June 5, 2004
Union through Communion: The Necessity of the Eucharist
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down; 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?” So Jesus said to them, “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. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” -John 6:47-58Throughout the Gospels, there are several things that Jesus clearly states are necessary for eternal life. In John 3, when speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus mandated Baptism with water (John 3:5-8) and faith in the Son of God and a life of good deeds (John 3:16-21). In John 4, when speaking to the Samaritan woman, Jesus proclaimed the need to worship in both spirit and truth (John 4:24-26). Then later in John 4, Jesus commands his disciples to be laborers of service(John 4:35-38). In John 5, Jesus mandates belief in His power over death and acceptance that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. And so we come to John 6. Out of all the things necessary for salvation, as laid out in John’s Gospel, the need to consume the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is the most clear. Jesus commands it repeatedly in John 6. He goes to such great detail as to compare the relationship between Himself and the Father to the relationship the faithful believer can experience with Him through the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood. As Catholics, when we receive Holy Communion we fulfill the commandment given by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters will claim that this was only a symbol and that communion is simply a symbolic replicating of the Last Supper, yet that is not what was thought by the Apostles nor the Early Church Fathers.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. – 1 Corinthians 11:27-30This clearly point to more than just a symbolic ritual. The Early Church Fathers expressed the same belief.
Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but – be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. – St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D
Yet this was the belief of the Early Church even before 350 A.D:
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.
- St. Justin Martyr, 148-155 A.D.
And then earlier still, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110 A.D.
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible. – St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans (110 A.D.)Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raises up again. – St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaens,110 A.D.
In truth, many of the Early Church Fathers wrote about the Eucharist. St. Irenaeus wrote:
For thanksgiving is consistent with our opinion; and the Eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him those things which are His, declaring in a fit manner the gift and the acceptance of flesh and spirit. For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity. – St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180/199 A.D.
The Blood of the Lord, indeed is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.
- St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 202 A.D.
I think that one of the greatest tragedies of the Protestant Reformation is the rejection of this sacred truth; that Jesus Christ is fully present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Most Holy Eucharist. Even thoseProtestant denominations that believe they do receive Christ in communion in their individual churches are incorrect because at one point or another they severed their union with the Catholic Church, thus ending their tie to Apostolic Succession. For through Apostolic Succession the divine command of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper has been passed down and safeguarded through the ages. The Eucharist is the heart of worship for in the Eucharist we encounter our Lord Jesus in the truest sense, in His totality.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
This a critical issue that protestants often miss. I'm surprised there are no comments or questions!
My favorite passage: Psalms 34:8 - "O taste and see that the Lord is good!"
God bless,
Jay
Although no Protestants accept the Catholic understanding of Eucharist, Protestants are far from unified on their view of Eucharist.
Luther and his followers accepted Christ's words "this is my body" as literal. Luther's view differs from the Catholic Church in that Luther maintains that the bread and wine is still bread and wine but infused with the presence of the Lord. Catholics insist not only in the "real presence" of the body and blood but also in the "real absence" of bread and wine.
Some High Anglicans go even so far as to view the Eucharist as a sacrifice in atonement for sins. Where they differ from Catholics is the authority of the Monarch of England to choose bishops and his or her freedom to choose bishops from the laity.
While these Protestant views differ from the Roman Catholic ones, they are consistent with the passages from 1 Corinthians and John 6.
On this issue, Catholic apologists often resort to the appeal to authority. After that, the beliefs on the Eucharist simply become a corollary to the teaching authority of the Roman Church.
Posted by: Richard Wan at June 8, 2004 2:49 PMJay,
Some arguments are not worth it. Most protestants believe in Communion as symbolic. We argue from point of our scriptiual interpertation. You support you argument based on Tradition and centuries of Roman Catholic interpertation. For someone to change your mind you would have to deny both tradition and catholic authority. I don't see that happening by me or someone else posting negative comments about you article. I could show you many things in the gospels that are just as symbolic and point to higher spiritual truths but that would just be my word which you wouldn't accept above a bishop or the pope's. In closing let the Holy spirit be your teacher and let God examine all things you hold as truth. I hope one day you find Jesus as your "Personal" saviour and lord.
God bless
Posted by: Stan at June 9, 2004 1:18 PMStan,
So you believe that Jesus Christ Himself is not worth discussion? As I said in the article, the necessity of eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is the clearest mandate Jesus gave in Scripture. You can claim all day long to adhere to the Bible alone but if you insist on saying that Jesus' wasn't clear on this teaching then you are being dishonest.
Jay does experience Jesus Christ in the most personal and saving relationship known to humanity. When Jay (or any Catholic for that matter) receives the Eucharist he receives Jesus Christ Himself into his very body and soul. I hope that one day you convert to Catholicism so that you can experience that unity and life promised by Jesus Christ. For as Jesus said:
You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:39-40
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
We'll discuss it a bit.
So I will start off by asking, when Jesus says I am the door and I am the vine, do you also take this to mean He is a piece of wood or a plant?
Of course not. Jesus often used symbols to illustrate to us SPIRITUAL truths. So on what basis of Scripture leads you to believe that Jesus LITERALLY meant his actual flesh and actual blood?
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 9, 2004 5:55 PMJoe,
"Jesus Christ Himself is not worth discussion" didnt' really didn't say that.
I meant that sometimes its not worth it to try to convert someone by arguments they have to find the answers for them selves in prayer and communion with Christ.
"Jesus' wasn't clear on this teaching"
Didn't say that either, I said that the interpretation was different from yours. The scriptures are filled with metaphors used to explain higher spiritual ideas. For instance we all know Jesus isn't a sheep but we call him the lamb because of the way he sacrificed him self. Peter is called the rock but he is not an actual peice of stone. Jesus also asked us to carry our cross, hate our mother and father and he even called some Jews children of Satan.
There are many more but it takes a good understanding of Greek and Hebrew to find them all. Hebrew is big on using verbs as names. For instance David means beloved. You therefore can find a connection to Matt3:17, Jesus is also called beloved.
"When Jay (or any Catholic for that matter) receives the Eucharist he receives Jesus Christ Himself into his very body and soul." This maybe an error on my part, many Catholics I know don't believe in a personal savior. So I may have mistakenly believed the same about Jay. If so I appoligize for the generalization. When I say personal savior. Mean that in a personal sense such that my relationships is more than one of a number or denomination. I believe Christians are members of "the body of Christ" because we are saved; we do not join "the body of Christ" in order to be saved. In other words just because I attend a church doesn't mean I have that personal relationship automatically.
On a side note communion comes from the greek Koinonia(the only reason I know is because I have greek friends, not that smart). Koinonia also means fellowship, so when you fellowship with christ(through prayer,etc) or other christians it's similar to communion.
Posted by: Stan at June 9, 2004 6:51 PMSo Marc and Stan,
The Early Church Fathers, who lived shortly after Christ and the Apostles, really screwed things up didn't they? Man...those guys sure make it difficult for Protestants to justify their beliefs...whatever they might be.
Marc - Jesus didn't say "I am the vine...plant me in your backyard" nor did He say "I am the door...put me in your house." But Jesus did say "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" (John 6:53). This is totally different. Jesus says He is the "Bread of life" and then explains how we experience Him in that sense. It causes many of His followers to abandon Him (John 6:66).
I think you two are really being dishonest if you are trying to tell me and the rest of our readers that this is the same as when Jesus said that He was the "door" or the "vine".
Also, if you want to appeal to the Greek we can...the words used for "eat" in the Greek become more and more graphic throughout this passage. The last time Jesus uses this word it literally means to "gnaw" in the Greek. Jesus was speaking literally...
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Does Jesus not say man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God? Was not Jesus the Living Word?
Jesus of course did not mean that man should starve. Just like he did not mean plant Him in the backyard or that He is a piece of wood. He also did not mean to eat His actual flesh and blood. He was referring supplication of a spiritual sense. The Word of God helps one's spirit build up. He is the Bread of Life. I don't see why, despite all the previous metaphors that Christ used, why you would think that he REALLY MEANT his actual flesh and actual blood. Jesus was speaking in a spiritual sense.
Man not living of off bread alone but by the Word of God is comparative and connects to Christ saying unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you. The point is that with out Christ(the Living Word of God)we are SPIRITUALLY dead.
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 9, 2004 11:33 PMMarc and Stan,
First, let me say that I don't think either of you are being intentionally dishonest. I know that in my protestant walk I never saw communion as being literal. I was raised to believe that it was figurative or representative. Since my father was also my pastor, it's not hard to figure out why I accepted that position. And since it took me four difficult years of debate, prayer, and outright obstinance before I reconciled myself to the womb of the Church, our mother, I can't throw stones.
That having been said, I encourage you to read several times through John chapter 6. Jesus refers to his status as bread and to being eaten more than 15 times in that one chapter. Pay attention to several things. First, note that the chapter starts off with the fishes and loaves miracle. Note how Christ gives thanks/blesses the bread just as he did at the last supper, and just as the priest does at mass. Then note how a small amount of bread (the physical body of Christ) is multiplied in an infinite supply (the distribution of the body of Christ to millions every day in the Catholic mass). The symbolism is striking, and made all the more so by what follows, which is....
Second, in verse 52 the Jews become disgusted with the prospect of eating Christ's flesh. According to your interpretation, they had misunderstood Jesus. So what did Christ say? "For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK." (55) The "metaphor" argument is interesting, but at some point it must give way. Using the same metaphor 15 times in a chapter and then going so far as to say, in essence, "NOT A METAPHOR FOLKS; REAL FOOD", pretty much amounts to that point. If you can explain this away, then there is nothing in Scripture that could not be seen as a metaphor. If you think I'm being rhetorical, prove me wrong and give me an example.
Third, we are told in verse 66 that many of His disciples deserted Him over this teaching. Why? Didn't they understand that He didn't really mean that they would eat His flesh? Of course they didn't understand that; He had just told them that His flesh was real food. So when they started leaving, surely Christ would not hang them out to dry, right? Wrong. Jesus in his callous April fooling cruelty just let them walk away chuckling to Himself, "If those idiots only knew!!!" I think not.... He let them walk away because they knew what He was telling them, but they couldn't accept it. That is the only explanation, guys. Why else would Jesus let them walk away thinking He was a cannibalist?
Finally, consider the other passages. There are far too many, both direct and indirect. But the most obvious direct ones are the three gospels where the Eucharist was instituted. In Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-24, and Matt. 26:26-28, Christ states "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood." Three gospels, all of them saying the same thing. Never, "this is like my body" or "this is a symbol of my body". It is also interesting to note that the gospels record that Judas left the table just before the Eucharist, filled with the Devil. This is totally consistent with the Catholic position that those in opposition to Christ (mortal sin) MUST NOT partake of the Eucharist. Finally, I Cor. 11:17-34 is such a condemnation of your position that it makes a great ending point. Paul recounts the Last Supper (not coincidentally repeating the words "This IS my body"), and then notes that anyone who "eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the BODY and BLOOD OF THE LORD." If there is any doubt left, Paul notes that the failure of the church to show proper respect for the Eucharist have become sick and died!! You are suggesting that eating regular old bread and wine can kill you or make you sick if you are thinking the wrong THOUGHTS!!!! Let's be reasonable guys...
The evidence in favor of the literal interpretation is so overwhelming that one must wonder why evangelicals are so opposed to it. You gentlemen have refused to provide a single shred of evidence that the meaning is figurative. Scripture is filled with proof that it was not figurative. Why the hostility towards this truth? What do you base your belief on? You have absolutely no evidence to support your position, but rather just try to show that the Catholic position can be explained away. Do you have anything in Scripture affirmatively demonstrating that the Eucharist is NOT the body and blood of Christ? Is your conscience really telling you "Stan, this is wrong; make sure you don't give in to this lie"? Does something in the Bible make it repugnant to you? Once I actually investigated the issue, even as a Protestant, I had to admit that the Catholic/high Protestant position was really quite undeniable.
In Christ,
Dave
Guys,
Let me just add one thing - look at the Early Church Fathers...
I want to know how the two of you can simply blow them off. Their writings are historical documents. The best known publisher of these is Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., a Protestant publisher.
The reason I keep saying that you gentlemen are being dishonest is this - you continually ignore history and attempt to make Sacred Scripture fit your belief structure. You cannot say this of us because both Sacred Scripture and history back what we have said here. The historical prespective is so important and relevant. How can we as Christians claim that the Bible is all we need when we know that the Bible itself wasn't compiled until around the year 392 A.D. by the Catholic Church? But don't let this side track this discussion. We need to focus on addressing this all important issue of the Eucharist. We believe it is Jesus' Body and Blood...literally. You believe that Jesus was only speaking figuratively. Dave and I have made a solid biblical and historical case for the Catholic interpretation.
Finally, I ask each of you to really pray about this. Ask Jesus to show you the truth on this matter, He will not disappoint you.
In Christ,
Joe
Dave and Joe,
I point you to John 6:63
"The Spirit gives life; the FLESH counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and they are life."
It is not fleshly thing Jesus was teaching..it was a spiritual teaching. He is the word of God, the Bread of life...which allows our spirits to live.
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 10, 2004 1:22 PMMarc,
Still no word on your view of the Early Church Fathers and the historical evidence of their belief in the Eucharist?
In reference to John 6:63, this does not support your argument that Jesus was just figuratively speaking. I will quote Romano Guardini in his book The Lord:
...Those who are shocked have taken His words in the flesh rather than in the spirit. Promptly reminded of their animal sacrifices, they have made no attempt to reach the plane from which understanding would be possible. You are doing the same thing: judging without being in the position to judge. "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
The sentence by no means weakens what has gone before. The fact that his words are spirit and life does not mean that they are to be taken as a parable. They are to be taken literally, concretely, but in the spirit, they must be lifted from the coarseness of daily physical life into the realm of sacred mystery, from immediate reality into the sacramental. Understood in the first sense, they must repulse; in the second, they are the holy truth of God, which, accepted in love, brings endless fulfillment. - Romano Guardini, The Lord
Again, look to the words of St. Paul and the Early Church Fathers. They, as members of the Catholic Church, believed in the reality of the mystery of the Eucharist.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
This coments from Augustine:
"He that comes unto Me: this is the same as when He says, And he that BELIEVES on Me: and what He meant by, shall NEVER HUNGER, the same we are to understand by, shall NEVER THIRST. By both is signified that eternal fulness, where is no lack.
Again here is Augustine
"Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself EATEN SPIRITUALLY, DRUNK SPIRITUALLY. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life."
Augustine (Faustus 6.5): "while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its SYMBOLICAL authority."
Augustine (Faustus 20.18, 20): "The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. . . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.
"Again, look to the words of St. Paul and the Early Church Fathers. They, as members of the Catholic Church, believed in the reality of the mystery of the Eucharist."
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:
"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."
That is a pope who said this. Is this incorrect or was this an exception to papal infallibility??
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 10, 2004 5:12 PMMarc,
Now who's using the tiniest thread to justify opposition to overwhelming amounts of Scripture? Marc, Jesus obviously did not mean what you thought he meant. The flesh of Christ is truly important. If it wasn't, it would not have been necessary for Him to become a man, right? Wouldn't you agree that He could not have attoned for our sins without becoming flesh? If so, then the flesh of Christ really is important.
Beyond that, the disciples abandoned Him in spite of the statement you quote (in fact, right after He made that statement). Your interpretation, in simplified form, is thus:
Jesus: You must eat my flesh.
Disciples: That's disgusting you cannibal.
Jesus: My flesh is real food, by which I mean you must eat my flesh in a spiritual sense, obviously not in the fleshly sense.
Disciples: We're leaving.
That is totally non-sensical. Why would they go if he had satisfied their objections to cannibalism? It is also non-sensical because in one breath Jesus says, "My body is real food" and in the next breath, "My body is not real food."
The truth behind the single citation you resort to is that Christ was showing them that there was a reality beyond the flesh that they were not paying attention to. They saw Christ's body as being inappropriate for food because it was human. Christ was saying that they had to look beyond mere appearances to what was undergirding His flesh, which was of course His divine Spirit. The union of the two is precisely what made Jesus the perfect sacrifice for our sins. So, while eating regular human flesh (which is to injest another human being) is repugnant and contrary to natural law, injesting the sacrificial lamb, just as one would do with the passover supper, is life saving. Jesus' statement that the "flesh" counts for nothing is beautifully parralel to the teaching of the Church re transubstantiation, which is basically that appearances count for nothing, and that although one sees and tastes the bread and wine, the true substance is the body and blood of Christ. Likewise, Christ instructs us to see beyond our natural repugnance to eating human flesh to see that Christ's flesh is so much more than that; it is the sacrificial meal.
Naturally you won't like this interpretation of that verse, but then again you have scores of verses to explain away with unsatisfactory analogies, allegories, metaphors, and similies. It sure is a whole lot easier to defend the real presence from a Biblical reading than it is to defend the evangelical position.
In Christ,
Dave
Marc,
I don't understand what point you are trying to make by quoting St. Augustine. Yes, the Eucharist is more than simply physical nourishment, indeed, its primary purpose is for the spiritual nourishment of the believer...as St. Augustine is saying. That can be clearly seen when St. Augustine said: "the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually." Also, the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is in perfect accord with St. Augustine's comment on physical sacrifice - "Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolic authority." Here St. Augustine is clearly pointing to the Mass. He is saying that although the ritual of actually performing physical sacrifices of animals is no longer necessary the "symbolic" authority of such an act is necessary for it is the form of worship that has existed since the first covenant God made with man. The parallel between Christ and the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb was the way God choose to teach man why worship is necessary and how to worship. It was God's choice not the choice of men.
In reference to Pope St. Gelasius' comments, I would like to include the entire quote:
Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; "Wisdom has built a house for itself" (Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we "are made sharers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out of the Mysteries.
Therefore it is shown to us with sufficient clarity that we ought to think about Christ himself as we think about that which we profess, celebrate, and receive in his image, namely, that by the work of the Holy Spirit they pass over into the divine substance while nevertheless remaining in their own nature. Thus, they show us that this principal Mystery, Christ himself, whose efficacy and power they truly represent, remains one, because he is entire and true, in the duly remaining [natures] in which he exists.
I now will quote James T. O'Connor from his book The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist:
As is obvious, the letter is not directly concerned with the Eucharist but rather with the Christological Mystery of the two natures in the One Person of the Lord. This Mystery was attacked by both Nestorians and Monophysites and was the subject for two councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon. The letter seeks to use the Eucharistic Mystery as an illustration for the Christological truths. It works from the implicit assumption, accepted by all parties, that the Eucharist is Christ. But, says, the author, it is also bread and wine, thereby illustrating how Christ's Person is One, his natures two. It is easy to see how the comparison could be made...
pp. 71-72
The theology of the Eucharist has developed over time, but it has never contradicted Sacred Scripture, nor the overriding beliefs of the Early Church. Pope St. Gelasius in his letter may have been not completely accurate in his explanation of what takes place at the consecration (when the bread and wine are changed or "transubstantiated" into the Body and Blood of Christ) but he did believe that Jesus Christ was fully present in the Eucharist as his letter clearly shows. Also, please realize that a letter is not the same as an infallible teaching. An infallible teaching of a pope is declared as such and has only been done in a very few instances throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Most of the infallible teaching of the Early Church were declared at the various Church Councils like the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Nicaea just to name two.
In Christ,
Joe
Dave,
"The flesh of Christ is truly important. If it wasn't, it would not have been necessary for Him to become a man, right? Wouldn't you agree that He could not have attoned for our sins without becoming flesh? If so, then the flesh of Christ really is important."
I agree, the flesh of Christ was very important.
"In Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-24, and Matt. 26:26-28, Christ states "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood." Three gospels, all of them saying the same thing. Never, "this is like my body" or "this is a symbol of my body"
Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given FOR you;do this in REMEMBRANCE of me."
His body was not given to us, it was given for us and the disciples were instructed to do this in REMEMBRANCE of Him.
The passages you refer to in Matthew and Mark are the same. Jesus refers to his blood as the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. This all connects to John 6:35...
"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
Do you see the spiritual implication. If we accept and believe that His body was broken for us and blood shed for us, spiritually we will not starve or die.
In the above Scripture, Jesus was not referring to physical hunger or thirst. This is spiritual nourishment Christ refers to. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ refers to hungering and thirsting after righteousness. He was not referring to the carnal appetite. He was referring to spiritual nourishement. It is a metaphor, and Scripture shows that Jesus constantly used these metaphors; come, believe, eat and drink; constantly. Jesus our Lord, the Bread of Life with Him, we will never starve or be in need.
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 11, 2004 12:12 AMJoe,
"I don't understand what point you are trying to make by quoting St. Augustine."
Here is why...
"For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now COMMEMORATE. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its SYMBOLICAL authority."
There is no misunderstanding Augustine, he clearly shows that there is no longer a need for a re-sacrifice. He also recognizes the act as commemorating the victory of Christ at Calvary. Commemorate is to celebrate or look back and reflect. It is not an act of doing something new.
You quoted Pope Gelasius, for what I don't know. However he does not say anything to indicate that the bread and wine are actually Christ's body and blood. He does say that...
"Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist."
Once again this point to a spiritual reference.
"Pope St. Gelasius in his letter may have been not completely accurate in his explanation of what takes place at the consecration (when the bread and wine are changed or "transubstantiated" into the Body and Blood of Christ) but he did believe that Jesus Christ was fully present in the Eucharist as his letter clearly shows. Also, please realize that a letter is not the same as an infallible teaching"
Either Pope Gelasius made a mistake when writing the letter or he did not.
When you say that he may not have been completely accurate you indicate that he made error. This definitely was a matter pertaining to faith. So, if he did make a mistake on the Eucharist, then he was fallible. Guess what Joe...as much as you may try to twist and spin it...that means he was a FALLIBLE POPE. Now if on the other hand he was correct,that means that your tradition changed. You like to claim that this is development, but how could a pope be wrong in matters pertaining to faith.
It is like this...
Gelasius: The bread and wine still remain the bread and wine
Next Pope: Even though us Pope's are infallible...Gelasius was not completely accurate. We were told by the same spirit who spoke to Gelasius that actually....
You get my point Joe. I would love to continue this discussion, but alas it is late.
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 11, 2004 12:42 AMMarc,
There is no amount of evidence that will convince you. Can we agree on this? Regardless, because you rely on your own interpretation of Scripture rather than an authoritative source upon whom we can both appeal to, I'm thinking there is little left to be said on this topic (between us anyway). So, peace to you.
In Christ,
Dave
Marc,
I will make one thing clear for you that St. Augustine understood but apparently you do not...
The Mass is not a "re-sacrifice", it is an entering into that perfect and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Catholics do not believe that they have to "re-crucify" Jesus at each Mass. Again, you are attempting to speak about things you don't understand.
Obviously you are a master at selective reading...what part of Pope St. Gelasius' comment didn't you understand? What did this mean to you?
This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we "are made sharers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).
Then again...
Therefore it is shown to us with sufficient clarity that we ought to think about Christ himself as we think about that which we profess, celebrate, and receive in his image, namely, that by the work of the Holy Spirit they pass over into the divine substance while nevertheless remaining in their own nature.
Pope St. Gelasius would not have been attempting to make the parallel between the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ and the divine and physical natures of the Eucharist if he didn't believe that Jesus was present in the Eucharist. It's not that hard to understand this Marc.
I do understand the dilemma you find yourself in. Everything you thought you knew about communion and the Body and Blood of Christ just got turned upside down. You can't find any Scripture verses to support your stance substantially, you can't find any writings of the Early Church Fathers that clearly state that the Body and Blood of Christ are simply symbolic. It's straw grasping time...
Go back and read the original article and Dave's detailed initial comment. The Catholic position is completely supported by Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.
I don't write all this to mock you, Marc, but to encourage you to pray about this...seriously. I am praying for you. This very fact has led many former Protestants into the Catholic Church and I believe it will eventually lead you there.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"I do understand the dilemma you find yourself in. Everything you thought you knew about communion and the Body and Blood of Christ just got turned upside down. You can't find any Scripture verses to support your stance substantially, you can't find any writings of the Early Church Fathers that clearly state that the Body and Blood of Christ are simply symbolic. It's straw grasping time... "
That's is interesting. I don't consider this grasping for straws...
"Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out of the Mysteries."
Pope Gelasius clearly points out that bread and wine are just that, bread and wine. However the image and LIKENESS are celebrated in the Eucharist. There is no misunderstanding Gelasius.
"This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we "are made sharers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4)."
To me, that means that Christ is the Bread of Life. The divine reality does not deal with our flesh. It deals with our spirits. When we come to Christ, we won't hunger, we won't thirst and we won't die. This is not reference to our carnal nature but to our spirit. It is a metaphor Joe. Most important, Christ is always present when 2 or more are gathered in His name. I agree with Gelasius on this point. However, Gelasius clearly denied the bread and wine ceasing to be just bread and wine in physical nature. This is not selective reading my friend, this is pointing out the obvious. Pope Gelasius did not believe the wine and bread changed into the actual blood and body of Christ.
"The Catholic position is completely supported by Scripture and the Early Church Fathers."
Actually Joe, a lot of early church fathers did not accept this view of transubstantiation.
"'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."-St. Augustine
Joe there are many church fathers whom Catholic apologists recognize did not truly accept the idea of transubstantiation. The excuse is usually, "doctrine was still in development."
However, back to Pope Gelasius. He either contradicted himself in the same letter...which makes him fallible.:) Or he could have meant what he said. If as you say.."he was not completely accurate" that means either a) he was fallible or b) the Spirit of God forgot to clarify some items. c)If he was correct and did in fact mean that the bread and wine remain as such AS HE DID STATE, then other Popes to follow are wrong or RCC tradition is able to change. The bottom line is that not ALL the early church fathers accepted the belief of transubstantiation, despite your claims.
I have enjoyed our discussions, but now I must stop posting. These posts take to long and Lord knows I need to study for boards.
May God bless all of you.
God Bless
Marc
Posted by: Marc at June 11, 2004 1:32 PMMarc,
I agree with Joe and Dave - somehow you're blinding yourself to the obvious. Gelasius is clear, but he isn't saying what you suggest. He's saying the "Body and Blood of Christ we receive are a Divine Reality." You understand what 'reality' means, right?
Also, I encourage you to really read Augustine. I think it is somewhat humorous that you believe Augustine didn't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Most of his adversaries would have said he was too stout about this belief! You're taking one quote and misinterpreting it, please take some time and read Augustine after your boards. I imagine you might be shocked.
God bless,
Jay
Guys,
Marc made excellent points to which even Catholic apologists agree to. Tim Staples is an example of such an apologist.
That is exactly why Stan chose not to discuss with you this topic. It is pointless because you will believe what "Rome" tells you too.
The reality Jay, is that spiritually Christ is our nourishment. In case you were not paying attention, that is what Marc pointed out in his posts.
If that is the case Jay, why o' WHY did Gelasius say that the bread and wine remain bread and wine?
""Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist."
What does this mean JAY? Did Gelasius make a mistake??Joe, Jay, Dave...anyone...what does Gelasius mean when he says this?
Did he make a mistake??
You can try to cloud the facts by claiming someone misinterpreted or misunderstood, but that does not change the fact that Gelasius did indeed say the nature of the bread and wine. So like Marc said either a)Gelasius made a mistake.
b)Gelasius was right and other Popes and councils were wrong or c) The Holy Spirit left out details about the Eucharist.
Joe said that Gelasius was not completely accurate about the Eucharist. That sounds like there was room for error...but none of you will admit that because that would destroy the credibility of papal infallibility.
What did Gelasius mean when he said
"Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist."
Be blessed
SandT,
You misunderstand papal infallibility so bad it's humorous.
First, you are ignoring the entire quote from Gelasius and just taking the part you like to twist the meaning. For example, I could quote you above as saying, "Christ is our nourishment" and try to argue that you believe in the Eucharist, but this would be a lie.
Second, remember that the early Church disagreed on the Trinity until after 200 A.D. - they agreed on Mary's role long before they agreed on the Trinity. So it isn't unusual for a small error to be made by Gelasius. However, he understands the key issue: "the Body and Blood of Christ we receive are a Divine Reality." I'll pray that you get it, too.
God bless,
Jay
By the way, we aren't arguing from the point of authority - we're proving our point from Scripture, something those who don't believe in the Eucharist can't do.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
To quote from Joe...you are grasping at straws. Those last 2 posts were much ado about nothing.
Unfortunately, Catholic apologists such as Tim Staples fess up to the fact that Gelasius denied transubstantiation. Do you understand that? Besides, Marc already showed scriptually that Christ meant spiritual nourishment. But you, right now, are being "intellectually dishonest."
Christ said if a man comes unto Him, that that man would not hunger or thirst. Christ did not mean carnal hunger or carnal death, but spiritual hunger and thirst. Do you recognize that part Jay?
Do you see how Christ compared manna to the Word of God? With manna the forefathers died...but with the Word of God you shall not. One was for the flesh the other for the spirit. Christ referred to Himself as the bread of Life. Do you see how all these metaphors refer to the spirit. Christ always referred to His body and blood as nourishment for our spirits. These were metaphors. Yes, His body is real food and His blood is real drink. Spiritual food is very real. Christ ministered in matters beyond the flesh when using these metaphors.
Anyways, what did Gelasius mean when he said that the wine and bread never cease being wine and bread? How did I misunderstand?
You know, this probably is pointless...you are stuck on tradition to the point it impairs your judgement. I'll just pray that truth finds you.
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 11, 2004 11:17 PMSandT,
Two things. First, remember that the meaning of words can change over time and especially through context. Did you ever consider that when Gelasius said "THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE DOES NOT CEASE", that he was merely acknowledging that the chemical composition of the elements do not change? After all, that is what most people think of as "substance". The Church still teaches and accepts that the chemical composition of the elements does not change. What does change is the untestable reality that holds the physicality of the elements together. Although the elements still look, smell, feel, and taste like bread and wine, they have morphed. Why else would Gelasius say, "The SACRAMENT of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, IS a DIVINE thing, because by it (THE SACRAMENT!!!!!) we are made partakers of the divine-nature"? Last time I checked, ordinary bread and wine are NOT divine, and cannot help us participate in the divine nature. You really need to reconcile your interpretation of Gelasius with what he actually said. Let me know when you have done so.
Second, there has been a lot of discussion on papal infallibility. I think this topic deserves MUCH more attention than this casual discussion. Catholics are very divided themselves over what is and is not "infallible." Jay or Joe, I think it would be of great benefit if one of us researched when something is or is not "infallible", and posted an article talking about our findings. That would be of great benefit to our Catholic community, and especially to me personally. Please don't delegate to me!!!!! :)
In Christ,
Dave
Dave,
Let's say that you have a Catholic young man. He goes to mass, does all the sacraments and is a nice guy. Never rude to anyone, rarely gets upset. However, he does not read the Bible. He may know about the ark of Noah, he may know about Adam and Eve, but otherwise he does not know much. He partakes in the Eucharist. Does that make him closer to Jesus?
What if the priest conducting the mass is a child molester. Yet know one knows. Would Jesus come down in to the wine and bread when the priest proclaimed it?
The bread of Life is Jesus. Jesus is the living Word. The Word of God is what we live of off. The blood is the what Jesus shed for our sins. Through Him we are forgiven. Recognizing the Word of God and infusing it into our lives is our bread. To recognize Christ as our Savior, we look to the sacrifice He made for us. This is proclaimed when one partakes in communion.
If you look at the eucharist as the physical flesh and blood of Christ rather what it means and represents spiritually, you missed the point.
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 12, 2004 11:05 AMSandT,
To answer both of your questions: Yes. We are what we eat, SandT, so we can't help becoming holier when we eat the body and blood of Christ (the holiest thing on earth). However, I'd also like to point out that in a 3 year span the Catholic Church reads the entire Bible as part of the Mass, so you can't attend Mass without reading the Bible. Does your church do this?
The second question is answered in the Bible. The priest's personal holiness has nothing to do with it - his position is what matters. In the Bible we read that the leader of the Jews prophecied even though he was committing a terrible sin; he was persecuting God. But the Bible notes that because of his position he still had the ability to spout prophecy.
If you're correct and communion is merely symbolic, how do you get around this verse:
1 Corinthians 11:27,29-30. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
That doesn't sound like symbolism to me!
God bless,
Jay
By the way, I also recommend taking a second and reading this post I did on the Biblical foundations of the Eucharist
Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2004 10:08 PMJay and Dave,
"Two things. First, remember that the meaning of words can change over time and especially through context"
This sounds like a dodge.
"In the Bible we read that the leader of the Jews prophecied even though he was committing a terrible sin; he was persecuting God. But the Bible notes that because of his position he still had the ability to spout prophecy."
Could you please point to Scripture on that one for me please? By the way, prophecy is one thing. Calling down God into a piece of bread...that's totally different.
Jay, why did Gelasius make it clear that the bread and wine remain as such? I have read your articles Jay. Sorry to say, you need to do more research. Plenty of early church fathers did not believe in 'transubstantiation', neither did Pope Gelasius.
Be blessed
"That doesn't sound like symbolism to me!"
Jay, it amazes me. It is as if you totally blanked on the previous posts. If you read only one paragraph in the Bible, you may not get the correct meaning. Marc showed you the connections in Scripture. That's ok. We know that you are going to give it your all to defend your belief. I respect that.
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 12, 2004 11:48 PMFirst, SandT your comment above about reading one paragraph and missing the correct content is very ironic. It is a signature feature of most Protestant ministers to take one verse or paragraph and make it the theme of their entire sermon. What Jay is saying is that at Mass, if a Catholic goes daily, they will hear, in verse order, the entire Bible over a three year span. At each Mass there is a reading from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the New Testament books (other than the Gospels), and then finally the Gospels themselves. It is true that a paragraph or section is read, but the very next day you will pickup right where you left off.
Second, to answer Marc's comment that attempts to say that St. Augustine thought the Eucharist was not really Jesus' Body and Blood, I will quote St. Augustine again, and allow that saintly man to defend himself:
"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands. - Explanations of the Psalms
I am mindful of my promise. For I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know who you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ...The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. - SermonsAnd there is much more like this from St. Augustine. If you wish to make your case by quoting "one of the many other" Early Church Fathers who didn't believe in the Real Presence now would be the time, because Augustine, as we've said all along, believed that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
In Christ,
Joe
SandT,
See John 11:49-51 where the high priest prophesies correctly because of his office, not because of his personal holiness, which we know is in question.
Please point out to me the early Church Fathers who did not believe that the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ. Don't repeat Gelasius - you're misunderstanding his quote completely. I'll wait to see if you can name anyone . . .
God bless,
Jay
Joe,
I think by stating that most protestant ministers use only one paragraph for a sermon is generalizing. At my church, we usually go through various Scripture all pertain to the same topic.
""'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."-St. Augustine
All of the quotes you posted still do not disagree with the above. It is still symbolic. You are not eating the skin, heart or bone of Jesus. It is spiritually who He is that you celebrate and partake of. You proclaim that He is Lord when you commune.
Still, there was Pope Gelasius. Dave said that...
"The Church still teaches and accepts that the chemical composition of the elements does not change. "
He also adds...
"What does change is the untestable reality that holds the physicality of the elements together. Although the elements still look, smell, feel, and taste like bread and wine, they have morphed."
If they don't change in the physical realm...does not that mean we are in the spiritual realm? Or does this mean that the physics holding the bread together change?
Do you believe that the bread and wine are actually Christ's flesh(i.e. skin, muscle, hair)and the wine is actually His red crimson blood that bled from His vessels? And that is all it represents?
Is that it?
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 13, 2004 10:35 AMSandT,
You are in denial if you are trying to say that St. Augustine did not clearly say above that it was truly the Body and Blood of Christ that is present in the Eucharist. Also, the quote you keep referring to doesn't contradict the Catholic teaching. It supports the Catholic teaching that Scripture can apply to multiple things. St. Augustine does not say the Eucharist is a symbol, he simply attempts to use this verse to apply it to the sharing in the sufferings of Christ by the Christian believer. Something you have said elsewhere isn't necessary...sharing in the suffering of Christ.
By the way, I find two things ironic here.
1) You are now attempting to refer to the Early Church Fathers, poorly I might add, when in the past you have insisted that you only need the Bible.
2) You have yet to provide clear Bible verses to support your belief in the symbolic nature rather than the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
In reference to the reality of Jesus' True Presence in the Eucharist. First, it is a mystery...kind of like Almighty God being able to confine Himself to a human body. Explain that one for me. Physics cannot limit the power of God. He walked on water, rose from the dead, became man...I don't think it would be too great of a feat for Him to be able to give us Himself in the Eucharist. Also, there have been many Eucharistic miracles where the bread and wine have actually changed to human flesh and blood. The oldest being over 1200 years old and yet still in existence today.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"Also, there have been many Eucharistic miracles where the bread and wine have actually changed to human flesh and blood."-Joe
"The Church still teaches and accepts that the chemical composition of the elements does not change."-Dave
"Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist."-Pope Gelasius
Please address what Pope Gelasius said. I guess you are gasping at straws as you like to put it Joe.
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 13, 2004 3:30 PMSandT,
I already addressed Pope St. Gelasius' comment above so I'm not going to keep repeating it for you. Go back up to my comment when I quoted the entire passage... Again, he did believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Still no Scripture verses that say Jesus' Body and Blood are just a symbol? We are all waiting...shouldn't you be able to find it in the Bible???
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
You quoted the letter, but you did not clarify what he meant when he said that the nature of the bread and wine does not cease.
I believe that when you partake in communion that Jesus is there. The Bible says that when two or more are gathered in HIS name, that He is in the midst. The same goes for communion. That is something we should both understand. However, Gelasius did say that the bread and wine remain just that, bread and wine. This is clear Joe. You have yet to explain what did he mean by saying that the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Notice, he did not say that the bread and wine transform or morph into the body and blood of Christ.
You can claim that you addressed the statement Joe, but that doesn't make it so. So I will rephrase the question. Given that Scripture says that when two or more are gathered in the name of Jesus, that He is in the midst...what then did Pope Gelasius mean when he said that the nature of the bread and wine does not cease??
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 13, 2004 9:37 PMSince you seem to be continuing the use of selective reading I'll just repeat what I said above so that you can see that 1) I did address your question and 2) that Pope St. Gelasius was clear on what he meant by it.
I now will quote James T. O'Connor from his book The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist:
As is obvious, the letter is not directly concerned with the Eucharist but rather with the Christological Mystery of the two natures in the One Person of the Lord. This Mystery was attacked by both Nestorians and Monophysites and was the subject for two councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon. The letter seeks to use the Eucharistic Mystery as an illustration for the Christological truths. It works from the implicit assumption, accepted by all parties, that the Eucharist is Christ. But, says, the author, it is also bread and wine, thereby illustrating how Christ's Person is One, his natures two. It is easy to see how the comparison could be made...
pp. 71-72
The theology of the Eucharist has developed over time, but it has never contradicted Sacred Scripture, nor the overriding beliefs of the Early Church. Pope St. Gelasius in his letter may have been not completely accurate in his explanation of what takes place at the consecration (when the bread and wine are changed or "transubstantiated" into the Body and Blood of Christ) but he did believe that Jesus Christ was fully present in the Eucharist as his letter clearly shows.
In case this isn't clear enough for you...Pope St. Gelasius was saying that in the Eucharist there is a dual presence - the bread and wine (or material nature) and the Body of Blood of Christ (or the divine nature). That is why he uses it as a comparison to the dual natures of Jesus Christ Himself, fully human and fully divine.
You can say all you want about your interpretation about what that presence is, but the facts of the matter remain the same.
1) Scripture (or Jesus) says we must eat the Body of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ.
2) The teachings of the Early Church Fathers support this.
3) All Christians accepted this teaching until the Protestant Revolution in approximately 1517 A.D.
So the burden of proof lies on you. Scripture doesn't support your belief, the Early Church Fathers don't support your belief, and history doesn't support your belief.
I haven't had to grasp at straws...I have quoted John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, and multiple Early Church Fathers. Not to mention that the Mass is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Covenant, that is why Jesus said at the Last Supper:
Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant... - Matt 26:27-28
Still no verses that say the Eucharist is simply a symbol?
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Hmmm...that is a shaky response Joe. I am used to seeing more believeable arguments from you.
"You can say all you want about your interpretation about what that presence is, but the facts of the matter remain the same."-Joe
That doesn't make for a good argument.
Joe once again I will ask these questions.
Is Jesus the bread of Life? Yes
Is Jesus the living Word? Yes
Did Jesus say that man cannot live of off manna but by the Word of God? Yes
Did Jesus compare bread to the Word of God? Yes
Did Jesus distinguish between bread and the Word of God? Yes
What does bread do? Nourish you carnal body.
Will you still die? Yes
What does the Word of God do? Nourish your spirit. Will you die? No;)
However, I will quote Augustine again.
"The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the even of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world...." (Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).
Who is the bread of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, "I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?" Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. (Augustine John: Tractate 25:12).
It is WHAT IS BELIEVED that is eaten. Not so much the bread, but what is believed. CLEARLY as seen here, Augustine is showing that it is not so much eating the bread, but believing what that bread represents. Believe in Jesus and you have already eaten.
I did not have to prove much, however, the fact is that you have been shown in Scripture by some of us here the way that Jesus used bread as a metaphor and you have seen the quotes from Augustine. Again, why get your teeth and stomach ready for food, believe and you have already eaten.
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 14, 2004 7:14 PMSandT,
I just want to point out that you're making a huge bet that the only Church around during the time of Christ is wrong and that Jesus is unjust (I say this because all of the disciples - except the twelve - left thinking that He wasn't speaking metaphorically and He didn't correct Himself, essentially condeming them).
Since you've decided to argue from the Early Church Fathers, I'll quote a few very early ones:
"I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ"
- - St. Ignatius of Antioch around 110 A.D. Letter to the Romans
"Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."
- - St. Ignatius of Antioch around 110 A.D. Letter to the Philadelphians
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again . . . It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them, - neither in public or in private."
- - St. Ignatius of Antioch around 110 A.D. Letter to the Smyrnaeans
"We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."
- - St. Justin the Martyr around 148 A.D. First Apology
Wow! You have more faith in your interpretation than I would consider reasonable, but stick to your guns! You might be right and all of the Early Church Fathers and the Bible might be wrong. You never know, right?
Good luck explaining your interpretation to Peter at the pearly gates.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
"Good luck explaining your interpretation to Peter at the pearly gates"-Jay
That's kind of childish Jay.
"I just want to point out that you're making a huge bet that the only Church around during the time of Christ is wrong and that Jesus is unjust (I say this because all of the disciples - except the twelve - left thinking that He wasn't speaking metaphorically and He didn't correct Himself, essentially condeming them)."
Jay, I can say most assuredly that Christ would have a lot to say about all churches in the world today, Protestant and Roman Catholics.
The point of my posts were to show that NOT all the EARLY CHURCH Fathers agreed on the concept of transubstantiation. I quoted Gelasius(a RCC pope) and Augustine. If you want to believe they meant otherwise, you can. Just be assured that I heard Tim Staples agree that Gelasius denied transubstantiation.
Lastly Jay, the Roman Catholic church of today is not the same church as the early church.
Simply put, the church of Nicea for example, did not....
1. look to the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ, the head of the universal Church, the pastor of all Christians;
2. believe in the Marian doctrines that set Rome apart, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Bodily Assumption;
3. embrace such concepts as the thesaurus meritorum, purgatory, and indulgences;
4. believe in the Roman concept of authority, replete with extra-biblical, revelatory or inspired "traditions" that add to the "deposit of faith" items and beliefs not found in Scripture:
5. nor practice the necessary devotions to reserved, consecrated hosts that would substantiate the leap from a belief in "real presence" to the much later belief in "transubstantiation."
Jay, the evidence clearly shows that the above was not practiced in the early church. So to claim that the early church or church of Nicea, Corinth, or any church in the Bible is the same church as the Roman Catholic church today is preposterous. That is just as bad as me trying to say that Augustine or Cyril were Protestants. So let us be intellectually honest. The facts are present.
Be blessed
"Intellectually honest"? I don't think you know what that means. Actually read some of the posts on this site. Everything you have said above has been proven time and time again to you personally, SandT. I'm sorry that you're willing to ignore the evidence before you.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
That is your opinion Jay, and you are entitled to it. This is my last post as well, like Stan said, you will deny facts until you are blue in the face in order to support what Rome says. Then again that is just my opinion...no hard feelings:)
Be blessed
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at June 14, 2004 11:27 PMFor the record...
1)There were no biblical proofs provided by any Protestants that clearly stated that the Eucharist was just a symbolic reenactment of the Last Supper.
2)As quoted by both Jay and myself, the Early Church Fathers, those living between the years of 100 and 500 A.D. clearly believed and taught that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
3)Not one historical proof was provided to support the Protestant position.
I will end by pointing out again that few teachings of Jesus Christ are as detailed and as clear as His teaching on the Eucharist (John 6). St. Paul clearly believed and taught the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as well (1 Corinthians 11:27-30). This single doctrine should give all Protestants pause.
SandT, Tim Staples is a firm believer in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and in transubstantiation as show in the article I have linked to below.
I will continue to pray for you and for your conversion.
In Christ,
Joe
Have we, human beings, really become so elite that we can assert every detail of our faith as utlimate truth? Has our arrogance progressed so much that we can speak to one another in Christ with phrases like, "Good luck explaining that to Peter at the Pearly Gates, "Actually read some of the posts on this site," "So you believe Jesus Christ isn't worth discussion?", "You might be right and all of the Early Church Fathers and the Bible might be wrong. You never know, right?" and finally "For the record"? These comments not only are plainly disrespectful but are intentionally antagonistic, egotistical, and self-righteous. Do you really expect someone to crumple to your argument and convert using that language? And we wonder why Christians get a bad rap in this country for their views, well maybe its just the way we express them. If we engage in dialogue like this, how are we speaking to nonbelievers? If you don't see these comments the same way I do, with all sincerity, that's fine because YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN OPINION. Yes, EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion. I will express mine and not treat it as if it were the direct Words of God spoken in modern day English. I personally will never trust myself to know the ultimate truth, the infinite reality that is God. We were meant for communion with Him, not a full understanding of Him. I hope that no one becomes too engulfed in the importance of the argument on this page, because the poor are suffering, the nations are falling, our leaders are failing, our neighbors are fighting, and I believe that our job is to be not of the world but to live in it showing our love for others and our respect for them in our words and deeds. "They'll know we are Christians by our love," I hope that's true. Blessed be all of you. In Christ's Love, Taylor.
Posted by: Taylor at April 3, 2006 11:18 PMWell, if this is posted, I am encouraged to know that I was not blocked from sharing my opinion, especially such a dangerous one, the universal entitlement to opinions. I also hope that my post wasn't too charged. I meant well, and didn't post for the sake of argument but for the sake of introspection and thought. I hope this is a shared intention.
In Christ, Taylor
Taylor
I don't think that anyone here would argue against John 17:22...in fact if you read closely that is precisely what we are saying. The problem seems to be the 30000 different protesting christian interpretations of scripture Newsweek finds in its research... that flies fully in the face of your, mine and Christ's desire that we may be one.
You note that, "maybe all the church fathers are right and the bible is wrong."
Could it be just possible that maybe because the church fathers were taught at the foot of the apostles that they know the correct interpretation of scripture and your private interpretation is twisted? 2 Pet 1:120- 2:1. Or is it more likely (as you claim) that 2000 yrs later the Holy Spirit has chosen YOU as the true interpreter of scripture Acts 15.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at April 4, 2006 9:52 AMTaylor
I retract what I said re: that quote...I see you are quoting from above and not necessarily expressing your opinion.
I agree then... with some of what you say, if consistent with John 17. But I disagree strongly with your strawman that somehow we pretend to "know the infinite reality of God." In fact I find it offensive and defamatory... noone here ever said that or if I missed it ... citation please?
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at April 4, 2006 12:13 PMA quick cat-call from the bleachers: I don't mean to jump on such a small point, Taylor, but I'd have to disagree with you regarding the "universal entitlement to opinions." That's more or less at the heart of the matter that folks are discussing here. An opinion, like theological and spiritual knowledge, has to be earned. The kind of opinion that one is entitled to is the kind that isn't worth hearing or having (not to sound too harsh about it). The overwhelming majority of Christians tend to think that one moment's deference to a belief in God gives them the right to speak on matters that even the best of men have trembled to speak about--this, in the face of the fact that Christ himself and Paul both kept silent for YEARS after the beginning of their ministry (Christ's obviously starting at birth). If God Himself (in the Person of the Son) has to fast and pray (and suffer and read and listen and work) before beginning to teach, surely a little historical research of historical records on the part of every Christian isn't too much to ask?
I don't mean for this to sound as flippant or sardonic as it probably does, but I wanted to make clear the juxtaposition between what usually passes for opinions and what the Scriptures (I think) clearly say about earning knowledge. Technically, we're not entitled to anything but death, and we can only hope for a good one. Everything else is what we can work hard for and what can only be given to us--neither of which is an entitlement.
Tobias
