Why dear friend do you not believe in the Real Presence

[Blacksword]

My statement about Augustine was that: “Augustine later writes that John 6 is figurative and not to be taken literally.” I should have specified John 6:53 and not the whole chapter, but I don’t think that is misrepresenting him. He wrote:
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness.”

He is talking about whether phrases are taken literally or figuratively. He writes in a previous chapter:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

He clearly states that John 6:53 is figurative, and stating that isn’t misrepresenting him even if you decide to re-define figurative.

“But, He drummed upon the doors of the city: what are the doors of the city, but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? And was carried in His Own Hands: how carried in His Own Hands? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, This is My Body. Matthew*26:26 And He fell down at the doors of the gate; that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

This doesn’t seem to be speaking of transubstantiation.

I’m not redefining “figure” you are. You didn’t bother responding to the numerous quotes including St. Augustine’s or the link I gave discussing IN CONTEXT what his use of “figure” means. If you read further it is clear he uses that term in the SAME way the Catholic Church does today. “Figure” does NOT mean “figurative”. You are wrong about Augustine just admit this and move on, he believed in the Real Presence because shock he was a Catholic bishop!

 

[Blacksword]

The full text for sermon 227 david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

“You are yourselves what you receive”

“You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.”

“Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed?†9 Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven.”

The full text for sermon 272 earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

“My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.””

“So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.””

And? None of this changes the fact that he accepted the Real Presence. Protestant thinking tends to be very either/or, whereas the Catholic Church says "no, it’s “both/and” about many things, you’ve set up a false dichotomy between spiritual/physical and figure/literal, that’s not the way Augustine was writing or thinking, as is clear from his quotes.

 

[Blacksword]

The Letter to the Smyrnaeans was a warning against Docetism. “Docetism is the belief that Jesus Christ did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion.”

Chapter 5 - “Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

They don’t participate in the Eucharist and prayer not specifically because of any belief about the substance of the bread, but because they denied that Jesus ever even had flesh and denied that he died on the cross. This doesn’t mean that Ignatius didn’t believe in some form of transubstantiation, but it hardly means that he did. There would be no point in participating in the Eucharist if it was even remembering that Jesus had flesh if you didn’t believe that He did have flesh.

The Letter to the Romans is about him requesting the Church in Rome to not intervene in any way to prevent his martyrdom. The chapter your quote is from has much 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.

In Chapter 4 he writes: “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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

I don’t think this passage in your quote is about him requesting to receive the Eucharist, but metaphorical language about wanting to be martyred.

Actually it does mean he believed in the Real Presence because he is specifically equating the flesh of the real, physical Jesus who died on the cross with the Eucharist. Kudos to you on seeing the link in this being a reply to the Docetists, but then you inexplicably miss what clearly follows from this: the Eucharist is therefore also Jesus’ real, physical flesh. The Real Presence is very much a mere continuation of the Incarnation itself.

 

[Blacksword]

“For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.”
newadvent.org/fathers/03123.htm

“The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood.”
newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

I don’t have Tertullian’s writings in their original translation, but I understand that Tertullian used the same terms in other writings where he clearly meant to use figurative language.

“Chapter 37. Christ’s Assertion About the Unprofitableness of the Flesh Explained Consistently with Our Doctrine.
He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: The flesh profits nothing.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

Again, “either/or” Protestant mistake, it’s both/and. And again, you aren’t bothering to try to put in context what he means by “figure”, it doesn’t mean “merely symbolic”, rather, Tertullian understood “figure” as “sign” or also one might say “metaphysical truth lying beneath what is seen” in philosophical terms.

 

[Blacksword]

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise…very interesting understanding of fetal development and breast-feeding…Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. John6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving”
newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

I don’t think any of this can be taken at face value. He is not discussing the Eucharist, but how people are nourished by word and knowledge. (I think, it is kind of confusing to say the least.)

I am not going to post about all of your quotes on here, but it is important to look at each one in-depth and not take it at face value. Some early theologians, like Ambrose that you quoted, did write about a change in the Eucharistic elements. Others only appear to be saying that when they are in fact writing about something else altogether. It is often more complicated then a few brief quotes.

And I’ll say it again, “symbol” doesn’t mean “merely an idea” or some such. It means “sign” in this case, just like “figure” or, dare I say it, the similar term “sacrament”. That is, a metaphysical reality happening beneath the visible physically observable accidents, one that can convey grace by God.

 

[Blacksword]

I don’t think I will be able to understand it. Thank you for trying.

I read some of what Thomas Aquinas wrote on it today and I don’t think I can grasp it. I am a scientific person and I don’t think I can make my brain work in a way that can understand it. The physical substance remains unchanged, yet something which I can’t put my finger on does change. This change is not physical, but it isn’t merely spiritual or merely the meaning of the elements.

I think to answer the question of the post would be mostly because I can’t even understand it. I don’t know if all 3000 of the new Christians in Acts 2 suddenly comprehended this idea after a short sermon before becoming (non-separated) Christians, and today we just struggle with it. Or maybe understanding it isn’t necessary to be a Christian and understand what Communion is actually all about - which is remembering Jesus’ sacrifice to provide salvation for man.

I’m a scientific person too, love science! But science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with truth and how we know it, what it means to know it, the metaphysics underlying it all. Put is this way: whatever it is that is “chairness” that is the metaphysical property of “being a chair” that all chairs share in, it isn’t something that science can observe. But it is a property that all chairs indeed share. Similarly, in the Eucharist, that unobservable property of “breadness” or “wineness” ceases to be there, and instead has become the metaphysical reality of Christ’s glorified body and blood, making Calvary present to us in that moment, or rather us present to Calvary, to be more precise.

 

[Tomdstone]

… has become the metaphysical reality of Christ’s glorified body and blood,

It seems a bit problematical to have Christ’s glorified body and blood present at the Last Supper, before the Crucifixion.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

It’s a matter of FAITH.
No amount of debate or scientific scrutiny will convince anyone.

 

[rcwitness]

My statement about Augustine was that: “Augustine later writes that John 6 is figurative and not to be taken literally.” I should have specified John 6:53 and not the whole chapter, but I don’t think that is misrepresenting him. He wrote:
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness.”

He is talking about whether phrases are taken literally or figuratively. He writes in a previous chapter:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

He clearly states that John 6:53 is figurative, and stating that isn’t misrepresenting him even if you decide to re-define figurative.

“But, He drummed upon the doors of the city: what are the doors of the city, but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? And was carried in His Own Hands: how carried in His Own Hands? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, This is My Body. Matthew*26:26 And He fell down at the doors of the gate; that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

This doesn’t seem to be speaking of transubstantiation.

I believe St Augustine is emphasizing the figurative aspect of “enjoin in Christ’s suffering” through Communion. We don’t actually suffer when we eat Communion, right? This is a figurative aspect of abiding in Him. But in order to receive Communion (and especially worthily), we must have a real and substantial relationship with God and brother. We must stand up for His body! We must circle His body and suffer what befalls Him.

For example, when St. Paul tells us to discern the body, when receiving Communion, what does He mean? He means figuratively. Examine Christ and brother. What we eat is Christ, but Paul isn’t telling us to examine the bread and wine.

 

[Blacksword]

It seems a bit problematical to have Christ’s glorified body and blood present at the Last Supper, before the Crucifixion.

No it isn’t. God is outside of time and therefore not bound by “before” or “after”. It’s no more problematic than is God the Son being present from the foundation of the world, billions of years before his birth in Bethelehem.

 

[rcwitness]

No it isn’t. God is outside of time and therefore not bound by “before” or “after”. It’s no more problematic than is god the Som being present from the foundation of the world, billions of years before his birth in Bethelehem.

I think the Transfiguration is a better example.

 

[Blacksword]

I think the Transfiguration is a better example.

True another fine example. I’ve also heard before theological musing that it was God the Son speaking to Moses in the burning bush, though I’m not sure there’s any reason to conclude that must have been so, but in any event the fact that it could have been again shows that temporality has no bearing on the infinite God.

 

[Wannano]

It’s a matter of FAITH.
No amount of debate or scientific scrutiny will convince anyone.

I am leaning your way!

 

[PJM]

My statement about Augustine was that: “Augustine later writes that John 6 is figurative and not to be taken literally.” I should have specified John 6:53 and not the whole chapter,

24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness."

Consider this

1. Augustine as GREAT as he was & is not the Pope & speaks only for himself, unless the Pope say’s otherwise
2. There is grave danger in culling any one verse from the bible and trying to build a doctrine around it. Every teaching is to be kept in the context of the entire work to gain right understanding

Note please that verse 53 is forcefully articulated in verses 55-58

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

[57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him [which is precisely what DOES take place in Catholic Holy Communion]

Have you GOOGLES “Eucharistic Miracles yet?”

I Please GOOGLE “Early Fathers on the Eucharist” [covered in eariler post on this string]

1. The Eucharist is the GREATEST possible of ALL** Benevolent acts’** Jesus Himself as Augustine negates all support of your your position?

newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

He clearly states that John 6:53 is figurative, and stating that isn’t misrepresenting him even if you decide to re-define figurative.

NO!, only in your limited understanding.

“But, He drummed upon the doors of the city: what are the doors of the city, but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? And was carried in His Own Hands: how carried in His Own Hands? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, This is My Body. Matthew*26:26 And He fell down at the doors of the gate; that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

This doesn’t seem to be speaking of transubstantiation.

PLEASE PULL UP THIS SITE & CAREFULLY READ ALL OF IT

http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence

“The Catholic Response

Actually, the Fathers of the Church were clearly unanimous when it comes to the Real Presence. As far as Tertullian is concerned, there is some question as to whether or not he should be categorized as a true Church Father because of the fact that he died a Montanist heretic. But that doesn’t really matter for our purpose here, because he clearly did believe in the Real Presence anyway.

When Tertullian and St. Augustine use the term “figurative,” they do not mean to deny the Real Presence. In the texts cited, St. Augustine, for example, is warning against falling into the trap of believing the Lord was going to cut off parts of his body and give them to us. This would be cannibalistic and that is a definite no-no.

Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.”

ALSO READ THIS ALL OF THIS SITE

Augustine on the Eucharist

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

GBY

 

[PJM]

The full text for sermon 227 david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

“You are yourselves what you receive”

“You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.”

“Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed?†9 Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven.”

The full text for sermon 272 earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

“My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.””

“So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.””

Thanks, well done:thumbsup:

GBY

 

[PJM]

the letter to the smyrnaeans was a warning against docetism. “docetism is the belief that jesus christ did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion.”

chapter 5 - “some ignorantly deny him, or rather have been denied by him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of moses, nor the gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my lord, not confessing that he was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied him, being enveloped in death.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

they don’t participate in the eucharist and prayer not specifically because of any belief about the substance of the bread, but because they denied that jesus ever even had flesh and denied that he died on the cross. This doesn’t mean that ignatius didn’t believe in some form of transubstantiation, but it hardly means that he did. There would be no point in participating in the eucharist if it was even remembering that jesus had flesh if you didn’t believe that he did have flesh.

The letter to the romans is about him requesting the church in rome to not intervene in any way to prevent his martyrdom. The chapter your quote is from has much 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.

in chapter 4 he writes: “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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

i don’t think this passage in your quote is about him requesting to receive the eucharist, but metaphorical language about wanting to be martyred.

thanks!

Gby

 

[PJM]

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise…very interesting understanding of fetal development and breast-feeding…Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. John6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving”
newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

I don’t think any of this can be taken at face value. He is not discussing the Eucharist, but how people are nourished by word and knowledge. (I think, it is kind of confusing to say the least.)

I am not going to post about all of your quotes on here, but it is important to look at each one in-depth and not take it at face value. Some early theologians, like Ambrose that you quoted, did write about a change in the Eucharistic elements. Others only appear to be saying that when they are in fact writing about something else altogether. It is often more complicated then a few brief quotes.

Ahhhhhhhh,

John 6:56-57

“[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.” & verse 57 describes precisely what DOES take place in Catholic Holy Communion

And what about Paul in 1st Cor. 11:26-30

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said:** Take ye, and eat: this is my body**, which shall be delivered for you:** this do for the commemoration of me.** [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27]** Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.“SLEEP” here means eternal damnation**

&

Matthew 26: 26-28
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

MARK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22: 19-21
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. 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.

That dear friend is FIVE separate New Testament giving testimony of this TRUTH

GBY

 

[PJM]

It seems a bit problematical to have Christ’s glorified body and blood present at the Last Supper, before the Crucifixion.

No NOT Really,

Time does not exist for GOD. Everything is always “present to Him”

Also God CAN do any good thing, and the Eucharist being God is the greatest possible od ALL “good things” Amen

GBY

 

[PJM]

It’s a matter of FAITH.
No amount of debate or scientific scrutiny will convince anyone.

Thank you

While I completely agree that ONLY God the Holy Spirit can grant RIGHT understanding, we nevertheless must not overlook GOD"S purpose for Eucharistic Miracles.

Please GOOGLE “the real presence,com”

GBY

 

[Tomdstone]

Time does not exist for GOD.

Did time exist for the Apostles? Did time exist for Jesus? Why did Jesus ask "“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” since time does not exist for God and Jesus knew that the cup would not be taken away?