What do YOU think of Catholic Evidence of the REAL Presence

[PJM]

A well balanced post. Agreed completely.

There is no evidence of Real Evidence other than that it was believed and practiced by our fore-fathers, and strong Biblical verses to support it.

It is all by faith, not physical evidence.

PLEASE read post #20 my reply to what your agreeing with {The OP}

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Yes, but everything in Christianity is almost meaningless without faith. (But, just because we don’t believe it doesn’t mean that these things don’t actually take place.) The Bible itself defines faith:

OK Agreed in principle, BUT and However,

On what factual basis {biblical or otherwise} do you presume the right to then give the bible its in line with what YOU wish it to say, understanding?

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?
**
Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”**

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: **[20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
**
[Douay explanation]

[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

2nd. Peter 3: 14-18
“Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen”

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

Thanks and God Bless you

PJM

 

[PJM]

Miracles are for the unbelievers, so there is physical evidence and witnesses to Eucharistic miracles either directly or indirectly. We believers are called to faith and to have the mind of Christ in the real presence in the Eucharist.

Hebrew 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God,* so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

I believe St. Paul sums it up very well for all ages here; In regards to the Real Presence, the Eucharist is revealed by the Holy Spirit and those who partake of the divine nature, who describe these mysteries of God with words revealed by the Holy Spirit described in spiritual terms.

1Cor.1:22
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
27
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
28
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something,
29
so that no human being might boast* before God.

2Cor.2:9
But as it is written:

“What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard,

and what has not entered the human heart,

what God has prepared for those who love him,”
10
this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.

For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God.
11
Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.
12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
13
And *we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. **
14
Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. **
15
The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.
16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Peace be with you

Well done, THANKS!

God Bless you

PJM

 

[PJM]

Great question.

As a non-Catholic, I did not, initially, believe in Real presence of any sort…reason being is Jesus spoke figuratively so often.

This is where ECF’s come in handy.

Some of the earliest documents like the Didache refer to it as a spiritual food.

That is a GREAT point,

Which is WHY {Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Mt 28:19-20, Acts 20:28 {Douay Bible}, and Eph 4::1-7} need to be rightly understood…

If one is unable to grasp that God" both Yahweh and Jesus Desired and DID command belief in:

Just one God {the 1st Commandment}

Just one set of faith beliefs {logically and morally nothing else is even possible}; and it seems impossible that GOD would have waited for Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin or Smith to make know what had already been beliefs and practice {with countless Martyrs} for more than 1,500 YEARS:shrug:

And in and through just one :
“Chosen people” Yahweh Exodus 6:7
“My CHURCH” {singular****} Jesus in Mt 16:18

*** It is notable that it is impossible to seperate “a church” FROM the set of faith beliefs of that church. Amen

Then there were the beliefs and practices of the EARLY church {please read POST #20}

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Again, there is no scientific evidence of the Real Presence. If there is please post a link of the studies and the scientific methods carried out to prove it real.

Save

True there is no scientific evidence that God exist.

There is no scientific evidence that proves where Love comes from and Love exist.

There is no scientific evidence what is contained in the human conscience.

I can go and on about what scientific evidence cannot prove.

Yet scientific evidence can never disprove that God does not exist, Love does not exist, ones conscience does not exist, nor can science disprove the real presence.

Yet the Church disproves science’s argument against the real, true substantial presence in the Eucharist using it’s own understanding which silences the scientific mind’s with TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

peace be with you

 

[Reuben_J]

Miracles are for the unbelievers, so there is physical evidence and witnesses to Eucharistic miracles either directly or indirectly. We believers are called to faith and to have the mind of Christ in the real presence in the Eucharist.

We are called to believe in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, to be clear.

Let just say I would not take the approach to support the above belief with physical evidence. It’s more difficult to defend.

I am interested to know what do you mean by physical evidence in Eucharistic miracles? I agree if they are indirect evidence, but direct evidence? Maybe you can explain to us about it.

Are you not satisfied that the host is Body and Blood of the divine Jesus? How do you know the substance of the Body and Blood ofJesus look like? Do the miracles tell us tell us what they should look like?

Thanks.

 

[Reuben_J]

PLEASE read post #20 my reply to what your agreeing with {The OP}

God Bless you

Patrick

Thanks. That was a great argument to support the belief of the Real Presence.

God bless.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Reuben J;14198633]We are called to believe in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, to be clear.

Let just say I would not take the approach to support the above belief with physical evidence. It’s more difficult to defend.

In keeping with Church Tradition; Physical Miracles are for the unbelievers, whom God is calling home.

I am interested to know what do you mean by physical evidence in Eucharistic miracles? I agree if they are indirect evidence, but direct evidence? Maybe you can explain to us about it.

You can see physical miracles of the Eucharist here; churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/. The Miracle of Lanciano – 8th century reveals an unbelieving Catholic Priest in the real presence. Notice the transformation of the doubters and unbelievers who physically witnessed Eucharistic miracles.

There is hardly any fame to the physical evidence, but God is given glory and praise for the transformation of the unbelievers and those who doubted the real presence.

For our discussion the very first physical evidence of the real presence is recorded from sacred scripture and this is a true miracle in purest sense, and I would encourage all to read the whole context of this physical miracle of the Eucharist.

Luke 24:25 And he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!
29
But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30
And it happened that, **while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **32
Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning [within us] while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”

(This Eucharistic miracle happens for me at every Mass, and in every age)

35
Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
44
He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”

Are you not satisfied that the host is Body and Blood of the divine Jesus? How do you know the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus look like? Do the miracles tell us tell us what they should look like?

Thanks.

I am never satisfied for myself in these mysteries. But I am completely satisfied that God has revealed His True presence in the Eucharist to me, to which I physically, humbly bow and kneel before His name; Praise be Jesus Christ, both now and forever.

For me, faith supersedes all carnal knowledge and understanding. If it were not for the miracles of Jesus real presence in the Eucharist in my personal journey of faith, I would still be an unbeliever.

In short I am one who is blind to the physical evidence, yet, Jesus provides a miracle for me, to see his body, blood, soul and divinity, with the eyes of faith in Jesus Christ, I can see and know all things with faith in God who reveals and wants to make known His love to our humanity. This I have tasted that the Lord is good.

bless you for allowing me to share;

Peace be with you

 

[Reuben_J]

In keeping with Church Tradition; Physical Miracles are for the unbelievers, whom God is calling home.

You can see physical miracles of the Eucharist here; churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/. The Miracle of Lanciano – 8th century reveals an unbelieving Catholic Priest in the real presence. Notice the transformation of the doubters and unbelievers who physically witnessed Eucharistic miracles.

There is hardly any fame to the physical evidence, but God is given glory and praise for the transformation of the unbelievers and those who doubted the real presence.

For our discussion the very first physical evidence of the real presence is recorded from sacred scripture and this is a true miracle in purest sense, and I would encourage all to read the whole context of this physical miracle of the Eucharist.

Luke 24:25 And he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!
29
But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30
And it happened that, **while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **32
Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning [within us] while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”

(This Eucharistic miracle happens for me at every Mass, and in every age)

35
Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.
44
He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”

I am never satisfied for myself in these mysteries. But I am completely satisfied that God has revealed His True presence in the Eucharist to me, to which I physically, humbly bow and kneel before His name; Praise be Jesus Christ, both now and forever.

For me, faith supersedes all carnal knowledge and understanding. If it were not for the miracles of Jesus real presence in the Eucharist in my personal journey of faith, I would still be an unbeliever.

In short I am one who is blind to the physical evidence, yet, Jesus provides a miracle for me, to see his body, blood, soul and divinity, with the eyes of faith in Jesus Christ, I can see and know all things with faith in God who reveals and wants to make known His love to our humanity. This I have tasted that the Lord is good.

bless you for allowing me to share;

Peace be with you

Hi. With all due respect but you are simply appealing to my belief. I have no problem in believing in all that and I know about the miracle at Lanciano. I just do not think that they were physical evidence that would satisfy non-believers.

If I am to take this line in explaining to non-Catholics, I would have to be sure that it is foolproof and empirically proven otherwise it would be just about faith, which it is. The explanation, biblical references and that real presence was being believed historically were good enough to support this belief but physical evidence is another matter altogether.

The Eucharistic miracles would be more for believers rather than non-believers because they are non-conclusive to the latter. To the believers, they are manifestations of their belief, and for them to happen is because of God’s love that they may witness the action of God, as you said, to strengthen their faith and belief.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Reuben J;14198749]Hi. With all due respect but you are simply appealing to my belief. I have no problem in believing in all that and I know about the miracle at Lanciano. I just do not think that they were physical evidence that would satisfy non-believers.

On the contrary, the Church approved the miracle as worthy of belief, not for the physical evidence necessarily, but the result from the cause and effect, which converted the hearts and minds of unbelievers to faith, which is the true miracle.

Miracles of God are not to satisfy “non-believers”. There never are any miracles from heaven to satisfy “non-believers”.

If I am to take this line in explaining to non-Catholics, I would have to be sure that it is foolproof and empirically proven otherwise it would be just about faith, which it is.

It is not our role in convincing or converting heart and minds of unbelievers to faith. We can only water and plant the seeds of faith, it is God who supplies the increase.

I would never have gained the gift of faith, had a person convinced me and converted me. Only God can convert hearts and minds, who gives the gift of faith. I received my gift of faith at my infant baptism.

There was an age in the early Church, that faith in the Eucharist was revealed only to the catechumens. When it was illegal to be Christian and practice the Eucharist in Mass. The mystery of the faith in the Eucharist was not public information, and was not given to non-Catholics, as it is today.

The explanation, biblical references and that real presence was being believed historically were good enough to support this belief but physical evidence is another matter altogether.

The biblical reference reveals both physical evidence of the True presence and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no difference today. There are apostolic witnesses today to give witness to the Eucharistic miracles, just the same as the witnesses on the road to Emmaus shared their faith. Each physical miracle in the Eucharist is revealed in a time and place before non-believers, who came to believe.

I believe the Church approved definition of Transubstantiation is the physical proof for today’s unbelieving intellectuals. The physical miracle is revealed in the cause and effect, the cause is the True presence and the effect is the conversion of hearts and minds to faith.

The Eucharistic miracles would be more for believers rather than non-believers because they are non-conclusive to the latter.

I know of believers who attend the Eucharistic miracle at Mass, and do not blink. I know of non-believers who witnessed the miracle of Eucharist at Mass, for the first time and gained a desire to learn more and converted to the faith.

In conclusion, I would agree with you, there is no miraculous physical evidence that will satisfy a non-believer and there remains unbelievers who witnessed Jesus face to face and never converted, Judas Iscariot being the first.

Peace be with you

 

[Reuben_J]

On the contrary, the Church approved the miracle as worthy of belief, not for the physical evidence necessarily, but the result from the cause and effect, which converted the hearts and minds of unbelievers to faith, which is the true miracle.

Miracles of God are not to satisfy “non-believers”. There never are any miracles from heaven to satisfy “non-believers”.

It is not our role in convincing or converting heart and minds of unbelievers to faith. We can only water and plant the seeds of faith, it is God who supplies the increase.

I would never have gained the gift of faith, had a person convinced me and converted me. Only God can convert hearts and minds, who gives the gift of faith. I received my gift of faith at my infant baptism.

There was an age in the early Church, that faith in the Eucharist was revealed only to the catechumens. When it was illegal to be Christian and practice the Eucharist in Mass. The mystery of the faith in the Eucharist was not public information, and was not given to non-Catholics, as it is today.

The biblical reference reveals both physical evidence of the True presence and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no difference today. There are apostolic witnesses today to give witness to the Eucharistic miracles, just the same as the witnesses on the road to Emmaus shared their faith. Each physical miracle in the Eucharist is revealed in a time and place before non-believers, who came to believe.

I believe the Church approved definition of Transubstantiation is the physical proof for today’s unbelieving intellectuals. The physical miracle is revealed in the cause and effect, the cause is the True presence and the effect is the conversion of hearts and minds to faith.

I know of believers who attend the Eucharistic miracle at Mass, and do not blink. I know of non-believers who witnessed the miracle of Eucharist at Mass, for the first time and gained a desire to learn more and converted to the faith.

In conclusion, I would agree with you, there is no miraculous physical evidence that will satisfy a non-believer and there remains unbelievers who witnessed Jesus face to face and never converted, Judas Iscariot being the first.

Peace be with you

Great post and you speak well on your account. I notice you concluded your explanation. Forgive me for being stubborn but I have not seen physical evidence being explained, rather than the fact you maintain it is. I am a tough nut on this and by the same token would not claim physics evidence in defense of Real Presence. Having heard others doing this, I am interested to know how feasible it is to go along that line.

As a matter of curiosity, and since you said so, what was that physical evidence that necessitated the Church to declare the doctrine of transubstantiation or was transubstantiation declared regardless of any physical evidence but rather because it simply is?

How was the miracle exactly a physical evidence? Yes, the host did not corrupt and flesh and blood was found in its place. What about the usual host that still maintain its normal physical characteristic, which is the Church teaching - the substance is changed, not the accident? If the miracle was to prove physical evidence would it not conflict with the Church teaching on transubstantiation?

God bless and take care.

 

[susanlo]

[1] The evidence in the Real Presence by the Early Church is biblically grounded:
Prior to the term “Mass” being created to explain this practice and its related believes, it was termed “THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD”

Acts 2:42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The Early Fathers on the Eucharist: Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist
**

The Didache(c. 90 A.D.**)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. …

On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: "In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE.

---

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

PJM [the OP}

There is no clear evidence of a Christian believing that the substance of the bread and wine physically converted to literal body and blood until Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan in the 4th century.

The Didache you quoted refers to the elements as cup and broken bread.

The Letter to the Romans by Ignatius uses much symbolic language. The entire chapter your quote is from contains a lot of allegory.:

“Chapter 7. Reason of desiring to die
The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

In this paragraph is he requesting to partake of transubstantiated Eucharist? Or is he requesting for the church in Rome to not attempt to prevent his martyrdom so he could die and be with Christ?

Elsewhere in the letter he writes that he (Ignatius) is actually the bread of Christ. This is clearly not meant to be literal here.
“I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”

Much of this letter is not meant to be taken literally.

The quote from Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians is speaking of unity and not of a literal transformation of the elements.
[/quote]

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There is no clear evidence of a Christian believing that the substance of the bread and wine physically converted to literal body and blood until Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan in the 4th century.

Hi Susan

Still VERY much considered the Patristic era, BTW. Still no bible.

The Didache you quoted refers to the elements as cup and broken bread.

The Didache is meant for Church instruction. So of course it’s referring to the non-consecrated items. It also refers to Eucharist as “spiritual food”…not exactly Baptist’s ‘symbolic’ Welch’s grape juice.

And this coincides with Hebrews 6:4, often totally misinterepted by modern day non Catholic Christianity:

Hebrews 6:4New International Version (NIV)

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have** tasted the heavenly gift,** who have shared in the Holy Spirit,

“Tasted the Heavenly gift” has always been understood to be the “spiritual food”, or Eucharist. Not encountering Jesus at a Christian rock concert, as some may believe.

The quote from Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians is speaking of unity and not of a literal transformation of the elements.

Well let’s examine that Eucharistic quote:

CHAPTER IV.–HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC.

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

Again, describing the SACRIFICIAL nature of the Mass. I’m guessing there is no altar in your church? There is in the Catholic Church. See prophetic passage of Malachi 1:11:

Malachi 1:11New International Version (NIV)

11 My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.

Only one pure offering and it’s the Lord Jesus. And there is one world wide Church offering Masses with incense and said offering from sun up to sun down, every day.

And in this particular letter Ignatius speaks on submission to the Bishops and says where this is division, God does not dwell. Very much Catholic or Orthodox accept it all, or be anathema type language.

Pax

 

[PJM]

True there is no scientific evidence that God exist.

There is no scientific evidence that proves where Love comes from and Love exist.

There is no scientific evidence what is contained in the human conscience.

I can go and on about what scientific evidence cannot prove.

Yet scientific evidence can never disprove that God does not exist, Love does not exist, ones conscience does not exist, nor can science disprove the real presence.

Yet the Church disproves science’s argument against the real, true substantial presence in the Eucharist using it’s own understanding which silences the scientific mind’s with TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

peace be with you

AWESOME POST:thumbsup:

Thank you

 

[PJM]

Thanks. That was a great argument to support the belief of the Real Presence.

God bless.

Thank you so very much

GB

 

[PJM]

There is no clear evidence of a Christian believing that the substance of the bread and wine physically converted to literal body and blood until Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of Milan in the 4th century.

The Didache you quoted refers to the elements as cup and broken bread.

The Letter to the Romans by Ignatius uses much symbolic language. The entire chapter your quote is from contains a lot of allegory.:

[Your POST edited as needed for space]

The quote from Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians is speaking of unity and not of a literal transformation of the elements.

Sincere thanks for sharing,

I reckon this proves “you can lead a horse to water, BUT can’t make him drink:shrug: it?”

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

**2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 **“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

**Col.2: 8 **“See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ”

This IS my friend, a Godly, profound teachung that exceeds human logic, UNLESS we recognize that All MIGHTY God can do :ANY good thing."; and if as is TRUEm God Did and DOES choose to do this it is the VERY best of all possible GOOD, as it is Jesus Himself. Amen!

So Ill try again

Acts Of Apostles 2:46
And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

Acts Of Apostles 20:11
Then going up, and breaking bread and tasting, and having talked a long time to them, until daylight, so he departed.

{FYI} Each of these passages refers to the Most holy Eucharist, and the last one ALSO to the Consecrated

Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking ofthe bread.

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of thebreaking of bread, and in prayers

As A FYI:

EACH of the above bible passages in speaking of the now TERMED “ Real Presence”; and the last of these also includes the now TERMED Traunsbstanuation of the Wine NOW the Blood of Christ in His NOW Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity
Further here is evidence of the Early {Catholic} Church Fathers and some of their TEACHINGS

OK

Then perhaps MY friend you can explain this.

IN the bible, the VERY Early RCC {pre-other Christian sects} used the terminology of
“BREAKING OF THE BREAD” to describe today’s Dogma of Transubstantiation:
As for your personal thoughts of Saint Ignatius:

“ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D END QUOTES]

****And here is further teaching of the early Catholic Fathers, for your edification. Amen!

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#ignatius**
**

 

[Padres1969]

Dear friend in Chruist

Just how valid, {or IYO} mistaken, is the evidence of “The REAL Presence”?

God Bess you

Patrick

I find much of the Catholic evidence for the Real Presence to be in line with my own beliefs. I don’t go so far as to say it definitely happens by way of Transubstantiation. But I do believe via the sacred mystery, whatever form that takes, that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist. So I would say it’s on the whole valid.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Has anyone quoted the First Apology of Justin Martyr? Didn’t see it quoted in this thread.

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.

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.**

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

This was written to the Roman emperor as explanation for our Christian beliefs. Dated about 150AD and boy oh boy is it Catholic in language as he describes a Catholic Mass here. Describes the elements, the prayers and consecration, etc, etc.

 

[susanlo]

Hi Susan

Still VERY much considered the Patristic era, BTW. Still no bible.

The 4th century was a long time ago and seems relatively close to the time of Christ from where we are in 2016, but 300 years is a long time for things to change. Just think of what our world and Christianity was like 300 years ago as compared to now.

They did not have a leather bound book with Holy Bible on the cover, but Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose were aware of what Scripture was.

Cyril of Jerusalem in his 4th Catechetical Lecture circa 350AD:
"35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but* have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings*. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave , and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of **Esdras **are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.

1. Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say. Thus much of these subjects."
   newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
   The only one I don’t see is Revelation. (I believe the 2 Esdras include Ezra and Nehemiah).

The Didache is meant for Church instruction. So of course it’s referring to the non-consecrated items. It also refers to Eucharist as “spiritual food”…not exactly Baptist’s ‘symbolic’ Welch’s grape juice.

And this coincides with Hebrews 6:4, often totally misinterepted by modern day non Catholic Christianity:

“Tasted the Heavenly gift” has always been understood to be the “spiritual food”, or Eucharist. Not encountering Jesus at a Christian rock concert, as some may believe.

I don’t know how “spiritual food” clearly means bread literally transformed into flesh. Also, why couldn’t bread that was blessed with prayer and taken in church in memory of Jesus’ sacrifice be “spiritual food?” I think that the term “spiritual food” is not very specific as to what the author believed the elements to be.

Well let’s examine that Eucharistic quote:

Again, describing the SACRIFICIAL nature of the Mass. I’m guessing there is no altar in your church? There is in the Catholic Church. See prophetic passage of Malachi 1:11:

Only one pure offering and it’s the Lord Jesus. And there is one world wide Church offering Masses with incense and said offering from sun up to sun down, every day.

I do believe that the early Christians did believe that the Eucharist was similar to a sacrifice. It was a thank offering to remember that Jesus had already completed the propitiatory (sin) sacrifice and they were now “saved” and giving praise to God with their Eucharist which literally means “thanksgiving.”

"Zebach Sh’lamim: Peace Offering

A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh’lamim (or sometimes just sh’lamim), which is related to the word shalom, meaning “peace” or “whole.” A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim, and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family; thus, everyone gets a part of this offering. This category of offerings includes thanksgiving-offerings (in Hebrew, Todah, which was obligatory for survivors of life-threatening crises), free will-offerings, and offerings made after fulfillment of a vow. Note that this class of offerings has nothing to do with sin; in fact, the Talmud states that in the age of the messiah (when there is no more sin), this will be the only class of offering that is brought to the Temple."
jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

 

[susanlo]

IN the bible, the VERY Early RCC {pre-other Christian sects} used the terminology of
“BREAKING OF THE BREAD” to describe today’s Dogma of Transubstantiation:

I don’t know how “breaking of the bread” means transubstantiation. I don’t understand the connection of these phrases.

“ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

As you read the whole letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) you see that he is writing about the heresy of Docetism which was a belief that Jesus did not possess a body and that he was only phantom-like without matter. The Docetists did not believe that Christ suffered on the cross or shed blood, but it was just a mere appearance. For this reason they did not participate in communion at all. With this understanding I believe it is hard to differentiate if they refused to take bread and wine because they did not believe that the elements converted to actual body and blood or whether they did not want to commemorate with symbols Christ’s suffering on the cross which they did not believe actually occurred.
britannica.com/topic/Docetism