Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association ^ | 6/12/2009 | Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association

Posted on 06/13/2009 5:00:57 PM PDT by bdeaner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last


Let us pray
to the Lord who gives himself in the Eucharist
that this sacrament may bring us salvation and peace
Lord Jesus Christ,
you gave us the Eucharist
as the memorial of your suffering and death.
May our worship of this sacrament of your body and blood
help us to experience the salvation you won for us
and the peace of the kingdom
where you live with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

1 posted on 06/13/2009 5:00:57 PM PDT by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

bookmark


2 posted on 06/13/2009 5:19:26 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

I only read the first dozen quotes or so - NONE of which indicate transubstantiation.

Sorry.


3 posted on 06/13/2009 5:28:26 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Maybe you should look a little harder. I'll point out just one of the more obvious and clear ones, from St. Ignatius, among the first dozen quotes.

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

How much clearer could he be? He doesn't say the Eucharist symbolizes the body of Christ. He said it IS the flesh of Christ.
4 posted on 06/13/2009 5:39:56 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Great post - a keeper. Thanks. :)

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists:

“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 to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).


5 posted on 06/13/2009 6:03:52 PM PDT by bronxville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

If I say my daughter is the light of my life, do I need to take her with me at night to light the path before me?


6 posted on 06/13/2009 6:05:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

reference marked


7 posted on 06/13/2009 6:06:27 PM PDT by rbmillerjr ("We Are All Socialists Now"........not me, not now, not ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bronxville

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp


8 posted on 06/13/2009 6:06:56 PM PDT by bronxville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If I say my daughter is the light of my life, do I need to take her with me at night to light the path before me?

Jesus is not using a metaphor here. When Christ said that His disciples must eat His body and drink His blood, many walked away from Him. If he was just speaking metaphorically, no one would have been shocked enough to walk out on Him.

Why would the Jews scoff at Jesus for using a metaphor, unless He literally meant to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood?

When you say your daughter is the light of your life, no one walks away from you saying, "You're out of your mind -- you could never use her as a flashlight -- I'm out of here." Of course not, because you are obviously using a metaphor. If Christ was similarly using metaphorical language, then why did many of His disciples abandon Him?

There is clear, Scriptural evidence for the literal interpretation. Look to the context of John 6. When the Jews scoff at Jesus for telling His disciples to eat His Flesh and drink His blod, he responds with a clarification that indicates he is speaking literally and not figuratively:

From John 6:52-53:

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man giveus his flesh to eat? 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.”

The Jews expressed disbelief and admonished Christ--believing He could not really mean what He was saying. Now this would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to tell them he was only speaking metaphorically or figuratively and that he should not be taken literally. But no, He does not do that! On the contrary. Instead, He responds to their doubts and mocking by repeated the same thing -- that they are to eat His Flesh and drink His blood -- but now he sharpens and strengthens His language. He tells them that if they do not eat His Flesh and Drink His blood, they will have no life in them. See John 6:53. Why would He say that unless He was speaking literally and not figuratively? Why would He confuse them rather than clarify His intentions? Because clearly He meant that they must ACTUALLY and NOT FIGURATIVELY eat His Flesh and Drink His blood.

This becomes more evident when we consider John 6:54, where the terms in the Bible switch from the word phago, which means "eat," to the word trogo, which means to "chew" or "gnaw." The switch to the latter terminology, again, is a move to an even more literal and less figurative manner of speaking, which again undeniably supports the doctrine of the Real Presence.

In the original Greek text of John 6:23-53, the word "eat" (phago) is used nine different times. But then suddenly, after the Jews express doubt about the literal meaning of His statement and assume He is speaking more metaphorically, He clarifies that He is not at all speaking metaphorically; so that in John 6:54, he uses the stronger, more graphic and less metaphorical term "chew" or gnaw" (trogo).

It can be easily validated that the term trogo was not used figuratively in the Scripture. In Matthew 24:38, the same word, trogo, is used to literally mean, 'to eat.' Same thing in John 13:18.

John 6:54-56- “Whosoever eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

So, the clear Biblical meaning--as the early Church Fathers simply took for granted--is the literal meaning of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Christ is literally present--Body, Soul and Divinity--in the Eucharist.

God bless. :)
9 posted on 06/13/2009 6:46:06 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists

BEAUTIFUL QUOTE!!!

Blessings to you, and let's hope for a beautiful day to celebrate Corpus Christi this Sunday.
10 posted on 06/13/2009 6:47:34 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
"Jesus is not using a metaphor here. When Christ said that His disciples must eat His body and drink His blood, many walked away from Him. If he was just speaking metaphorically, no one would have been shocked enough to walk out on Him.

Why would the Jews scoff at Jesus for using a metaphor, unless He literally meant to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood?"

Actually, literally or figuratively, it was a shocking statement. In effect, Jesus was claiming to be God Himself, which would stun any Jew listening. If they had interpreted him literally, they would have replied, "You want us to take knives out and cut your flesh, and eat it? Cut your throat, and drink your blood?!?!"

If meant literally, his statement WOULD have been totally mad, since they would have needed to kill him on the spot.

11 posted on 06/13/2009 6:56:59 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If meant literally, his statement WOULD have been totally mad, since they would have needed to kill him on the spot.

But they do kill Him, and they kill Him after the celebration of the Last Supper when He offers up His blood and body as the Sacrificial Lamb. In Exodus, the Jews were commanded that, if they were to survive the angel of death's justice upon the first born of Egypt, they not only had to spill the blood of the lamb, they had to eat it whole. And if they could not eat it, to share it with others so they would fully consume the flesh of the lamb.

In the Passover meal, which was celebrated at the Last Supper, four cups of wine are consumed at different points in the meal. The fourth cup is drunken before the lamb is consumed -- and, at the Last Supper, this was the point at which Christ offered Himself up as a Sacrifice. But, at the Supper table, they never drank the fourth cup nor ate the lamb, because Chirst was to become the lamb. Instead they go to Gesthemane, where Chirst is caught and then sacrificed on the cross.

Prior to His death, Christ proclaims His thirst and then drinks the wine -- the 4th cup -- and then he says, "It is finished," and dies, as the Sacrificial Lamb. The lamb is killed. But the angel of death will not pass unless the lamb is eaten -- not figuratively, but literally. The Eucharist fulfills that promise.

Note: This analysis is from Scott Hahn's book The Lamb's Supper. Hahn was a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism and is now a Professor of Religious Studies at Franciscan University. Here is a short version of this analysis in his own words:

THE EUCHARIST AS THE LAMB'S SUPPER

Also see:

THE FOURTH CUP

Hahn's analysis is mind-blowing. I have not done it justice. It is also compelling coming from a Presbyterian minister who knows the Bible better than anyone I've ever seen -- at least anyone who can write and speak as accessibly as he can.

In any case, the Biblical account does seem to be verified by Hahn's analysis -- which validates the NT by reading it through as a fulfillment of salvation history prophetically foreshadowed in Exodus.

The Early Church Fathers also believed in the Real Presence, and while it may be difficult to see in the above passages without studying them closely, some of the passages are more obvious than others, such as the one I quoted.

Here is another one that I think really is a grand slam, in terms of its clear and unambiguous endorsement of the Real Presence -- St. Ignatius. In the context of speaking out against the Docetist heretics, who denied the humanity of Jesus, he wrote this:

"They confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 7).

Clearly, St. Ignatius means to show that the flesh of the Eucharist is the equivalent, and not merely a symbol, of the flesh of the Cross.

Another powerful witness is Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp. He recalled Polycarp's stories of Apostle John -- which were first hand accounts. When others doubted the resurrection of Jesus, Irenaeus used the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to prove it! "The Eucharist becomes the body of Chirst," he says (Irenaeus, Against Heresies). That argument would have fallen flat if his contemporaries did not share with Him the assumptions and major premise of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

In contrast, I invite you to name and cite a single Early Church Father who said the Eucharist should be understood metaphorically rather than literally. I assure you, none can be found.

God bless.
12 posted on 06/13/2009 7:21:52 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Any of the quotes above that mention anything about the bread and wine changing into something else is an implicit reference to transubstantiation: the "esse" or "substantia" of the thing is no longer what it was.

On the other hand, find me one Church Father....just one....who gave a refutation of the doctrine even remotely close to the clear language of the Black Rubric of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

"It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;)"
You won't find any such refutation.
13 posted on 06/13/2009 7:24:16 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Which Catholic dogma comes from this verse? Or how about this one:

John 15:5
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

The fact is, we are told how the local church is to observe the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11 and Luke 22.

Luk 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:24-26
(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.

Very clearly, the Lord’s Supper is to bring us into remembrance. That is what the very scriptures say. Like it says in verse 26, “ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” It is a picture of his death, and also to bring us into remembrance that He is coming back for his own.

The Catholics have this completely wrong and in fact break scripture by believing they are constantly sacrificing Christ in the Eucharist. Please compare these verses to Catholic tradition.

Heb 10:12-14
(12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
(13) From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
(14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

I am very sorry to tell you so, but I’ll easily take what the scriptures have clearly put forth over the quotes of the commentators of that same scripture.

Y’all are simply not bring Christ down every eucharist to eat his body and blood. He is sitting on the right hand of the Father, waiting for the time of his return as the conquering Christ.


14 posted on 06/13/2009 7:24:16 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kalee

book,ark


15 posted on 06/13/2009 7:29:15 PM PDT by kalee (01/20/13 The end of an error.... Obama even worse than Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

“I am very sorry to tell you so, but I’ll easily take what the scriptures have clearly put forth over the quotes of the commentators of that same scripture.

Y’all are simply not bring Christ down every eucharist to eat his body and blood. He is sitting on the right hand of the Father, waiting for the time of his return as the conquering Christ.”

I agree. Well put.


16 posted on 06/13/2009 7:30:06 PM PDT by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Thank you for your hard work.


17 posted on 06/13/2009 7:41:54 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in 2012. With Liz Cheney as Secretary of State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

Nonsense. Look at those verses you cited and compare them to John 6 again. If you have a Greek NT even better. In John 6, Christ says “my flesh is true (Gr. alethes) food, my blood is true (Gr. alethes) drink.”

That’s a very specific Greek word there. Alethes means “true, genuine, real” as it refers to the substance of a thing. Does Christ say anything similar in John 10 about the door? No He does not. Does He say anything similar in John 15 about the vine? Well, that passage is interesting, because He does say “I am the true vine”. BUT note that it’s a slightly different Greek adjective there. Not alethes but alethine....not true according to substance but rather true according to analogy.

Plus of course, the contexts of the passages are totally different. Do you see people reacting in shock and horror to the specific sayings “I am the door” or “I am the vine”? No evidence of that in the Bible. His audience apparently took those figuratively. But they most certainly did NOT take John 6 figuratively—because He didn’t give them that option. He hammered the point over and over and refused to back down even when they questioned Him on it.


18 posted on 06/13/2009 7:44:02 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6?

Why do Catholics and Orthodox reject the plain, literal meaning of Genesis 1-11?

19 posted on 06/13/2009 7:47:22 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . Vayiqra' Mosheh leHoshe`a Bin-Nun Yehoshu`a.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated
Thank you for your hard work.

You're welcome.
20 posted on 06/13/2009 8:02:56 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson