Were non-Catholics prefigured in those who left Christ in John 6?

[ralphinal]

Climer whoever said I rejected Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist?? I have a different thought about it. Are you interested?

Let me ask you this. If I could show you early church fathers who disagreed with Transubstantiation would you say they were wrong?

• 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.” **Not the real body **
• Origen, 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.

If I could show you that the Apostles did not teach it would you then be willing to open your eyes a little that maybe Rome interpreted this wrong?? Or would you say “they just can’t be wrong, they just can’t be”

Take some time and research Mithraism. Take special note of the clothing they wear, and the sacrifices they offer in worship. Little too close to the mass for me. Jesus already made the sacrifice. No need to keep doing it.

I should point out, in fairness, that Origen is not considered an Early Church Father due to his insistance on teaching heresy. NOt this particular one, but he was heretical.

 

[inchrist101]

I should point out, in fairness, that Origen is not considered an Early Church Father due to his insistance on teaching heresy. NOt this particular one, but he was heretical.

So even if he was right he would be a heretic because Rome says otherwise??

 

[ralphinal]

So even if he was right he would be a heretic because Rome says otherwise??

This issue is not what makes him heretical. There were actually several ones, and I doubt that you would disagree. He is quoted extensively in Catholic writings. I just wanted to be sure he is not credited as a Church Father. He is considered an early Christian writer. Just wanted citiations to be correct.

 

[ralphinal]

Take note of what I posted for Climer.

**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.” not physical.

Origen, 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."

Tertullian did not believe in the physical presence nor did Origen and both Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Caesarea denied it as well. Only spiritual. This is my belief and many other Roman Catholics I know. Not that you would care but just thought I’d share. Now aren’t these folks early church fathers.

Actually, I do care what others believe and I like to know why. The “why’s” are just as important as the whats in understanding things.

Turtullian

“[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]).

Oregin

“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]).

There are others as well. Why do they contradict themselves? Personally, I have not studied this well enough to compair and contrast each writer within his own writings. Yes, not everyone believes it, but does that make it wrong?

Again, if Jesus was not being in some way literal that his blood was present in the cup, why mention it? Why offened people like that? This was not a call to repent or an accusation of hypocracy. Why bring it up at all?

 

[climer97007]

If I could show you early church fathers who disagreed with Transubstantiation would you say they were wrong? *Referring to Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Eusebius of Caesarea./*QUOTE]

Tertullian, Origen and Cyril have all been quoted as supporting transubstantiation. See quotes below. Eusebius did not even believe that Jesus was God, that is, until he was nearly excommunicated.

Ignatius of Antioch
“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]).

Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

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).

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]).

Tertullian
“There 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]).

Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

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]).

Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).***

 

[revelations]

I’m gonna bring something up that usually gets peoples blood boiling…

If the church is wrong about even one teaching, the whole lot of them are thrown into question. Christ did offer his protection to the Church. It cannot teach mis-truths laced into the truths. It is a leap of faith. If the Eucharist teaching is wrong, then even the validity of the canon of scripture is thrown into question. How did they really know what books go in there? How did they truly know that God was three unique persons, the blessed trinity? How? Muslims contest this much more than we bicker about the Eucharist. The trinity isn’t even fully alluded to clearly in scripture. At least the Eucharist has a scriptural background!

-revelations

 

[moondweller]

Tertullian, Origen and Cyril have all been quoted as supporting transubstantiation. See quotes below. Eusebius did not even believe that Jesus was God, that is, until he was nearly excommunicated.

Ignatius of Antioch
“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]).

Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

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).

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]).

Tertullian
“There 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]).

Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

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]).

Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).***By these quotes you can’t say these men were actually teaching “transubstantiation.”

 

[revelations]

No they werent teaching trans substantiation, but they were still teaching about the real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Catholic church later infallibly declared the dogma of transubstantiation later in the 1000’s i do believe. This brings me full circle, the Catholic church by the merits and guidance of the Holy Spirit cannot teach incorrect things about faith and morals. So, take it or leave it basically.

Jesus wasn’t teaching transubstantiation in John 6 when his disciples turned away, he was simple teaching the the bread is truly His flesh, and the wine His blood. That is not transubstantiation. TransSub talks about how the bread is transformed but retains the effects of bread.

No matter how you cut it, Jesus is saying that the bread is truly his flesh period. The quotes of the early fathers confirm this belief.

 

[paidion]

Why did he mention Blood at all? As seen in John 6, this was scandelous to the Jews of the time. It did not seem to have the same effect at the last supper. I feel that they began to understand what Jesus was saying.

We know that God specified that the blood of an animal contained its life-force. Agreed. I think that Jesus was calling upon that as part of his teaching. Also agreed. If we take him at hist word, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Only if that in fact He meant that. I still think the ones who stayed with Him knew that He could NOT have been meaning it literally, because they knew the Law. Now, you can say that “eating his flesh” is believing, but then why did he mention the blood at all? He knew the effect that concept would have on the listeners. It sounds here like you’re saying He said those words for the shock value… is that what you mean? Further, why not say it WHEN he taught Jon 6? Many point to John 5, but that was days or weeks before, and it was only to the Apostles, when he said that doing the Father’s work was food. No, he meant eat and drink. um… you lost me in these last few sentences… I don’t mean to be a drag, I just don’t get it.

Now, it is impossible for us today to eat or drink as he lived so long ago. Further, Jesus wanted to give us a way to consume him that would not offend our senses. That is the Euchirist. ok. I think in this paragraph you are saying that since His flesh does not continue to exist on this earth, He provided a means that one can continue to re-enact this process that does not violate Levitical code. … Am I in the ballpark of understanding your meaning?

ralphinal:

ok… still trying to digest this (yes, pun intended…sorry)…

• no disrespect meant, however…

I can appreciate that He would provide a way to “eat/drink” that would not be offensive. But what was the purpose of having to drink at all? Atonement was made by blood because of the life it represented. The ones receiving atonement through the sacrificial system never drank the blood of whatever animal was sacrificed. Therefore, He wouldn’t have been talking about actually drinking blood, but “taking on the Life He represents”.

shalom

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal:

ok… still trying to digest this (yes, pun intended…sorry)…

• no disrespect meant, however…

I can appreciate that He would provide a way to “eat/drink” that would not be offensive. But what was the purpose of having to drink at all? Atonement was made by blood because of the life it represented. The ones receiving atonement through the sacrificial system never drank the blood of whatever animal was sacrificed. Therefore, He wouldn’t have been talking about actually drinking blood, but “taking on the Life He represents”.

shalom

No insult taken.

I do not think he said it for shock value, as he shocked people enough already. Ignore the part about John 5. Some non-Catholics go backwards to go forwards.

Why mention drinking the Blood at all? I could take the easy way and say Jesus said it and that is the way it is. I will not go that route though. I think that he is talking about a complete and total consumption of HImself: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If the Blood contains the essence of the Life, then it is fitting that he said so. No, the blood of the animals was not drunk, but was it not at times spread over the people?

I think in this paragraph you are saying that since His flesh does not continue to exist on this earth, He provided a means that one can continue to re-enact this process that does not violate Levitical code. … Am I in the ballpark of understanding your meaning?

I would not say re-enact. Jesus’s sacrafice was once and for all. It is a re-presentation. How it works is by the power of God, but we do not re-offer or re-crucify.

 

[climer97007]

ralphinal:
I can appreciate that He would provide a way to “eat/drink” that would not be offensive. But what was the purpose of having to drink at all? Atonement was made by blood because of the life it represented. The ones receiving atonement through the sacrificial system never drank the blood of whatever animal was sacrificed. Therefore, He wouldn’t have been talking about actually drinking blood, but “taking on the Life He represents”.

Jesus is calling back to His perfected Jewish understanding of life. When an animal is sacrified the blood is drained from it. Literally, the life is drained from it.

He is not merely talking about the life that the blood represented, rather, the life which it truly “gives”.

Blood is indeed also a sign of life. Yet, blood is also precisely what it signifies. It is “life giving” in and of itself. This is the nature of a Sacrament. It is in reality what it also signifies.

This is the sense that we are asked to recieve Him in Holy Communion. The author of Life gives His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to us. He does this so that we may share in that One and same Life.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is the latter Life which is being talked about and which is being distributed during the Mass at Holy Communion time.

Gene

 

[po18guy]

Jesus is calling back to His perfected Jewish understanding of life. When an animal is sacrified the blood is drained from it. Literally, the life is drained from it.

He is not merely talking about the life that the blood represented, rather, the life which it truly “gives”.

Blood is indeed also a sign of life. Yet, blood is also precisely what it signifies. It is “life giving” in and of itself. This is the nature of a Sacrament. It is in reality what it also signifies.

This is the sense that we are asked to recieve Him in Holy Communion. The author of Life gives His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to us. He does this so that we may share in that One and same Life.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is the latter Life which is being talked about and which is being distributed during the Mass at Holy Communion time.

Gene

Simeon, in the temple said it well: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against…"(Luke 2:34). Thus we see this even today. Jesus said it even better: “And blessed is he who takes no offense at me” (Matthew 11:6).

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

“The fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13) is not that Christ now comes to us in wafer form, but growing in the knowledge of all that He did for us in bodily form while on this earth, and what He now accomplishes for us in bodily form in heaven as our High Priest functioning as our Intercessor and Advocate before the Father.

Based on the direction you’ve taking this thread, how is it you accused me of hijacking it?

Not surprisingly, we believe in the same, right up to up to the Eucharist. Thus, the inspiration for this thread. Those who left Christ believed in everything he taught, right up to the Eucharist. I am not asking for explanations that circumvent the Eucharist, or criticism of it, but rather discussion of the parallels between then and now. There is always a tendency to vector off into tangential subjects, but I am asking all to remain focused on the original intent of the thread.

You are a fellow Christian, and we call you to look deeper into faith. There is so much more to Christ than just the scripture written about him. He is with us, even to the end of the age - in the Eucharist. This was the truth even before Christ instituted it, as God does not change. It takes more faith to believe this than what you currently believe, and yet the Catholic Church continues to take it on the chin for her teaching. Even that is obeying Christ’s command.

Since you are here, I invite you to examine a deeper faith. As with all non-Catholics, I will gladly send you a copy of former Evangelical Mark P. Shea’s compact book This Is My Body, which he wrote to explain his discovery of Christ in the Eucharist. He is very thankful to his Evangelical brothers and sisters, but had to pursue the fullness of Christ. I just ask that you do not harden your heart against the Eucharist, as it is everything to us.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Christ now comes to us in wafer form

It takes great faith to accept the Eucharist. Christ comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine, but the substance is Christ. Word.

Christ’s peace.

 

[climer97007]

It takes great faith to accept the Eucharist. Christ comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine, but the substance is Christ. Word.

It can also be likened to Christ in the written Word. The appearance is mere paper and ink. Yet the Word of God is made known, is communicated in an audible and visual Way. But, we do not hear Jesus, we do not see Jesus. We hear another person talking, we see only text on paper.

The non-Catholic has no trouble recognizing Jesus in the written Word.

Yet, there are still those now as 2,000 years ago who turn away from Jesus if He appears to them as Bread or as Wine. How can that be, they ask? Or conversely, they will claim that they too have the personal power to turn any morsal of bread into His Body.

The errors fly in all directions, and it is never clear what lack of faith, or what pride, or what arrogance, or what deception, or what cause exists for the rejection or the false claims.

Gene

 

[po18guy]

Yet, there are still those now as 2,000 years ago who turn away from Jesus if He appears to them as Bread or as Wine. How can that be, they ask? Or conversely, they will claim that they too have the personal power to turn any morsal of bread into His Body.

Amen. How could anyone believe in a God so powerful that He made the universe, and everything in it from nothing, but yet so powerless that He cannot command the bread and wine to become Christ’s Body and Blood?

Mark 11:23-24 “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours”.

Thus, we have the Eucharistic prayer. Have faith, and it will be done. Especially since that is exactly what was said and is written. The spirit of antichrist leads constantly to division.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

No, because those who left in John 6 were the ones that took Jesus literally, and we don’t take Jesus literally and we have not left Jesus, he is our Lord and Saviour.

 

[po18guy]

No, because those who left in John 6 were the ones that took Jesus literally, and we don’t take Jesus literally and we have not left Jesus, he is our Lord and Saviour.

My chaplain at work is an Adventist. He mentioned that many claim that name of Christ as their savior, but is He their Lord? We submit to our Lord, and try to keep His commands.

Christ’s peace.

 

[climer97007]

No, because those who left in John 6 were the ones that took Jesus literally, and we don’t take Jesus literally and we have not left Jesus, he is our Lord and Saviour.

Both Simon Peter, and those who left, took Jesus literally. Those who left refused to accept His teaching, calling it too “difficult”.

Peter and those who remained accepted Him at His Word. Where else could they go? According to Peter, Jesus had the Words of ever lasting life.

Who you are I can not say. Have you have left or not? I do not know. Have you ever recieved Him in His Body and Blood to have ever left Him? God only knows.

We are called to proclaim the truth unto ever lasting Life, that you too might have it in it’s fullness and in it’s abundance.

Amen!

Gene