St. Cyril is referencing John's gospel, citing the words of Jesus Christ. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "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" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
To this day, the Catholic Church follows the command of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Notice that this practice dates back to the earliest days of christianity.
Yeah, we’ve all heard all of that before. Now tell me why Catholics assign the sin of eating blood to Jesus.
Seeing as you cut and pasted an article without a bit of attribution or indication it was not your own, but was recently posted on FR (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3265512/posts) then i will provide what i posted in response to that, updated.
The Catholic doctrine of the “Real Presence” — though apparently originally an Anglican term (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence) and who not share the same eucharistic theology as Catholics — refers (as explained by RC sources) to her foundational sacramental cornerstone, that such words as “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me,” (Lk. 22:19; cf. Mt. 26:26; Mk.14:22;1Co. 11:24) means the literal consumption of the body and blood of Christ, who is “present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place,” having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) Thus the statement, “The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
Meaning more technically that through the power given to her ordained priests, ordinary bread and wine are “transubstantiated” so that “the substance of the bread and wine is changed during the Eucharistic consecration into the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains, with the "accidents" [a philosophical term referring to appearance] of the bread and wine replacing the accidents of Christ’s body: his tissues, bones, and cells. Thus "While Christ’s body is in heaven according to his natural mode of existence, it can simultaneously be present in the Eucharist according to a supernatural mode of existence." (http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol89iss3/pages/article7.html)
And by which consumption believers thereby obtain life in themselves. And that this is a propitiatory sacrifice for sins: “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session) “As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.” (CCC 1414)
This “sacrament” is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the font of life” the "medicine of immortality," "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves.
Therefore even more than for lesser practices, then for us to believer it we must expect and require that such a cardinal doctrine and preeminent and essential practice would be a practice often manifestly seen recorded in the life of the church and its pastoral epistles and activities, and its doctrine at least basically expounded. And it also requires that this and the alternative metaphorical interpretation be examined for conformity in the light of the immediate, broader and entire context of all of Scripture, especially since at face value it would be requiring kosher Jews to disobey the strict injunction against eating blood, which was required of Gentile converts as well. (Lv. 17:10.11; Acts 15:20; 21:25) ^
Rather than the practice of this principal and prevalent practice being manifest as such in the life and epistles of the NT church, it is only manifestly described in one epistle, that of 1Co. 10 and 11. Some Roman Catholic apologist invoke the former as supporting transubstantiation in saying, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)
However, as examination of the next chapter will reveal, this refers to believers showing fellowship with Christ in His death through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning:
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)
And how would they have fellowship with devils? Not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, but not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.
The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)
And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but charges them with not actually doing so because they were supposedly eating this communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)
Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ who purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, for it, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body” as a body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for them while acting contrary to it, thus they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)
Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating, versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.
While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead often results in seeing the Lord's death as being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.
And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is in contradiction to its description and manifest meaning, while the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, which usually sees interaction with others during as an intrusion, and is consistent with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.
While the superficial observance of this ordinance may not result in manifest chastening unto death, yet “not discerning the Lord's body” as described may result in many being “weak and sickly among you.” And I must repent of being selfish sometimes myself. ^
► The uniqueness of the Catholic interpretation
The Catholic interpretation is actually semiliteralist if strictly restricted to the “plain words” hermeneutic, as Catholics do not really believe they literally consume the actual flesh and blood of Christ as if He literally gave them a piece of His finger. What they consume does not literally look like or taste like human flesh, nor bleed, or suffer corruption. Nor is it restricted from being in many locations at the same time.
In addition, Catholics do not take the Lord literally when He said to “drink this cup,” for as you cannot drink a cup (though they could allow it to be transubstantiated), they correctly understand the cup to represent what it contains. But while endocannibalism and drinking blood is forbidden, they refuse to allow the bread to represent the Lord's mangled sacrificial body and the wine as His shed blood.
Thus the theory of transubstantiation holds that the substance of bread and wine are changed but not the appearance and tangible aspects. Which is a unique miracle, as unlike the incarnation, in which Christ Jesus was/is both fully human and fully God, transubstantiation denies that the consecrated species are fully bread and wine and also fully the Body and Blood of Christ. Some RCs even talk as if after consecration by the priest then the bread and wine remain bread and wine only in appearance.
Moreover, the Lord's human body saw no corruption, while the transubstantiated consecrated bread and wine are no longer the same after digestion.
And in every other miracle which the Lord did that changed something material then there was an obvious tangible change — water really become wine which only existed in that location — versus a change of substance while the appearances remained the same, and so the body of Christ could be sitting at a table before them while being in the stomachs of the disciples.
Thus Catholicism had to devise a metaphysical explanation to justify this claim.
In Sacred Games: A History of Christian Worship, Bernhard Lang argues that, “When in late antiquity the religious elite of the Roman Empire rethought religion and ritual, the choice was not one between Mithraism and Christianity (as Ernest Renan suggested in the 19th century) but between pagan Neoplatonism and Neoplatonic Christianity.”
“In the third century CE, under the leadership of Plotinus, Plato’s philosophy enjoyed a renaissance that was to continue throughout late antiquity. This school of thought had much in common with Christianity: it believed in one God (the “One”), in the necessity of ritual, and in the saving contact with deities that were distinct from the ineffable One and stood closer to humanity. Like Judaism and Christianity, it also had its sacred books–the writings of Plato, and, in its later phase, also the Chaldean Oracles. In fact, major early Christian theologians–Origen, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus–can at the same time be considered major representatives of the Neoplatonic school of thought.” - (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/04/08/early-churchs-choice-between-neoplatonism)
From a learned RC monk and defender:
Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...
The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”
Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...
That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)
Edwin Hatch:
...it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr. But at the same time, that the change was not vividly realized, is proved by the fact that, instead of being regarded as too awful for men to touch, the elements were taken by the communicants to their homes and carried about with them on their travels. (Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889, "The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church;" pp. 308-09 https://archive.org/stream/influenceofgreek00hatc/influenceofgreek00hatc_djvu.txt)
These can be taken here together in the interest of brevity (which term is relative with me), as both require examination in the light of figurative language for eating and drinking in the whole Bible, and of the use by John in particular, and how each interpretation conflates with Scripture. ^
► Metaphorical versus literal language
The Catholic interpretation of both the words of the Lord's Supper and the discourse on the bread of life in John 6 depend upon the language being literalistic, and presumes consistent with the rest of Scripture as such, versus such language being consistent with metaphorical language. Thus RCs typically chide evangelicals for not being consistent with their tendency toward taking Scripture literally.
However, taking historical accounts literally which most modern RC scholarship relegates to being fables or folk tales is not contrary to recognizing different literary genres, while what is novel in Scripture is transubstantiation, while was is absent is even the Lord's supper as the preeminent principal prevalent practice that Rome propagates it as being.
And what is quite prevalent in Scripture is the use of figurative language for eating and drinking, and in which Catholics can be the ones charged with being inconsistent. For consider that David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.
And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)
To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,
The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
When David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
When Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed. ^
► Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.
That the Lord was giving the disciples a new command to eat His actual body and blood would be very radical, as not only is the practice of eating human flesh something that is proscribed in principle, (Gn. 9:1-6) and only shown in a negative sense, (Lv. 26:29; Dt. 28:53; 2Ki. 6:28,29; Lam. 2:20; Jer. 19:9; Ezek. 5:10) but so is blood, (Lv. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10,11,14; Ezek. 33:25) and the theory of transubstantiation by which Catholicism makes this possible is not actually taught in Scripture.
And it was not pagans whom the Lord was speaking to but kosher Jews, as Peter showed he was in Acts 10, and as he showed there and in other places, he in particular was not one to to simply submit to something he found objectionable, and to suppose they would do so in the face of a radical new requirement is absurd. That they were well familiar with the metaphorical use of eating and drinking is far more reasonable.
Catholics must therefore presume that Jn. 6 is about the Lord's Supper (though is not actually not mentioned at all there), and is to be taken literalistically, and which settled the matter for the apostles.
However, that creates a larger problem as Jn. 6:53 is an absolute “verily verily” imperative, that one must consume the body and blood of Christ in order to obtain spiritual life.
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. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)
And which, if literal, excludes all those who reject the literalistic interpretation as unScriptural from obtaining spiritual and eternal life Also if literal, then we must see the Lord's Supper being preached in Acts and other places in the life of the church as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life. And Jn. 6:53 Since modern Rome clearly affirms properly baptized Protestants as children of God and (separated) brethren who have the Holy Spirit, then those Catholics who post Jn. 6:53,54 as the unequivocal imperative have a contradiction with their own church, unless they retreat into some equivocation to allow some way of salvation for those who reject transubstantiation. But which equivocation this absolute “verily verily” imperative does not allow.
And which literal understanding is one which the apostles and NT church manifestly did not get, nor the rest of Scripture. For nowhere did the apostles preach the Lord's Supper as the, or a means to obtain spiritual life, as instead they preached that this is obtained by believing the gospel of grace.
Peter preached “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43) resulting in the Gentiles believing and being born again.
Referring to this, Peter stated, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
And after which souls live by Christ by obeying His words. For His words are spirit, and life. (Jn. 6:63)
And nowhere else in Scripture was literally eating anything physically the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life. Therefore in addition to a novel miracle explained by a novel theory, we have a novel yet essential means of obtaining spiritual life, and which excludes all those who cannot believe this unScriptural teaching.
And rather than souls in Jn 6 rightly understanding the Lord's words as literal but rejecting them, instead they represent another example of carnally minded souls who are presented in John (especially) who do not seek the meaning of the Lord's enigmatic words. For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)
And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually. ^
► Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood.
Since Catholic Eucharistic doctrine holds "that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious," (Trent, 22nd Session, cp. 2) therefore she has created a separate class of believers distinctively titled "hiereus”="priests" who were to engage in this uniquely sacerdotal act as their primary ordained function.
One sanctioned Catholic work even states, “The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974
But which separate class of believers distinctively titled "hiereus” is utterly absent in the NT, as NT pastors (besides apostles) are only called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) and which denotes the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) and nowhere does the Holy Spirit ever call any NT pastor “hiereus” (which etymologically became “priest” from old English "preost"), which is the distinctive word only used for priests, Jewish or pagan.
Instead, the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) for all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and NT pastors are never shown or described as offering up the elements of the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice for sin.
However, Catholicism has made NT pastors into a sacerdotal priesthood due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)
And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ἱερεύς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)
Yet NT pastors are never even described as dispensing bread as part of their ordained function in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Acts 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and to build them up, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9; 20:32) ^
► Metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is not new.
While so-called church fathers are not fathers of the NT church, nor are they determinative for doctrine for a Bible Christian, or even for Rome, as they do not always agree with themselves or Rome despite the often stated “unanimous consent” of the fathers Yet certain ones are selectively invoked for support by RCs, although there is much we do not know of their writings.
But thus it is fitting to provide at least a couple teachings from them showing that the metaphorical view is not some new thing.
Clement of Alexandria wrote,
Further release from evils is the beginning of salvation. We then alone, who first have touched the confines of life, are already perfect; and we already live who are separated from death. Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: For that which is in Him is life. John 1:4 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears My words, and believes in Him that sent Me, has eternal life, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24 Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak. For as His will is work, and this is named the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men, and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore, whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and the same time He called and saved them...
As nurses nourish new-born children on milk, so do I also by the Word, the milk of Christ, instilling into you spiritual nutriment..."Wherefore also I have given you milk to drink," he says; meaning, I have instilled into you the knowledge which, from instruction, nourishes up to life eternal. But the expression, "I have given you to drink" (ἐπότισα), is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. "For my blood," says the Lord, "is true drink." John 6:55 In saying, therefore, "I have given you milk to drink," has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk?
And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, "I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for you are not yet able," regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind.
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 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. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed. ” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm)
And Augustine on "Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions" states,
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Augustine On Christian Doctrine (Book III, cp. 16) — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural and the Scriptural gospel.
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission
he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."
The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.
...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...
And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”
...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.
...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
There are some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper. ^
The following was originally written some years ago, but is rather verbose, and may need siome corrections.