J
- Status
R
rjg99a
Guest
I do understand how faith “fills the gaps” of the things that we can’t reason or logically know. After all, I believe in God because I somehow just know that a higher power exists; e.g. I have faith in His existence. However, the idea of a God in our world also makes sense to me. I may not be able to PROVE His existence, but the idea of a higher supernatural power still makes sense.
One thing that has drawn me to the Catholic faith in the first place is that so many of her doctrines and teachings are rooted in some sort of logic or reason. The Catholic church seems to have established answers for their beliefs, that that is something that I really, really appreciate and found lacking in the protestant denominations.
It’s like putting a complicated math problem up on the board and the professor telling the class that while scholars believe that the answer is X, that no one has yet been able to come up with a proof for this. I can look at the problem, hear the scholars’ explanations and likely also agree that the answer is probably X…even though it cannot be proved.
So while I think that pure faith is important, I also think it’s important that our beliefs are able to be reasoned out and still make sense…even if they can’t, like the math problem example above, technically be “proved”.
Does that make sense? I’m just trying to explain why I’m looking for a somewhat logical explanation about the Real Presence other than “it’s accepted by faith”. I’d like to know why the Catholic church believes that X is likely the answer, even though, yes ultimately there will still be some faith involved in the acceptance of X.
3
3_Dog_Night
Guest
What I have learned in my life is that “reason” (intellect) only gets me so far. Understanding all the “reasons” did not make me “reasonable”. Reason got me to the edge of the ocean shore. At some point I had to simply “let go” and “take that plunge.” Faith is what it took for me to wade in and take that swim. By the way, one of my frequent prayers – faith seeking understanding – if you will is: “Lord, I believe; please help my unbelief.”
My screen name is inspired by my three dogs – the thief, the beggar and the lady. Yep, I have three dogs – a chocolate lab, a black lab and a labradoodle. Never, in all my life did I plan or intend to have** three** dogs but it was truly meant to be. Woof. Woof. Woof.
My screen name is inspired by my three dogs – the thief, the beggar and the lady. Yep, I have three dogs – a chocolate lab, a black lab and a labradoodle. Never, in all my life did I plan or intend to have** three** dogs but it was truly meant to be. Woof. Woof. Woof.
R
Rolltide
Guest
With regard to the Real Presence in the Eucharist, perhaps it would be helpful to look at what those people closest to the disciples thought about the matter. After all, if you want to understand the passages in the Bible correctly, it would be useful to see what the first few generations of Christians actually thought.
Catholics believe that Jesus is not just symbolically present in Communion, but actually physically present. You may be interested to note that we are not the only denomination that holds to this view. In fact, about 2/3 of ALL Christians believe this to be true, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans. In order to prove the Real Presence, I think it’s essential to look at both what the Bible says and what has historically been true. After all, if it is a corruption, it should be fairly easy to track down at what point it entered into Catholic belief. Looking at what people believed in the very early church would be critical to your argument that it is false.
So, I’m going to begin to answer the question from the historical perspective, and then go back and deal with the Biblical issues. I realize that it will be very important to back up the claim with what’s taught in the Bible, since it is an inspired source. BUT, if we want to know how to correctly interpret that source, we need to see what the apostles and the followers of the apostles thought about how it should be interpreted. If it matters, I’m a professional historian at a small private college in the South, although my area of expertise is Latin America, not the Catholic Church or theology. (Just so you know that my research has some credibility.)
I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.
First, a couple of assumptions:
Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.
While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.
continued…
Catholics believe that Jesus is not just symbolically present in Communion, but actually physically present. You may be interested to note that we are not the only denomination that holds to this view. In fact, about 2/3 of ALL Christians believe this to be true, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans. In order to prove the Real Presence, I think it’s essential to look at both what the Bible says and what has historically been true. After all, if it is a corruption, it should be fairly easy to track down at what point it entered into Catholic belief. Looking at what people believed in the very early church would be critical to your argument that it is false.
So, I’m going to begin to answer the question from the historical perspective, and then go back and deal with the Biblical issues. I realize that it will be very important to back up the claim with what’s taught in the Bible, since it is an inspired source. BUT, if we want to know how to correctly interpret that source, we need to see what the apostles and the followers of the apostles thought about how it should be interpreted. If it matters, I’m a professional historian at a small private college in the South, although my area of expertise is Latin America, not the Catholic Church or theology. (Just so you know that my research has some credibility.)
I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.
First, a couple of assumptions:
- I think we can both agree that the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is established by the Reformation, so I will leave any discussion from that era out.
- Since the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Real Presence in the Orthodox Eucharist), we can assume that the doctrine predates the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox.
Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.
While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.
continued…
R
Rolltide
Guest
We can now proceed to push the date of the doctrine of the Real Presence back even further, using quotes from St. Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. Ambrose:
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“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 is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
These are all mainstream figures in the Catholic Church. Ambrose and Augustine were both important bishops. These statements are clear, and they define the position of the Catholic Church, which is then stated more formally at the Council of Ephesus. As a result, it’s clear that the idea of the Real Presence develops absolutely no later than the late 4th century.
I should mention that most of these quotes are coming from the Catholic Answers library. I’m just adding some additional commentary.
continued…
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“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 is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
These are all mainstream figures in the Catholic Church. Ambrose and Augustine were both important bishops. These statements are clear, and they define the position of the Catholic Church, which is then stated more formally at the Council of Ephesus. As a result, it’s clear that the idea of the Real Presence develops absolutely no later than the late 4th century.
I should mention that most of these quotes are coming from the Catholic Answers library. I’m just adding some additional commentary.
continued…
R
Rolltide
Guest
In 350 A.D., we have another very important document from Cyril of Jerusalem. He states:
“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).
Again, we have a clear indication of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now we begin with some quotes that are slightly less clear, but offer some strong evidence for the Real Presence:
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Now granted, this particular quote could be interpreted as merely symbolic, but given the documentary evidence from other sources and the fact that the Real Presence is clearly believed in 350 A.D., it strongly suggests that this quote is to be taken literally.
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]).
Here we have a reference to the Eucharist in one of the most important of all Church councils, the Council of Nicaea. The important parts of this quote are the reference to the sacrificial, rather than symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that it is regarded as something special and important enough that only priests and bishops may offer it.
Next, we have Cyprian of Carthage talking about how the Eucharist must be eaten only by those who have confessed of their sins. The sacrifice of the Eucharist may only be consumed by the pure, because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He then proceeds to back up his opinion through Holy Scripture:
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
continued…*
“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).
Again, we have a clear indication of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now we begin with some quotes that are slightly less clear, but offer some strong evidence for the Real Presence:
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Now granted, this particular quote could be interpreted as merely symbolic, but given the documentary evidence from other sources and the fact that the Real Presence is clearly believed in 350 A.D., it strongly suggests that this quote is to be taken literally.
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]).
Here we have a reference to the Eucharist in one of the most important of all Church councils, the Council of Nicaea. The important parts of this quote are the reference to the sacrificial, rather than symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that it is regarded as something special and important enough that only priests and bishops may offer it.
Next, we have Cyprian of Carthage talking about how the Eucharist must be eaten only by those who have confessed of their sins. The sacrifice of the Eucharist may only be consumed by the pure, because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He then proceeds to back up his opinion through Holy Scripture:
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
continued…*
R
Rolltide
Guest
Here are several more quotes:
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]).
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]).
Tertullian
“[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]).
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]).
Here is what J. N. D. Kelly has to say in his book Early Christian Doctrines about the above quotes. (pgs 211-212):
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. (see my last post) Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”.
Now, out of these last few passages, no single quote would support belief in the Real Presence all by itself. However, taken as a collection, it provides strong evidence that the belief was widespread. In light of even earlier documentary evidence (which I’ll give in my next post) that is far more clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence, these quotes become important as evidence of continuity.
continued…*
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]).
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]).
Tertullian
“[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]).
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]).
Here is what J. N. D. Kelly has to say in his book Early Christian Doctrines about the above quotes. (pgs 211-212):
“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. (see my last post) Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”.
Now, out of these last few passages, no single quote would support belief in the Real Presence all by itself. However, taken as a collection, it provides strong evidence that the belief was widespread. In light of even earlier documentary evidence (which I’ll give in my next post) that is far more clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence, these quotes become important as evidence of continuity.
continued…*
R
Rolltide
Guest
And finally, we come to the most important quotes of all:
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).
About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).
Now this IS significant! We have Iraneus of Lyons, in 189 A.D., writing an entire tract to refute the heresy of the Docetists. Here is what Wikipedia says about the Docetists:
"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], “to seem”) is the belief that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence “the Word was made Flesh” (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.
Christology and theological implications
This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.
Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view. Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, largely dying out during the first millennium A.D. . Other surviving gnostic movements, such as Catharism incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229)."
Irenaeus is arguing against Docetism because it denies the sacrifice of Jesus. If God could never take true human form because it was evil, then Jesus’ death was simply an illusion with no real value. Irenaeus HAD to emphasize the Real Presence as part of his argument to prove that Jesus actually DID become flesh. How could someone reject the Real Presence as possible if it didn’t already exist?! The document by Irenaeus is long, but clear, and combined with the other quotes above, helps to push the date for the Real Presence all the way back to the late 2nd century. Keep in mind that Irenaeus was born a mere 25-30 years after the death of the Apostle John, so we are now getting VERY close to the New Testament era.
continued…
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).
About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).
Now this IS significant! We have Iraneus of Lyons, in 189 A.D., writing an entire tract to refute the heresy of the Docetists. Here is what Wikipedia says about the Docetists:
"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], “to seem”) is the belief that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence “the Word was made Flesh” (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.
Christology and theological implications
This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.
Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view. Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, largely dying out during the first millennium A.D. . Other surviving gnostic movements, such as Catharism incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229)."
Irenaeus is arguing against Docetism because it denies the sacrifice of Jesus. If God could never take true human form because it was evil, then Jesus’ death was simply an illusion with no real value. Irenaeus HAD to emphasize the Real Presence as part of his argument to prove that Jesus actually DID become flesh. How could someone reject the Real Presence as possible if it didn’t already exist?! The document by Irenaeus is long, but clear, and combined with the other quotes above, helps to push the date for the Real Presence all the way back to the late 2nd century. Keep in mind that Irenaeus was born a mere 25-30 years after the death of the Apostle John, so we are now getting VERY close to the New Testament era.
continued…
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
O Lumen is correct in saying that faith is necessary to believe many concepts.
For instance, Jesus didn’t sit down and teach the apostles about the Trinity or explain how He could be fully man and fully God, so these have to be accepted by faith.
However, He DID explain about how we have to eat His body and drink His blood. The early christians were considered to be cannibals by pagans. (Rome especially).
The explanation for the Eucharist has been passed on to you beautifully by Jmcrae, post no. 13. He strings together the whole idea, including the Passover meal. Even explaining how if it is not the body and blood of Christ, the foreshadow of the Passover is more important than the actual Eucharist - something I had never heard put that way before.
3dognight also gave a wonderful explanation and many recommended books and viewings.
I pray you read everything again and then ask the Holy Spirit to help you to understand. Many things must be accepted on faith, but this seems so clear.
I’m sorry that I’m posting again but this is important to me because I also used to not understand this until I studied it and I’m happy to report that it’s one of the few mysteries I actually understand and accept with my intellect - not on faith alone.
God bless you
For instance, Jesus didn’t sit down and teach the apostles about the Trinity or explain how He could be fully man and fully God, so these have to be accepted by faith.
However, He DID explain about how we have to eat His body and drink His blood. The early christians were considered to be cannibals by pagans. (Rome especially).
The explanation for the Eucharist has been passed on to you beautifully by Jmcrae, post no. 13. He strings together the whole idea, including the Passover meal. Even explaining how if it is not the body and blood of Christ, the foreshadow of the Passover is more important than the actual Eucharist - something I had never heard put that way before.
3dognight also gave a wonderful explanation and many recommended books and viewings.
I pray you read everything again and then ask the Holy Spirit to help you to understand. Many things must be accepted on faith, but this seems so clear.
I’m sorry that I’m posting again but this is important to me because I also used to not understand this until I studied it and I’m happy to report that it’s one of the few mysteries I actually understand and accept with my intellect - not on faith alone.
God bless you
R
Rolltide
Guest
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]).
Here, we have Justin Martyr writing an Apology (a defense of the Christian faith) to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to try and defend the practices of the Christians and thus end the illegality and persecution of the Church. As such, it had to be very accurate as to the current beliefs of the Catholic Church, as it would be read by high officials, and possibly Antoninus Pius himself. As a classically trained philosopher, he was well-versed in the debating methods of the time, as well as the arguments of the Romans themselves. The First Apology was written in 151 A.D., so the Real Presence is now clearly a Catholic doctrine just a mere 121 years after the death of Christ, and about 50 years after the death of John, the last surviving apostle.
Ignatius of Antioch
“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 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).
And finally, we have the most important quote of all. Our existing evidence suggests that Ignatius was trained by none other than the Apostle John himself, and that he was personally ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is a man who intimately knew and conversed with the Apostles, and even HE is professing belief in the Real Presence. He is doing this in his letters to his congregations, and we have written records of it as early as 110 AD. The Didache, written about 70 AD (not by Ignatius, but by an unknown author), is the oldest non-Biblical surviving document that we have about Christianity, and it too emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
So what’s the bottom line? If the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a false teaching, then the Apostles themselves incorrectly trained and appointed a bishop with false beliefs, and are responsible for the perversion of the Catholic Church. It is very clear that this would not be likely. There are other documents that also support this opinion, but I’ve only listed the most important and significant ones. I should also point out some relevant Bible passages:
1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71
It would also do you well to read “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. It describes in detail how the Catholic Church has always taught that the Book of Revelation by John is in fact an analogy describing the Sacrifice of the Mass. Most of the images used are direct symbolic representations of the various parts of the Catholic Mass. His interpretation is not new (nor is it the only acceptable one), but it does demonstrate how the Mass IS highly Biblical, as is the Real Presence and its sacrificial nature.
I now give you some time to digest all of this…*
“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]).
Here, we have Justin Martyr writing an Apology (a defense of the Christian faith) to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to try and defend the practices of the Christians and thus end the illegality and persecution of the Church. As such, it had to be very accurate as to the current beliefs of the Catholic Church, as it would be read by high officials, and possibly Antoninus Pius himself. As a classically trained philosopher, he was well-versed in the debating methods of the time, as well as the arguments of the Romans themselves. The First Apology was written in 151 A.D., so the Real Presence is now clearly a Catholic doctrine just a mere 121 years after the death of Christ, and about 50 years after the death of John, the last surviving apostle.
Ignatius of Antioch
“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 [A.D. 110]).
“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]).
And finally, we have the most important quote of all. Our existing evidence suggests that Ignatius was trained by none other than the Apostle John himself, and that he was personally ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is a man who intimately knew and conversed with the Apostles, and even HE is professing belief in the Real Presence. He is doing this in his letters to his congregations, and we have written records of it as early as 110 AD. The Didache, written about 70 AD (not by Ignatius, but by an unknown author), is the oldest non-Biblical surviving document that we have about Christianity, and it too emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
So what’s the bottom line? If the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a false teaching, then the Apostles themselves incorrectly trained and appointed a bishop with false beliefs, and are responsible for the perversion of the Catholic Church. It is very clear that this would not be likely. There are other documents that also support this opinion, but I’ve only listed the most important and significant ones. I should also point out some relevant Bible passages:
1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71
It would also do you well to read “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. It describes in detail how the Catholic Church has always taught that the Book of Revelation by John is in fact an analogy describing the Sacrifice of the Mass. Most of the images used are direct symbolic representations of the various parts of the Catholic Mass. His interpretation is not new (nor is it the only acceptable one), but it does demonstrate how the Mass IS highly Biblical, as is the Real Presence and its sacrificial nature.
I now give you some time to digest all of this…*
R
Richca
Guest
It boils down too the very words and teaching of Jesus Christ himself. The manna as well as the Passover meal of the Old Testament were figures of the eucharist. In the bread of life discourse in the gospel of St John, Jesus says “I am the bread of life,” and “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” At the Last Supper, Jesus said “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…”
Two, it has been the constant Tradition, faith, and teaching of the Church from apostolic times, through the Church Fathers, down to our present day that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ.
The posters here have mentioned some great books on the eucharist. The Hidden Manna, A Theology of the Eucharist by Rev. James T. O’Connor is excellent. This book is a kind of study of the Church’s faith, teaching, and theology of the eucharist from the time of Jesus and the apostles, through the church fathers, the middle ages, Council of Trent, Vatican II, down to our present day.
Another excellent book which I don’t think has been mentioned here yet is “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper” by Brant Pitre. This book studies the celebration of the eucharist which Jesus instituted at the Last Supper and its connection with the figures of it in the Old Testament especially the Passover sacrifice and meal and the manna the Israelites were given to eat in their journey in the desert. Jesus instituted the eucharist on the very evening of the Passover sacrifice and meal which the Jews celebrated every year. In effect, Jesus replaced the sacrifice of the passover lambs with the sacrifice of his own body and blood under the eucharistic species. The jews ate the sacrificed lambs and we also eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, the sacrificial lamb of the new and eternal covenant.
C
Chesster
Guest
God wants us to have a life giving union with Him, what better way to unite Himself with us then to become our food?
God also wants us to be holy. We become holy by contact with the blood of Christ. When God inaugurated the Mosaic Covenant Moses sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on all the people thus all the people came in contact with the blood of the covenant. Likewise with the new covenant we come in contact with the blood of the inaugurating sacrifice by the Holy Eucharist.
God also wants us to be holy. We become holy by contact with the blood of Christ. When God inaugurated the Mosaic Covenant Moses sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on all the people thus all the people came in contact with the blood of the covenant. Likewise with the new covenant we come in contact with the blood of the inaugurating sacrifice by the Holy Eucharist.
P
phil19034
Guest
Two additional book titles:
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist - book by Dr Brant Pitre
lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/jesus-and-the-jewish-roots-of-the-eucharist-book?promoCode=104130
And
The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth - book by Dr Scott Hahn:
lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/the-lamb-s-supper-the-mass-as-heaven-on-earth-book?promoCode=104130
You can purchase both books for $5 each via the above links
God Bless!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That’s easy…because The Eucharist IS Scriptural
S
slh3016
Guest
**
I now give you some time to digest all of this…**
Thank you for your fabulous historical account of the doctrine of the Real Presence.I truly hope the OP soaks in the information you provided. DH and I are in the process of becoming Catholic (from Protestantism) and DH’s brother has really taken an issue with this and is constantly trying to sway us. The Real Presence is something he doesn’t understand and questions the historicity of it. I’m going to send him the info you posted because it is so clear and concise. Again, thank you!
S
Sola_Catholicus
Guest
Most Protestants (unbiblically) see the Bread as purely symbolic…then they try to cling to some kind of importance by calling it “intently symbolic.” Most do it from around once a month to a few times a year. I’ve heard Protestants try to claim that John 6 (and I assume all accounts of the Last Supper) as parables…which is simply ridiculous. One cannot read John 6 and think that it’s a parable. Christ’s own disciples left him on account of what He said because it was that profound and that hard to handle. Christ made no mistake and repeated himself a few times for emphasis.
My question is…if it’s only symbolic and of no real significance…then why do they do it at all? If baptism is only symbolic and of no real significance…then why do that at all either?
My question is…if it’s only symbolic and of no real significance…then why do they do it at all? If baptism is only symbolic and of no real significance…then why do that at all either?
L
larrymocurley
Guest
That’s easy…because The Eucharist IS Scriptural
it is required as per the Counsal of trent–
which lists all the “required” dogma beliefs–
the word of faith group – would define this scriptural application to the scriptures–
or as Smith Wigglesworth say-- the bible says it so i believe it–
just as Jesus said – you shall receive power “after the Holy Spirit” comes upon you…
most church are waiting for the “manafestation” of the signs and wonders following
July 27, 2015
\
When Joshua Mills teaches and worships it attracts Heaven and the glory comes down. Healings come, and tangible peace, often with signs like heavenly gold dust.
Joshua says the same atmosphere belongs in your home!
it is required as per the Counsal of trent–
which lists all the “required” dogma beliefs–
the word of faith group – would define this scriptural application to the scriptures–
or as Smith Wigglesworth say-- the bible says it so i believe it–
just as Jesus said – you shall receive power “after the Holy Spirit” comes upon you…
most church are waiting for the “manafestation” of the signs and wonders following
July 27, 2015
\
When Joshua Mills teaches and worships it attracts Heaven and the glory comes down. Healings come, and tangible peace, often with signs like heavenly gold dust.
Joshua says the same atmosphere belongs in your home!
S
steve_b
Guest
I’m thinking of several quotes from Augustine
This one is on authority (all emphasis mine)
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?” *Augustine *Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental ch 4 para 5, & ch 5 para 6 (A.D. 397)."
Augustine made a very practical observation and explanation. Who else is he going to go to for truth but the Church that Jesus started Himself and gave all His promises to? And the Church that gave him the scriptures.
Here’s another quote addressing those who pick and choose what they want to believe rather than recognize and following valid authority
“to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel”
." Against Faustus, Book 17,* 3,* ]
r:
That’s a smart thing to do until you can come to faith
Paul put it very clearly.
1 Cor 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is forc] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
r:
You’re not the only one who found Jesus words hard to believe.
And IMV one of the scariest realities in scripture is, after they left Him, He didn’t stop them, He didn’t go after them. He let them go. Jesus let them go because He knew they didn’t have faith.
Jn 6:
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?e] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
You are describing Baptists not Protestants. Many Protestants believe in the real presence.
S
steve_b
Guest
Baptists are protestants.
A:
If they did they’d leave protestantism and become Catholics
- Status