Real Presence -- Trust the Bible

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

St John Chapter 6:

[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

this is KJV!!!!!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 23, 2004

Answers

[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

seems clear to me. not a token. not consubstantial. truly transubstantial.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 23, 2004.


That's great Ian, you skipped ton's of verses that show you the real context of the passage.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.

St Paul, 1st Epistle to Corinthians, Chapter 11:

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

"not discerning the Lord's body"

KJV!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 23, 2004.


CHAP. LXVI.--OF THE EUCHARIST. And this food is called among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6) For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Ad 150-ish

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 23, 2004.


"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (On Matthew, 11:14)

The Roman Catholic church father Origen didn't believe in 'transubstantiation.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.



"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

Augustine's view is contrary to your view Ian.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


"For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)

"For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: 'Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.' Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, 'He who hath renewed the face of the earth.' He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit." (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)

Irenaeus was also a "Catholic" church father, and he disagrees with you Ian.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)

Another church father disagrees with you Ian.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


Here is Augustine again Ian, I thought 'Catholics' were united?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.

"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. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


Again, Ian, great job of skipping over 8 verses which show the context of the passage.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.

Here is the whole chapter, so people can really read the context, instead of Ian's eisegesis.

John 6

1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,
9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
16 And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
18 And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)
24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


Another church father disagrees with Ian:

"'He that eateth me,' He says, 'he also shall live because of me;' for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says." - Basil (Letter 8:4)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


And another:

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


Wooah, Catholics are looking really united..

"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' 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 quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth 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 heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, 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 cometh down from heaven,' 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." - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.



"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." - Theophilus (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.

Tertullian rejects transubstantiation:

"Will not your [unbelieving] husband know what it is which you secretly taste before taking any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that bread which it is said to be?" (To His Wife, 2:5)

"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 quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'-- meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure....In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' 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. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." (Against Marcion, 4:40)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


Gelasius rejects transubstantiation

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine- nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (cited in Philip Schaff, 95)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Ian, are you saying that unless one eats the eucharist (which by the way, is not the same thing as the Lord's Supper), one does not have eternal life?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.


David's quote of Augustine says "As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith."

How does Augustine prove your point, David?

Augustine says here:

" '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.' " Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73

Then you list this quote from Irenaeus:

"For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5) THIS QUOTE SQUARELY PROVES OUR POINT!

Your second Ireneaus quote is completely ambiguous as to Ireneaus' position. Where in that second quote does it adverse our concept of the Eucharist?

Here's a quote from Ireneaus which targets our position without any ambiguity:

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,I:486

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119

I haven't got time to look at the rest of your quotes right now.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 23, 2004.


I was just trying to avoid a "the early church believed this" arguement.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 23, 2004.

I am impressed, David. You actually showed Catholics another view of their Church Fathers.

I agree with your quotes and your point.

I give credit to Gail on this one, I can go either way:

Then you list this quote from Irenaeus:

"For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5) THIS QUOTE SQUARELY PROVES OUR POINT

It is good you wrote Ian's verses again in context. This big picture shows a conclusion. Here it is contrast verse 53 with verse 63. First we are told to eat the flesh, then Jesus says the flesh is useless, what he actually means is is spiritual meaning(not physical)!!!

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 23, 2004.


Here's another unambiguous quote from Augustine:

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ" (Sermons 227, 21)

*****

There are some very very early quotes from the Didache and folks like Ignatius, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr that speak very very clearly on the issue of transubstantiation:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

******

David, your Tertullian quotes are probably the strongest in support of your position on the body and blood. However, Tertullian, at some point, unfortunately, joined a mystic cult and left the Church, following some goofy phophetesses. Not sure whether the quotes you have from him were written during his apostacy. At any rate, the doctrine of transubstantiation was not "dogmatized" until the Middle Ages, I believe.

*******

For more on the "real presence" and "transubstantiation" in Patristic thought, go here. http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sacram.htm I won't post them all here. But looking at ALL of the quotes from the fathers gives one the sense that the overarching attitude towards the bread and wine was that they were, unequivocally, upon consecretion, the body and blood of our Lord.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 23, 2004.


Gail, your are amazing! If I had just a smidgen of your tenacity and knowledge, I'd be moving mountains. Great! Your faith is strong.

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 24, 2004.


i would also point you to St Paul, as quoted above.

turning to the Church Fathers, i would be happy to work through the quotes DO has provided. i certainly feel that the use of early writings is valuable, but is not to be confused with Catholic doctrine. it is not doctrine unless it agrees with the teaching of the Church.

i often think that the Fathers provide an example of functioning protestantism. ideas, sometimes somewhat disparate/ conflicting, but ideas that held the Church together and separated the wheat from the chaff, rather tan creating splinter groups at every twist and turn.

sorry, David, i will go through these, but i am only now sitting down to read Origen. he has no paragraph breaks in the translation. my eyes are really going to hurt if i make it through all the voices you have provided.

anyways, St Paul -- what in the heck was he going on about. discerning the Body?

as for context, i need some help. St Matthew seems pretty clear here -- there is some gory deal with real flesh and real blood. oh that all Scripture could be so clear.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.


IGNORE LAST POST -- HERE IT IS IN FULL.

i must confess that i quoted St Justin because this section of his writing is an historical account of the beliefs of the Church around 150AD as opposed to a theological thesis. being based upon practices in the next generation of Christians, it would surely hold some sway in the way that the Gospels were MEANT to be understood as opposed to how they were re-interpreted 1500 years later.

to wit, St Justin is not trying to understand the nature of the transubstantiation as much as write to another telling his addressee that the early Christians (yes, 150 AD, the next generation) quite clearly believed in transubstantiation.

i would also point you to St Paul, as quoted above.

turning to the Church Fathers, i would be happy to work through the quotes DO has provided. i certainly feel that the use of early writings is valuable, but is not to be confused with Catholic doctrine. it is not doctrine unless it agrees with the teaching of the Church.

i often think that the Fathers provide an example of functioning protestantism. ideas, sometimes somewhat disparate/ conflicting, but ideas that held the Church together and separated the wheat from the chaff, rather tan creating splinter groups at every twist and turn.

sorry, David, i will go through these, but i am only now sitting down to read Origen. he has no paragraph breaks in the translation. my eyes are really going to hurt if i make it through all the voices you have provided.

anyways, St Paul -- what in the heck was he going on about. discerning the Body?

as for context, i need some help. St Matthew seems pretty clear here -- there is some gory deal with real flesh and real blood. oh that all Scripture could be so clear

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.


Dave

made it through Origen, phew! turgid or what.

i believe that it is consistent with Catholic doctrine.

this is a delicate one as it involves talking about human waste and the Sacrament in the same piece, as Origen does with great delicacy.

i will try to give you my take on it later, if i get time.

then its on to Augustine.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.


David

re: Origen, yr first Father:

Whilst the same piece of physical matter will pass through the bodies of various people -- some Catholic, others not -- it comes out the other end the same, human waste; but its effect "in the middle" depends upon several things.

check out transubstantiation -- there is nothing inconsistent here.

at this point, Origen's wrirting is less clear.

he certainly believes it depends upon the mind-set of the eater -- do i have faith. and surree-boy it does. the Church teaches that one must be free of mortal sin before receiveing Our Lord. Origen appears to agree -- but he has little choice because this is found in St Paul.

by the same token, Origen argues that the sinner cannot gain anything from the Bread of Life -- harking back to St Matthew. that's what the Church has always taught. that's what Origen is advocating.

Origen is less than clear upon the necessary mode of the Consecration. but he expresses no views on this: indeed, it seems fairly obvious that Consecration by Catholic means is entirely correct. without going into great detail, Origen is consistent with Catholic doctrine.

that's Origen.

St Augustine is easier. first, Gail has made all the points. see post above. further, the letter concerns infant baptism. it is not written about the Eucharist. but, most importantly, it does not contradict Church teaching on the Eucharist. Gail has hit the nail on the head. furthermore, she has provided better particulars of St Augustine's teaching upon this subject.

Ergo, David:

unless you have specific objections, i will move onto Iranaeus.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.


Ian,

If you don't mind, let me help out a bit. David quoted Basil the Great. The Letter he referred to was written against the Arians who denied the divinity of Christ. But does Basil's interpretation of those words in John 6 in that letter mean he did not believe in the real presence? I offer some more writings of Basil to show that he did consider the Eucharist as Catholics do today.

"What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for 'he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.' What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again." -The Morals Ch. 22

"He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." -Concerning Baptism Book I, Ch. 3.

"To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: 'He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.' Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint..." -Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria excerpt from Letter 93

Here's another interesting quote from Basil: "Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents." - De Spiritu Sancto, CHAPTER XXVII, NO. 66

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), March 25, 2004.


super andy, thanks!

i do intend to work through the card and any help is appreciated.

i have had no free time today. my weekends are usually hard to get away from.

but Iranaeus is very much on my list of things to do.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 25, 2004.


I offer this interpretation of John 6 for critique. Up to verse 58 Jesus is speaking in the synagogue at Capernaum to the Jews. That discourse ends at verse 59. Starting with verse 60, He is speaking to His disciples. His words in verses 61-65 are in response to their unbelief voiced in 60 and concerns their faith, not the Eucharist. It isn't directly related to the Bread of Life discourse, except with respect to their doubting His words.

I think it's also important to note that Jesus did not try to correct the literal interpretation the Jews took of His words. If anything he repeats Himself, stressing that His "flesh is food indeed" and His "blood is drink indeed" without clarifying that He meant it metaphorically. When the people misunderstood his words elsewhere (e.g., Jn 3:3-5, Jn 8:21-58, Jn 11:11-15) he corrected them and made sure they understood the real meaning of His words. He did this even when he spoke metaphorically and others took his words literally. He did not do that in John 6:30-58. But in 61-65 he does reprove the unbelief of his disciples, comparing the spiritual man of faith to the carnal man who does not believe Him.

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? 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 would 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."

Peter's words (in 68-69) in response to Jesus' challenge are also telling, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), March 26, 2004.


Yes, he did, Andy.

Think as a Jew, not as a catholic.

Jews don't eat flesh (not only human) but of many animals:pigs, catfish,shrimp,.. Jews don't eat (drink) blood.

sometimes in Hebrew and Aramaic the sense of is is understood. By that I mean they don't say is. Example: Ani Elpidio (I Elpidio) meaning I am Elpidio.

What I am getting at is that while catholics emphasize the is in reality he most likely never used the word in his language.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yaho.com), March 26, 2004.


That is why I don't believe in transubstantiation

That is why Jesus said the meaning of his words as in figurative.

The Christian Yahwist.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 26, 2004.


Thanks for that info Elpidio.

If there is no direct translation of "is" or "am" in Hebrew, then how can we really detrmine the sense, figurative or literal just from the words?

One more question, how does "I AM" translate from Aramaic/Hebrew then?

Thanks.

-- Andy ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), March 27, 2004.


Andy, here it is

Ani Yahweh means I am the one who cause s things to be.

That's how God speaks in the Bible. Ani in Hebrew means I am.

So ani Elpidio means I am Elpidio.

Most people think Yahweh means I am.

Most people get lost in ehye asher ehye saying I am who Iam. Rather it says I will be who I will be. Greek Septuagint says I am who is(exists).

The Christian Yahwist

Imagine Ani Yahweh meaning I am I am.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.


Wasn't ooga ooga a Brazilian telenovela?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ