplemented it.

If Jesus says something (no matter *how *uncomfortable) like eat my body and drink my blood (3 times no less!) then He must be taken at His Word. It is hypocritical to take every reference to the Holy Spirit literally but not any thing concerning the institution of the Eucharist.

1. Oral Traditions of our Lord.

Not everything Jesus taught is contained in the Gospels or in Acts. In fact, there are enough variations in the Gospels to cause one to *pause *and think before assuming “what Jesus meant.”

Examples are everywhere:

“What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light: what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.” (Mt 10:27)

“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.” (Mt 13:11)

“The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you [the Apostles]. But to those outside everything comes in parables,…” (Mark 4:11 and Luke 7:10)

“Turning to the disciples in private he said, ‘Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.’” (Luke 10:23-24)

“Then Peter said, ‘Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?’ And the Lord replied,…'Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Luke 12:41-48)

“For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47)

“The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (Jojn 14:26)

“I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now.” (John 16:12)

“I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world…” (John 17:6-8)

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.” (John 20:30)

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

“Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)

“I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” (1 Cor 11:2)

“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to the faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2)

1. Presumptions and Interpretations.

These are areas in which you have been answered in various threads by various people. You will not address their claims against your statements. I spoke on ‘infallibility’ in another thread and you never answered (or let on that you read it) so I am assuming you wish to ignore what I wrote.

You mix doctrine with dogma, infallibility with impeccability, customs with beliefs. Look, like any other organization that over almost 2000 years has had tens of thousands of commentaries in 100s of languages based upon dozens of manuscripts, the Catholic Church has done a remarkable (praise be God and the Holy Spirit) in not changing the message!

Also, I tend to think the ‘traditional’ interpretation makes sense (in CONTEXT and in MEANING) then some Johnny-come-lately feel-good Personal Savior Jesus-Dude version of our Lord’ s teaching.

If you have a question as to what is an infallible teaching. Give it a go, there are many of us who might be able to reply in a manner that makes sense to you. but please quit the by-the-anti-Catholic-book responses: they demean your intelligence.

The Church has spoken on John 6. Endlessly. Many of us have spoken on it. Endlessly. What is it about the Eucharist that bothers you so?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Attention to all our non-Catholic friends inquiring about the Eucharist and John 6:

Q: Did the early Christians believe in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine?

A: Yes.

In First Corinthians, one of the earliest Christian documents [circa 58 AD], St Paul affirmed that by eating the bread and drinking the cup, Christians were united in an intimate manner, since they truly were partaking of the body and blood of Jesus.

“And so, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Because of this real presence, the Eucharist was capable of producing not only profound spiritual effects but severe physical effects within the recipient. St Paul maintained that many in the Church of Corinth were weak and ill-indeed, some had even died-by partaking of the elements without discerning their significance. (1 Cor 11:27-32)

The early Christian community’s belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is further affirmed by John 6:52-57:

“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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Hey Protestant brothers and sisters: by the end of the 3rd century, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was so engrained in Christian belief that it never came into question by Luther or Calvin!

An excellent book to research this question is Doors to the Sacred by Joseph Martos, Garden City, New York, Image Books, 1982. In it is all the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th century references on the Real Presence (Sts Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, etc. and Luther’s and Calvin’s own words on the Real Presence)

 

[justasking4]

part 1

justasking4:

1. The hypocrisy refers to your posting at 62: either Jesus fulfilled the OT law or he supplemented it.

uncomfortable) like eat my body and drink my blood (3 times no less!) then He must be taken at His Word.

i agree. However would you not agree that we must understand figures of speech, context etc are important to understanding what He taught? If we just take the John 6 discourse we would arrive at some kind of canabalism. Surely we would agree that cannot be what He meant.

It is hypocritical to take every reference to the Holy Spirit literally but not any thing concerning the institution of the Eucharist.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you give me a couple of examples?

1. Oral Traditions of our Lord.

Not everything Jesus taught is contained in the Gospels or in Acts. In fact, there are enough variations in the Gospels to cause one to *pause *

and think before assuming “what Jesus meant.”

Examples are everywhere:

“What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light: what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.” (Mt 10:27)

“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.” (Mt 13:11)

“The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you [the Apostles]. But to those outside everything comes in parables,…” (Mark 4:11 and Luke 7:10)

“Turning to the disciples in private he said, ‘Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.’” (Luke 10:23-24)

“Then Peter said, ‘Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?’ And the Lord replied,…'Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Luke 12:41-48)

“For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47)

“The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (Jojn 14:26)

“I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now.” (John 16:12)

“I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world…” (John 17:6-8)

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book.” (John 20:30)

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

“Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)

“I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.” (1 Cor 11:2)

“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to the faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2)

I agree much more was taught and said by our Lord. However, the only record we have are the scriptures. We don’t have any other trusted sources that tell us other things. Do you know of any?

1. Presumptions and Interpretations.

These are areas in which you have been answered in various threads by various people. You will not address their claims against your statements.

Can you give me an example?

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

part 2

I spoke on ‘infallibility’ in another thread and you never answered (or let on that you read it) so I am assuming you wish to ignore what I wrote.

I think its not correct for a number of reasons. One that follows from it is that it would mean that Jesus has a third nature i.e. bread for example.

 

[justasking4]

The Apostles went out among nations, and their message was passed on by oral tradition concerning the Divinity of Christ and the Resurrection. There were no Bibles, thus no Biblical authority other than the OT. Without Church authority, the early Christians would have each developed their own version of Christianity the way the Gnostics did and all would be lost.

Who do you think defined the very Canon of Scripture you’re using? It was the Church authority. The final authority of the successors of the Apostles decided on which written Gospels were true and should be included, and which were false and should be thrown out. That’s how the New Testament came to be.

The church may interpret scripture but that doesn’t mean all its interpretations are correct.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

justasking4:

You are either ignorant or playing at being the ingenue. I can’t get a heading for either way.

Your presumptions are 1) a hole-ier than wow! Sola Scriptura theory; 2) bogus assertions on what the Church holds to be ‘infallible;’ 3) simple-minded responses (‘cannabilism’) to purposeful sacraments instituted by the very same person you consider to be God on earth(!); 4) failure to address my references with a vague “Gee, can you give me some examples?;” 5) constant avoidance of what ‘traditional’ means in CONTEXT of the early Church.

Your hypocrisy is using scripture to counter any statement YOU disagree with not realizing what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In other words, either be consistent and don’t believe ANYTHING as opposed to PICKING and CHOOSING what to believe about Christianity.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I think its not correct for a number of reasons. One that follows from it is that it would mean that Jesus has a third nature i.e. bread for example.

Here is a FINE example of the silliness of your argument. Then Jesus has an infinite number of natures since He is with us (individually) until the end of the ages??!!

You sound like a Gnostic or Essene here. Do your homework, justasking4, your’re repeating old arguments which have been discussed and dismissed centuries ago.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree much more was taught and said by our Lord. However, the only record we have are the scriptures. We don’t have any other trusted sources that tell us other things. Do you know of any?

Yes: the same Church that gave you the Bible also knows the rest of the stories.

I think its not correct for a number of reasons. One that follows from it is that it would mean that Jesus has a third nature i.e. bread for example.

It’s been explained at least twice and perhaps three times in this thread alone how Jesus does not become bread; rather, the bread is perfectly and entirely displaced by the Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ - there is no bread anymore; it’s all Jesus, in His human and divine natures. The bread goes to Heaven at the moment of the Consecration, and Jesus takes its place here on earth at the Mass. This is what is meant by the term “transubstantiation.”

Also, I tend to think the ‘traditional’ interpretation makes sense (in CONTEXT and in MEANING) then some Johnny-come-lately feel-good Personal Savior Jesus-Dude version of our Lord’ s teaching.

What exactly is the "‘traditional’ interpretation "?

Transubstantiation. It’s only the most recent American Protestants who have been saying that Holy Communion is merely symbolic.

 

[VociMike]

I think its not correct for a number of reasons. One that follows from it is that it would mean that Jesus has a third nature i.e. bread for example.

I already answered this charge; why do you go on as though it has not been addressed?

When the Holy Spirit descended as a dove at Christ’s baptism, did that mean that the Holy Spirit has the nature of a dove? Did the Holy Spirit become dove, or did the Holy Spirit appear as a dove?

The situation is the same with the Eucharist. Christ does not become bread. Rather, the bread ceases to exist and Christ “takes its place”, appearing in the form of the bread which is no longer there. He doesn’t take on the nature of bread because there is no bread.

This is entirely different from the Incarnation, where Christ did become human. Christ does not become bread, so all talk of Him taking on the nature of bread is in error.

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=JonathanKinsman;1746995]justasking4:

You are either ignorant or playing at being the ingenue. I can’t get a heading for either way.

Your presumptions are 1) a hole-ier than wow! Sola Scriptura theory; 2) bogus assertions on what the Church holds to be ‘infallible;’ 3) simple-minded responses (‘cannabilism’) to purposeful sacraments instituted by the very same person you consider to be God on earth(!); 4) failure to address my references with a vague “Gee, can you give me some examples?;” 5) constant avoidance of what ‘traditional’ means in CONTEXT of the early Church.

I was hoping we could have had a good discussion. It does not appear that will be possible with you. i don’t want to misrepresent what people believe and say. That’s why i want to make sure i understand what others say and believe and the only way i know how is to ask at times for clarification.
It seems you have taken some offense to me and i’m not here to offend you or anyone else who may believe differently than i do. i have never intended to mock another’ beliefs and if you think i have then please forgive me.

Your hypocrisy is using scripture to counter any statement YOU disagree with not realizing what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In other words, either be consistent and don’t believe ANYTHING as opposed to PICKING and CHOOSING what to believe about Christianity.

Would agree that what we are try to discuss here are complex issues and that other factors may have bearing on what is being discussed? Do you not think that other scriptures may help us to understand what we are discussing?
I believe that the scriptures are the inspired word of God but i don’t always believe what your church or my church teaches is always right. In sense we must pick and choose what we will believe to be the truth. I’m would think even you have certain qualms about some issues in your church.

 

[jmcrae]

In regards to John 6, how did the early church of the 2nd century interpret this passage? Was it consistent through time? Did all the people agree what it meant?

A sufficient number agreed on what it meant to the point where Justin could explain it to the pagans without fear of contradiction from other Christians, as he did in the following passages, in which he describes a Neophyte’s (new convert) First Holy Communion:

SOURCE: The First Apology of Justin Martyr - written in about 153 AD.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the 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 in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 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.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

 

[justasking4]

Yes: the same Church that gave you the Bible also

knows the rest of the stories.

Which ones are you referring to that are not in scripture?

It’s been explained at least twice and perhaps three times in this thread alone how Jesus does not

Do you know if all the church fathers believed in it?

 

[jonfan]

Mark
14:22. And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: **Take ye. This is my body. **

14:24. And he said to them: **This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. **

Luke
22:19. And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

*Do this for a commemoration of me… This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to show forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed. *

22:20. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying:** This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. **

newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm

1 Cor
11:23. 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,

11:26. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.

John
**6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed**

1 Cor
**10:16. The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? **

11:27. 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.

*Or drink… Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink. Guilty of the body, etc., not discerning the body, etc… This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. *

**1 Cor 11:28. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. **

**Drink of the chalice… This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church. **

I really don’t know how much clearer Catholics can show the real presence of the Eucharist to be true.

God bless,
Jon