Eucharist: Looks Like Bread, Tastes Like Bread....

[ironmonk]

I first humbly ask, please don't come bashing this with fluff posts... if you think I'm wrong, come with some meaty material. Scripture and writings from the first Christians which date before 1517 AD, because we need you to show what the first Christians taught.

It is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh... Indeed the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. God is beyond human logic, and is above humans. I pity the man that thinks that their logic is above God.

Let's look at the prophecy in the OT and then some of what is in the NT.

Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Note it says "from the rising of the sun to its setting". There are Catholic Massess all over the world. 300,000 a day from my understanding. Each one offers that pure grain offering.

Exodus 12:17

"Keep, then, this custom of the unleavened bread. Since it was on this very day that I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt, you must celebrate this day throughout your generations as a perpetual institution.

Notice how with the significant action of the Lord delivering His people out of Egypt that we have a perpetual institution built. The next significant action was the coming of the Lord Jesus... we now have a perpetual institution for the Lord came to free us from sin, as Moses freed God's people from Egypt.

Exodus 12:48

If any aliens living among you wish to celebrate the Passover of the LORD, all the males among them must first be circumcised, and then they may join in its observance just like the natives. But no man who is uncircumcised may partake of it.

We know baptism replaced circumcision. Celebrating the Passover included eating of the lamb. Jesus is the Lamb. The Mass replaced the Passover. The sun never sets on the worship of our Lord in the Catholic Church. Non-baptised people are not allowed to take the Eucharist. Again, we see fulfillment only in the Catholic Church

Zech. 9:15

The LORD of hosts shall be a shield over them, they shall overcome sling stones and trample them underfoot; They shall drink blood like wine, till they are filled with it like libation bowls, like the corners of the altar.

16 And the LORD, their God, shall save them on that day, his people, like a flock. For they are the jewels in a crown raised aloft over his land.

17 For what wealth is theirs, and what beauty! grain that makes the youths flourish, and new wine, the maidens!

This is fulfilled in the Catholic Church.

1 Corin. 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12

28 A person should examine himself, 13and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If it were just bread, then the unworthy person would not be eating and drinking judgment on himself.

John 6:60

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

If I was an anti-Catholic, I think what would make me most mad is that God did not grant me to come to Him, since I would disbelieve in what Christ said in the Eucharist. It must be a horrible feeling. Very saddening. So it is totally understandable why so many anti-Catholics do lash out. Much like a wounded animal, the hurt brings anger.

John 6:52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"

53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

How else would we eat the Flesh of Christ unless the Eucharist was real? Without the Eucharist, there is no life. The Mass is the most important thing on earth that we can do. God is present, and unlike in the days of the Old Testament when only the High Priest was allowed to be in the pressence of the Lord once a year, now, all men are welcome. Ever Catholic parish is the Father's House.

Now, let's look at some of the writings from the first Christians and what they believed.

The views and interpretation of Scripture in this post are not my own, but they are of the Christian Church built in 33 AD. I am nothing without the Church because she teaches me the way to Christ. The Church is wise, and loves us all like children.

Ignatius of Antioch

"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" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"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 [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,

the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and 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. . . . [since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, 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" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

I think that the Church built by Christ, and the men who were faithful to the Lord who were entrusted by the Apostles, and the successors of the Apostles, and their successors.... passed on the Truth. I believe them because Christ was real. Christ cannot be wrong. I follow the teachings Church of the Bible, the same Church that gave us the Canon... which is the same Church built on the Apostles with Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.

If you are going to rebut this, I ask you these questions:

Do you say it is impossible that Jesus make bread into His Flesh?

Are you infallible when it comes to interpretation of Scripture?

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Edited January 31, 2004 by ironmonk

[Dave]

If you are going to rebut this, I ask you these questions:

Do you say it is impossible that Jesus make bread into His Flesh?

I thought I'd add a portion of an article I read:

Unfortunately, despite all the Biblical and historical evidence supporting the Real Presence, many people will insist that Christ is only symbolically presence during Communion. They will not reject the Real Presence based on the biblical explanations stated above or the distrust in the early Christians. They will reject the Real Presence based on their unbelief that Christ’s body and blood can be present under the forms of bread and wine. In other words, some people will refuse the doctrine based on their inability to intellectually understand or explain the Real Presence. The rejection of a belief should never be made entirely on a lack of human understanding. Just because the human mind can not understand something does not make it false. Often, this is the same reason why Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists often do not believe in God because they can not ‘figure it out’ or they can not grasp the whole concept of God. That is why Atheists ask Christians questions like, "If God created you, then who created God?" The truth is that God (just like the Eucharist) cannot be intellectually explained. The belief is based on faith in God not on human intellect. Just think of all the incredible things Christians believe. Take a step back and think of how amesome the bodily resurrection of Jesus is or how difficult it is to grasp the concept of the Trinity. These are very difficult doctrines to intellectually understand. Furthermore, what about the nature of Christ? Christians believe that Christ was both 100% divine and 100% human. All of these examples transcend the human intellect and require a tremendous amount of faith. The Catholic church simply asks each person to use that same faith to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Protestant Reformers believed in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, but they stopped there. They did not believe in the mystery of the Real Presence. Proverbs 3:5 tells us to, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not." The question is not, "Why do Catholics believe in the Real Presence?," but "Why do Protestants not believe in the Real Presence?" Jesus promised the Eucharist, the Apostles taught about the Eucharist, and the early Christians practiced the Eucharist. For the Protestant, the Real Presence of Christ in Communion must be prayerfully studied with an open mind. With this approach and through the grace of God, Protestants can accept this belief and truly say , "Thy will be done."

[phatcatholic]

ironmonk............i'm puttin ur post in the reference section. send me a message if ur not down w/ that.

thanks bro,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

darn, its too long. i'm gonna have to provide a link to ur post instead....

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I don't believe that the Real Presence exists in Protestant churches b/c there is no valid consecration. Maybe that is some justification for their disbelief. You can only find the Eucharist in Catholic Churches and if you've never been to one, then you're actually right that it's just bread and wine in the communion services you take part in. I know this isn't exactly answering your question, but I just thought I'd throw that in there.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I asked a protestant minister this question. Here is what he told me:

So, what did the Fathers teach about the bread and wine? I refer to William Webster's book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. He writes: "Some of the Fathers taught that the elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and that this presence is spiritual, while others maintained that the elements are changed into Christ's body and blood and that his presence is physical."

Those who gave a literal meaning include: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom and Ambrose. Those who gave a figurative meaning include Pope Gelasius I, Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine.

Webster gives several quotes from the Fathers as proof. Amongst others he cites Augustine:

"If a sentence seems to enjoin a crime or vice, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," Christ says, "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."

In the language of Scripture, Augustine often spoke of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. For example he wrote: "That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ" (Sermons 227, 21). This however does not mean that he believed in transubstantiation, namely, that the bread ceases to be bread and that it literally becomes the body of Christ. For the Lord Jesus, having said, "This is my body," explains the significance of his statement. He immediately adds: "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Since the bread is the remembrance of his body, it could not be the physical body that was crucified on the cross. Otherwise it would not be a remembrance.

Elsewhere Augustine explains, "But He instructed them [the disciples], and saith unto them, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood." (Exposition on the Psalms, XCIX). Clearly Augustine did not believe that the bread of the Eucharist is the same body as that indwelt by Christ, nor is the wine the same blood that was shed on the cross. Yet, the bread can be called his body in a sacramental and spiritual sense. Elsewhere he explains that the sacraments have a certain likeness to the things of which they are the sacraments (Augustine, Letter 98.9).

Pope Gelasius refutes transubstantiation and calls the bread and wine 'images' and 'the similitude' of the body of Christ. "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." (Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius).

So there was heterogeneity of beliefs in the early church about the Eucharist. This is evidenced by the great controversy in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages about the meaning of the Eucharistic elements. Transubstantiation finally was promulgated as dogma of the Roman Church during the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. That shows that the present Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist was not held by everyone in the early church.

I post this, just for the sake of getting both sides of the issues. I have a hard time finding the means to dispute it. I have tried with Augustine and I flat out think that this fellow is wrong about him. But as for the other I'm not sure.

If this thread is truly ecumenical, I would suggest someone dispute this article so that we don't have people just throwing quotes around. I've tried! :wacko:

[ironmonk]

Many people try to say that "everyone in the Chuch didn't believe such-n-such until it was declared in council whatever"....

This is a ruse.

When something goes to council, it is normally to weed out the heresies that slip in by the weeds in the Church. There are weeds among the wheat. Transubstination has always been taught, the name was only given to it in 1215 AD.

Webster hopes that people do not look things up.

I doubt that there are any teachings against it... saying the Eucharist is one thing does not mean that it's not the other.... i.e. it's the image, and the actual body and blood.

Common flaw in many peoples theology after 1517 AD.

When I have time, I'll show the errors in webster's theology.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[phatcatholic]

first off, since when does the testimony of two men prove that the ENTIRE CHURCH was divided over the issue? a dogma is declared such b/c the MAJORITY of Christians believe it, not every single solitary one. furthermore, popes in their private opinions are allowed to err on what is later considered doctrine by the Church. it is only in "ex cathedra" statements that they are bound to the Truth that has always been maintained.

also, context is essential--and i mean ESSENTIAL--when reading the testimony of the Fathers. two sentences seem to reveal one intent of the author, whereas reading the paragraphs before and afterward often reveal an entirely different intent. so, one would have to explore the context of both these citations to gather the exact idea that the author was trying to convey.

furthermore, what Protestants always seem to forget is that Catholics believe that the Eucharist is both literal AND symbolic. therefore, when a Catholic defends the symbolic nature of the Eucharist, he does not automatically reject the literal nature of it. this is the glory of Eucharistic theology, and it is an aspect that Protestants often fail to realize.

finally, i believe our friend William Webster is vehemently anti-catholic. so, the author has failed from the start in referencing an anti-catholic work in his attempt to learn more about the early Church. any reference from an anti-catholic work should automatically be questioned and the original source (in this case, Augustine) must be checked itself to look for any discrepancies. you'll be amazed how many blatant research errors are made in the sake of "honest research."

once one takes all of the points i have mentioned here into consideration, then one hardly comes to the simple conclusion that your minster feels he has reached.

i hope this helps.........pax christi,

phatcatholic

ps: reading Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" helped me tremendously when it came to analyzing Protestant research, the Early Church Fathers, and the seemingly unanswerable claims that Protestants make against Catholicism. i highly recommend it.

Edited February 3, 2004 by phatcatholic

[ironmonk]

ps: reading Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" helped me tremendously when it came to analyzing Protestant research, the Early Church Fathers, and the seemingly unanswerable claims that Protestants make against Catholicism. i highly recommend it.

I second that, and also recommend "The Usual Suspects: Answering Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists" by Karl Keating.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thank you guys for the input. I would caution you, however, that what we have done ie saying we will look into something later or recommending books, is exactly what the protestants I ask do to me. I would imagine they would be upset if they were protestants asking us and we did this. Because the fact of the matter is, if you really know a subject well, that is knowing more than just your side's case, you should be able to relate it to someone else without a book (which usually only states one side of the case anyway). If you don't know, such as me, then you come to one of these threads and admit it.

I suppose the best argument so far is that the majority of the people believed in the real presence, but that does not really mean that's what is true. Protestants would argue that man thinks carnally therefore they are right. Ironically Catholics would argue that man thinks carnally too, but also that their opinion is the majority, and therefore they are right.

There must something we're (I'm) missing. Is simple orthodoxy the means to religion?

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[p0lar_bear]

dairygirl,

Two things:

First, nobody is an expert in every field in theology. No one has all the answers available off-hand. Doing further research or referring people to other resources is generally more responsible than pretending you have all the answers.

Second, saying "the majority of people believe such-n-such" is a really weak argument for something being true.

The best argument for the Real Presence isn’t that more people believe it. In fact, there are a lot more people who don’t believe it. I think what Ironmonk, phatcatholic, and Dave are trying to show is that the Real Presence has always been believed. Belief in the Real Presence is not something that developed as a “corruption” of the Truth, it is part of the Truth.

[ironmonk]

When I say that I'll get back to you with something, I will. You should actually look up the quotes yourself, read at least a paragraph before and after the quote to get a better picture of what was meant. Many non-Catholics who use quotes from the ECF's take them out of context and are easily proven wrong when looking them up. Why aren't there any quotes from the others that are claimed to be against the Real Pressence?

One note about the 1217 AD ruse... Pay heed to the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD... Just looking at this statement, we see that those who use the 1217 AD date have not really studied it, or are intentionally leading someone astray. Acts 20:30 - All protestant churches left the Catholic Church; meditate on Acts 20:30.

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

The article states that the following men gave a figurative meaning of the Eucharist. Just because they wrote of a figurative meaning does NOT mean that they were against the literal meaning.

Pope Gelasius I

Could not find his writings from any creditable source.

Eusebius

Much as he disliked it, even Calvin had to acknowledge the evident force of the argument from tradition (Instit. IV, xvii, sect. 739). Not only have the Fathers, and among them Chrysostom with special vigor, defended in theory the permanence of the Real Presence, but the constant practice of the Church has also established its truth. In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian, "De lapsis", xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf. Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii). Furthermore, it was customary as early as the fourth century to celebrate the Mass of the Presanctifed (cf. Synod of Laodicea, can. xlix), in which were received the Sacred Hosts that had been consecrated one or more days previously.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm Chapter 44

"he gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist, telling him to soak it and let the drops fall into the old man's mouth. The boy returned with it, and as he drew near, before he entered, Serapion again arousing, said, 'Thou art come, my child, and the presbyter could not come; but do quickly what he directed, and let me depart.' Then the boy soaked it and dropped it into his mouth. And when he had swallowed a little, immediately he gave up the ghost. Is it not evident that he was preserved and his life continued till he was absolved, and, his sin having been blotted out, he could be acknowledged for the many good deeds which he had done?" "

Theodoret

303 Very often it is not entire bodies that are buried, but only very small

remains, yet nevertheless we speak of the body by the name that belongs to the

whole man. It was in this sense that the angel called the body of the Lord,

"Lord," because it was the body of the Lord of the universe. Moreover the Lord

Himself promised to give on behalf of the life of the world, not His invisible

nature, but His body. "For," He says, "the bread that I will give is my flesh

which I will give for the life of the world," and when He took the symbol

of divine mysteries, He said, "This is my body which is given for you." Or

according to the version of the Apostle, "broken." In no place where He

spoke of the passion did He mention the impossible Godhead.

314 "The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the

world," and when He delivered the divine mysteries and broke the symbol and

distributed it, He added "This is my body which is being broken for you for

the remission of sins," and again "This is my blood which is shed for many

for the remission of sins," and again "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son

of Man and drink His blood ye have no life in you" and "Whosoever eateth my

flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life" "in himself" he adds"

The word "symbol" is used, but in the context it is in, it is literal. If it was not literal, it would not be a divine mystery, or called the Flesh. This is an example of a translational problem with something written thousands of years ago in another language. None the less, when compared with all the other quotes, it is clear that it was a literal meaning to these that the sinister Webster claimed were figurative.

Jerome

THE LETTERS OF ST. JEROME: LETTER LXXI. TO LUCINIUS.

As regards the holy eucharist you may receive it at all times(7) without qualm of conscience or disapproval from me. You may listen to the psalmist's words:--"O taste and see that the Lord is good;"(8) you may sing as he does:--"my heart poureth forth a good word."

Here Jerome speaks of tasting the Lord in the Eucharist. If it he thought it was figurative, why would he consider tasting the Lord.

Athanasius

OF FASTING, AND TRUMPETS, AND FEASTS

508:5

And as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being heavenly bread, is

the food of the saints, according to this; 'Except ye eat My flesh, and drink

My blood

Augustine

The article claims that Augustine was against the literal meaning, if you would have read the quotes above you would have seen that the article was wrong. Here they are again.

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, 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" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

It appears you take claims at the value of the word coming out of the mouth of the prot minister; you have access to almost all the writings you could possibly need online, you would have easily seen that they guy was wrong if you would have only taken the time to look things up yourself.

Anytime someone quotes someone, you should look it up for yourself, that includes quotes that I post. You would learn so much more by looking them up. The Faith is not a philosophical journey, it's real as the ground you walk on. There are facts and the more you read, the more the facts come into the light. You will be able to discern what is Truth, and what is error.

Something else to note, I've been involved in Apologetics for about four years. This is the first time I've ever heard this attack. If it had any truth to it, I'm sure it would be used by more non-Catholics. I've been in dialog with numerous preachers, and ministers of various denominations, including those who personally know the likes of ian paisley. Not once have I heard this in their refute of the Real Presence.

A few sources for you:

http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/

http://www.Catholic-Pages.com

http://www.Catholic.com

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Edited February 4, 2004 by ironmonk

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

what ironmonk has essentially done is illustrated and thoroughly proved the following points:

1. when anti-catholics quote the Fathers, they should always be double-checked. it is often likely that they cannot be trusted. they twist the fathers as they do scripture.

2. context is important when understanding what the fathers wish to convey.

3. more often than not, the fathers will affirm catholic doctrine before they will reject it.

4. catholic doctrine is affirmed by the majority of the fathers, but not always all. there will be a few who disagree. these few do not represent the true apostolic teaching of the church.

5. also, note that the fathers may debate an issue as doctrine develops and as they attempt to grapple w/ every aspect of it. this is normal and okay. also, note however that when an authoritative decision is made, those who had questions before almost always assent to to this.

6. the fathers are only infallible when they are in accordance w/ the infallible teaching and sacred tradition of the Church, just as the voice of the orthodox faithful hold a measure of infallibility today.

keep these in mind, and the points i made in my earlier post and you will be able to adequately respond to the next twisting of the fathers that comes along.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

Edited February 4, 2004 by phatcatholic

[ironmonk]

dairygirl,

what ironmonk has essentially done is illustrated and thoroughly proved the following points:

1. when anti-catholics quote the Fathers, they should always be double-checked. it is often likely that they cannot be trusted. they twist the fathers as they do scripture.

2. context is important when understanding what the fathers wish to convey.

3. more often than not, the fathers will affirm catholic doctrine before they will reject it.

4. catholic doctrine is affirmed by the majority of the fathers, but not always all. there will be a few who disagree. these few do not represent the true apostolic teaching of the church.

5. also, note that the fathers may debate an issue as doctrine develops and as they attempt to grapple w/ every aspect of it. this is normal and okay. also, note however that when an authoritative decision is made, those who had questions before almost always assent to to this.

6. the fathers are only infallible when they are in accordance w/ the infallible teaching and sacred tradition of the Church, just as the voice of the orthodox faithful hold a measure of infallibility today.

keep these in mind, and the points i made in my earlier post and you will be able to adequately respond to the next twisting of the fathers that comes along.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

You forgot a major point...

They were all Catholic, loyal to the Pope.

This speaks volumes, granted, some like Tertullian went into Schism, but the schism that broke off came back years later.

The only Christian Church that is around today that was around in 33 AD was the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope. The only way for the bible to be true is if the Catholic Church is the Church of the Bible, because:

• The Church gave us the canon NT.
  
• Christ said that the Church would never be overcome.
  
• Christ said that the Church would be guided in all truth.
  
• Christ said that the Church would be like a city on a mountain which could not be hidden.
  

If the Church is not the Catholic Church, then there is no God, and Jesus was just a man. We know that Jesus was either God, a liar, or a madman.

If Jesus was a liar, He would have not allowed Himself to be killed for others on a cross.

If Jesus was a madman, He would not have been able to have so many followers.

If Jesus was God, everything He said would be True.

Only One Church meets what Jesus said would be.... the Catholic Church.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk