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

[bdeaner]

“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

I never realized that verse was 666! Number of the beast!

Revelations 13:18:
Here is wisdom. He who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is six hundred sixty-six.

[bdeaner]

Before I address your post on Scott Hahn's analysis of "the fourth cup" from the Passover's Seder Meal, I should mention, first, that Hahn was a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism, based purely on Scripture. He came to believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and this insight re: the fourth cup was a pivotal insight for him that eventually led him to give up his day job and become a Catholic. The sacrifice of his profession as a minister should not be taken lightly. He did not have the option of becoming a priest, because he was already married. Of course, his biography gives him credibility, but does not prove his points.

Second, Hahn's "fourth cup" analysis is not an official doctrine or teaching of the Church. It is possible that Hahn's analysis could be found to be lacking in some way, but that would have no bearing on the Church's doctrine of the Real Presence. The Real Presence does not stand or fall on Hahn's analysis here. However, IF Hahn's analysis is shown to be valid--and I am quite convinced of it's validity, personally--then it surely provides a very strong and compelling additional validity to the Church's doctrine on the Real Presence. It is important to be clear on this point. You can refute Hahn's argument, potentially anyway, and that does not topple the Church's doctrine of the Real Presence, which is not at all based on Hahn's interesting but compelling analysis.

The third point: As I said, I cannot do justice to Hahn's analysis here. He has written an entire book, which is incredibly researched and very clear in the steps of his analysis, which draws upon the entire Scriptures. So, if you criticize my points, realize that this is essentially a straw man, and that you should read Hahn first before thinking you have trumped his analysis. Hahn is miles above me when it comes to knowledge of the Scriptures. I won't pretend to be able to represent him here -- that would be arrogant and frankly stupid.

With that said, it helps if you want to understand Hahn to have a look at the Passover's Seder Meal, and the traditional way the meal is prepared and served. First of all, there are five elements of the meal: the lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, green herbs, haroseth, and wine. Each has a special significance.

The four cups of wine used in the Seder symbolize four distinct promises made by God as told in Exodus 6:6-7. These are traditionally referred to as follows: Cup of Sanctification, Cup of Deliverance, Cup of Redemption, and Cup of Restoration.

During His early Passover Seder with His Disciples, Jesus drank the first two cups in a traditional way. There is the dipping of the hand in the dish -- which is a washing of the hands -- and then eating the bitter herbs and an egg -- and then the third cup, the Cup of Redemption, is when the bread is traditionally eaten. This is the point at which Jesus says, "This is my blood", etc. So Jesus does eat the meal, but he stops at the third cup. Instead of having the lamb -- there is no mention of eating the lamb in the Scriptures -- and drinking the fourth cup, Jesus told his disciples that He would not drink the fourth cup, the Cup of Restoration, but promises to do with with them in the coming Kingdown (Matt 26:29).

The fourth cup is the culmination of the meal when the leader is to say, "It is finished." The meal is not complete until He as the lamb Himself is sacrificed on the Cross and still not complete until His Body and Blood are consumed, as the Lord on the Passover demanded. Just as the lamb's blood provides redemption for the Jews from the Angel of Death, Christ's blood now redeems us and give us eternal life -- but, just as the Jews were commanded to do at Passover, we must eat the lamb. This is the meaning of the Eucharist -- the Sacrifice of the Mass in which Christ's Body and Blood -- His Body, Soul and Divinity -- is consumed so, abiding in Him, we may receive eternal life.

[Claud]

They are indeed from the same root. But here’s a few commentaries that draw the distinction:

http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=3090
Note: “Alethinos is related to alethes as form to contents or substances; alethes denotes the reality of the thing, alethinos defines the relation of the conception to the thing to which it corresponds = genuine” (Cremer). “

http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-2.htm
“Greek “alethinos” (used here) is opposed to that which does not fulfil its idea, as for instance, a type; “alethes,” to that which is untrue and unreal, as a lie. The measure of alethes is reality; that of alethinos, ideality. In alethes the idea corresponds to the thing; in alethinos, the thing to the idea [Kalmis in Alford].”

http://books.google.com/books?id=qbsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=alethes+true+substance&source=bl&ots=aoJ2dcXoTj&sig=618eN8-thT5XCWWMKVk3a8Z9ZUo&hl=en&ei=W8s0SqqDJJ6MtgfwvZCnCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
“In Greek the distinction is clearly indicated by the use of two words, alethes true and alethinos very, which are never used indiscriminately. The word translated in our version is alethinos, and should be rendered very, for it indicates the contrast not between the true and the false—but between the imperfect and the perfect, between the shadowy and the substantial, the type and the archetype, the highest ideal, and a subordinate realization of partial anticipation.”

You are 100% right that the Bible says the Eucharistic meal is a remembrance. But where does it say it is *only* a remembrance? Where does it say that it is a remembrance without an underlying reality?

So let’s compare Scripture with Scripture. The accounts of the Last Supper say “This is my body”—and even Martin Luther scornfully disagreed with those who would substitute the word “represents” for the word “is”. Then we have 1 Cor 11: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” We have the very literal passages in John 6.

And there are no passages that prove the contrary.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Genesis 1 is plain? Hm.

So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)

I said Genesis 1-11, meaning that these chapters relate events that actually happened to people who actually existed. Most Catholics (especially the clergy and theologians) believe that this is didactic mythology adapted from Mesopotamian and Canaanite religion.

Once again, if it weren't for the fact that fundamentalists don't accept it, Catholics would have probably jettisoned the literal interpretation of John 6 decades ago.

[Zionist Conspirator]

For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth

I rest my case.

You don't believe the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt either, do you?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Then you obviously can’t believe in transubstantiation either, since it also violates the immutable “laws of nature.”

[Zionist Conspirator]

For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth

PS: The article at the head of this thread invokes the church fathers for the literal interpretation of John 6. If the church fathers were wrong about Genesis 1-11 and subject to correction by "new knowledge," then certainly they are subject to correction on all matters and not just some.

[Mr Rogers]

"All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants."

I've never experienced a communion where the bread and wine became The Real Body and Blood of Jesus. Does it taste like beef?

Jesus - the Other White Meat?

If not, then the significance is spiritual, which aligns with the Protestant position.

[Iscool]

"All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants."

It is well established in the OT as well as the NT that human flesh and blood are not to be consumed...Certainly not a modern idea...

[swmobuffalo]

You can argue the verses from James out of context all you want. Because of my faith I have works. If I didnt’ have faith I’d have no works.

The more later part can wait. Indefinitely.

[Mr Rogers]

"At Mass, Christ is remembered through the sacrifice which is the Eucharist in which his real presence resides. In the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread is changed into the substance of Chirst's Body, and this occurs by way of a miracle of God. The appearance of the bread and wine remain with all their usual properties. The substance changes, but not the appearance.

Why this sacrifice? I will refer you, first, to the links to the articles by Scott Hahn, which you can find in a prior post of mine, above. The Lord sacrifices his only Son because no other sacrifice can repair the damage done by original sin in the Garden. And in Revelations, John tells us that Christ continues to persist in the form of the slain lamb, always and forever, a perpetual sacrifice -- a key aspect of Christ's role in the Trinity. And whenever a Mass occurs, that perpetual sacrifice is made manifest again on earth -- which, as in Revelations, is celebrated with joy, for this is the sacrifice that breaks the seal. The only sacrifice that could break the seal."

Hebrews 10:

10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

[RobbyS]

Genesis and John are not the same forms of literature. John is quasi-biography; Genesis is world history, not unlike reading Toynbee, with all kinds of theory thrown in. So what is literal in one is not literal in another.

[RobbyS]

That’s quite an admission, and neither of them would allow you to get away with this stuff.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Genesis and John are not the same forms of literature. John is quasi-biography; Genesis is world history, not unlike reading Toynbee, with all kinds of theory thrown in. So what is literal in one is not literal in another.

Who says this? You? You get to determine waht is "quasi-biography" and what is "history with theories thrown in?" Is this what your "authoritative" church fathers taught, or what "we now know" thanks to nineteenth century German criticisism?

That being the case, why don't we apply a little nineteenth century German criticism to John 6 and I'm sure that you will see that it was meant to be taken "theologically," not literally.

Unless you are a hypocrite, of course.

[RobbyS]

Who says I don’t? And by the way I do not think of Genesis as myth , except in the sense that science is myth.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Who says I don’t?

Oh, so you subject the "new testament" to the same withering skepticism as the "old?" Well, that's consistent, I must admit. But this raises the question of why you exempt transubstantiation from this withering skepticism. Do you only believe it because the "fundies" don't? If they believed it would you be as skeptical of it as you are of Noah's Flood?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Because it [Genesis] is written in a different style than the rest of the Books of the Bible. Genesis is more in the style of Gilgamesh, whereas the Gospels are more in the style of biography. We don't read an ancient creation story and take it the same way we would read a more contemporary biography. Same thing with Genesis and the Gospels.

This is for all you Catholic FReepers who accuse me of "bearing false witness" and "making up" the rampant anti-Biblicism of some Catholics on this forum. I cannot believe that you don't see posts like this, yet some of you choose to attack me for pointing them out!

Some of you think you can turn back the clock on dogma and keep Biblical liberalism. You are very very wrong and you are going to learn the hard way.

[netmilsmom]

I’m sorry. I tried reading that and I have no clue at all what it means.

But hopefully, someone smarter than I am can explain it.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I’m sorry. I tried reading that and I have no clue at all what it means.

But hopefully, someone smarter than I am can explain it.

He is saying Genesis can't be interpreted as literally as the gospels because it is written like "Gilgamesh," an ancient Mesopotamian myth. It is in fact now mainstream among most "Biblical scholars" that Genesis was plagiarized from Gilgamesh and from the ancient Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish.

So . . . you see I'm not making this stuff up, right? Is it any wonder I am flummoxed by Catholics who pretend their church isn't rife with these blasphemies?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“This is for all you Catholic FReepers who accuse me of “bearing false witness” and “making up” the rampant anti-Biblicism of some Catholics on this forum.”

ZC, I think you’re conflating things here. First of all, what is anti-Biblicism EXACTLY? Is anyone here saying the Bible is untrue or are they disagreeing with your interpretation? Second, are you honestly saying that one post makes a thing “rampant”? Seriously now, you’ve been complaining about this for months and months and months and all you have to show for it is ONE POST?

” I cannot believe that you don’t see posts like this, yet some of you choose to attack me for pointing them out!”

I’m not attacking you for pointing it out, I just think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill by assuming one post represents all thoughts on the subject on the part of Catholics. Also, I never would have seen the post if you had not pointed it out because I don’t think I ever even looked in that thread before your pinging me to it.

“Some of you think you can turn back the clock on dogma and keep Biblical liberalism.”

Nope. I don’t think turning back the clock is possible and I don’t try to do it. I just believe what I believe. I take Genesis much more literally than most people. I and a friend are even trying to arrange a series of talks from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation at our parish. http://www.kolbecenter.org/

“You are very very wrong and you are going to learn the hard way.”

Nope. I am very, very right and when it comes to this sort of thing I almost always learn things the easy way.

Now, having said that, let’s look at what bdeaner wrote:

“Because it [Genesis] is written in a different style than the rest of the Books of the Bible. Genesis is more in the style of Gilgamesh, whereas the Gospels are more in the style of biography. We don’t read an ancient creation story and take it the same way we would read a more contemporary biography. Same thing with Genesis and the Gospels.”

I think I understand what bdeaner is saying. I would be willing to bet that he believes that Genesis as a creation story is not to be taken literally, but that it affirms, and that he believes, it shows God created the universe, the earth, man and so on. bdeaner is absolutely right when he says that the Church allows a man to hold to Genesis in the most literal sense. He would also be right if he said the Church allows a man to hold to a less than literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. That’s where things are right now. That’s where they will stay for sometime to come. How long is anyone’s guess.

You want everything to be neat and tidy and plainly black and white and have everyone agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of scripture. That ain’t gonna happen. I take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realize God can create in anyway He chooses. bdeaner doesn’t take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realizes God can create anyway He chooses. So, while you’re losing sleep over this, and worrying that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of it, I, in my bed, and bdeaner in his, will be sleeping just fine.