Most Protestants will know that Martin Luther held that the church rose and fell on the idea of Sola Fide.

I heard a very interesting argument recently that a better argument would be that the church rises or falls on the Eucharist. I had never thought about it and found it interesting. Pretty much the idea was that if Christ did not literally mean that we must eat of His body and drink His blood, and that at Last Supper the bread and wine were not really His body and His blood then the other differences between Catholics and Protestants meant nothing. However, if Christ was being literal, this one difference meant everything.

In a nutshell, to me it makes some sense. I don't want this to be a Catholic/Protestant bashing thread, so let's try not let it become that.

That being said, what do you think, does this strike you as a very interesting argument and does it hold a lot of merit?

If the devil ever wins out (he won't) and gets the Catholic Church to renounce the fact that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then that will be the end of the Catholic Church. It is the very lifeblood of the Church.

The devil has already won, you (Roman Catholic church)are guarding the wrong ideals... quite a deceiver isn't he?

Of course Jesus was not speaking of the "flesh" "carnal" when he spoke of this point in John 6.

John 6:41-58
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven."
42They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"
43Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.
44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
46"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48"I am the bread of life.
49"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
53So 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 yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

True = alethos {al-ay-thoce'}adv truly, of a truth, in reality, most certainly

The woman at the well wanted "living water" so she would have to come to the well any more, John 4, Nicodemus was wondering how when a man was grown could he be "reborn", John 3, and you (Catholics) wonder about the mystery of the "true" flesh and "true" blood of Jesus that gives life, John 6...

...And by the way Protestant, Sola Fide is also a false idea, it is not taught either.


[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 1/6/2006 1:37a).]

OceanStateAg,

From a traditional Protestant position, I would not think the doctrine of the Supper is nearly as important as it is to a Roman Catholic. I would think the emphasis would be on sovereignty.

From a modern day protestant position, I do not see any doctrine as important as man's free will.

AgGermany,

Would you please clarify that last statement.

SDG,
Riggs

Solafideism... salvation by faith only "alone" is false, as is salvation by works...

From a protestant site...

quote:

---

The doctrine that salvation is by faith only. The term emerged as a consequence of Luther's translation of Rom. 3:28 in which he added the word "alone" to the phrase "man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the Law" (NASB). He was severely castigated for this, but Erasmus defended him. The translation is justifiable in view of the only alternative, namely justification by works, which Paul expressly repudiated.

---

When mere men make additional doctrine as a reaction to "false teaching" as opposed to offering merely what scripture says then it is not truth as God's word id said to be in John 17.

[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 1/6/2006 4:48a).]

Here is a discussion I found on how different Protestants view "sola fide"...

Disunity on "Faith Alone"


Lutherans understand the formula of sola fide in a way that does not exclude baptism as a means of justification, as do some Anglicans, some Presbyterians in relation to elect infants, and members of the Campbellite or "Church of Christ" movement. For many Protestants, however, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide. This division goes back to the early days of the Protestant Reformation, as illustrated by Luther’s Large Catechism, in which he excoriates Anabaptists for the new, non-baptismal interpretation they were giving his "faith alone" formula.

Following their founder, Lutherans also understand sola fide in a way that allows salvation to be lost, as do most Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Anglicans. However, Calvinists, Baptists, and many non-denominational Evangelicals influenced by Calvinists hold that, if it is possible to lose salvation, then justification is accomplished in part by one’s "works" (in this case, avoiding the sins that would cause its loss), which is a violation of sola fide. (Those who concede the possibility of losing salvation are also split on the possibility of regaining it after a fall.)

Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Anglicans and Baptists understand sola fide in a way that requires one to repent of one’s sins in order to be justified. However, some Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, and especially many Dispensationalists hold that, if repentance is understood as involving a behavioral change whereby one turns away from one’s sinful pattern of life, then salvation is in some measure "by works," violating sola fide.

One of the most contentious points among Protestants is the meaning of the term faith in "faith alone." It is widely recognized, per James 2:14–26, that not all forms of faith justify. However, there is great disagreement over the nature of "saving faith" or "justifying faith." Some Protestants, such as Z. Hodges and C. C. Ryrie, appear to hold that saving faith consists of a person’s recognition and acceptance of the fact that Christ died for him (part of what Catholics call the virtue of faith). Others, such as R. C. Sproul, insist that saving faith includes a conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of hope). Still others, in keeping with Galatians 5:6, insist that saving faith includes trust and results in a life of good works, which are inspired by supernatural love (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of charity).

Various Protestants will also add into the definition of faith the need for faith to be expressed in baptism, the need for faith to be expressed in repentance, the need for faith to be expressed in good works, the need for a particular form of emotional confidence, the need to have faith in God rather than "faith in one’s own faith," and other qualifiers.

Those who do not share the same understanding of saving faith are, by necessity, looked upon as having a false understanding of "faith alone."

quote:

---

Solafideism... salvation by faith only "alone" is false, as is salvation by works...

---

Are you then arguing one of the three lapsarianism arguments?

http://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html

My Lord commanded me to do this, and He created the Church, His Bride, in which to minister this representation of His sacrifice to me through a direct line of His Apostles/Bishops/Presbyters..

In fact, look at the Early Church Father’s Writings (I am sure TexasAg73 has suggested this many times) and see where the Central Point of the Church – The Cornerstone - is the Eucharist…. Not Faith ALONE…..How could it have been, Luther was 1400-1500 years into the future.

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”
_____________________________________________
Preludes to the Sublime Gift of the Eucharist:
I. Gospel According to St. Mark
6:34 And Jesus going out saw a great multitude: and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things.
6:35 And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came to him, saying: This is a desert place, and the hour is now past:
6:36 Send them away, that going into the next villages and towns, they may buy themselves meat to eat.
6:37 And he answering said to them: Give you them to eat. And they said to him: Let us go and buy bread for two hundred pence, and we will give them to eat.
6:38 And he saith to them: How many loaves have you? go and see. And when they knew, they say: Five, and two fishes,
6:39 And he commanded them that they should make them all sit down by companies upon the green grass.
6:40 And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties.
6:41 And when he had taken the five loaves, and the two fishes: looking up to heaven, he blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave to his disciples to set before them: and the two fishes he divided among them all.
6:42 And they all did eat, and had their fill.
6:43 And they took up the leavings, twelve full baskets of fragments, and of the fishes.
6:44 And they that did eat, were five thousand men.
&
II. Gospel According to St. Luke
9:13 But he said to them: Give you them to eat. And they said: We have no more than five loaves and two fishes; unless perhaps we should go and buy food for all this multitude.
9:14 Now there were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples: Make them sit down by fifties in a company.
9:15 And they did so; and made them all sit down.
9:16 And taking the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed them; and he broke, and distributed to his disciples, to set before the multitude.
9:17 And they did all eat, and were filled. And there were taken up of fragments that remained to them, twelve baskets.
9:18 And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples also were with him: and he asked them, saying: Whom do the people say that I am?
9:19 But they answered, and said: John the Baptist; but some say Elias; and others say that one of the former prophets is risen again.
9:20 And he said to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answering, said: The Christ of God.

Gospel According to St. Luke – Introduction of the Eucharist
22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
22:20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.


Gospel According to St. Matthew - Introduction of the Eucharist
26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Defense of the Eucharist - If the Eucharist is not what some claim it is not – i.e.: Not the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of the Lord – then Why did Paul make such a trip to Church at Corinth and why did he stress the following to the point of one who receives Unworthily Brings Condemnation on Himself??

Corinthians:
11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
11:22 What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not ? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
11:24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
11:27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
11:30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.
11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

Tell me “Faith Aloners”, how do we, or when do we, know when to take Scripture literally and know when to take it figuratively?? Is it when it fits our theology and thinking, or is it by the Bride of Christ’s led by The Holy Spirit? That, my Brothers and Sisters, is another topic……

In Christ


texag_89

quote:

---

look at the Early Church Father’s Writings

---

ok…

"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling." - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

"'He that eateth me,' He says, 'he also shall live because of me;' for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says." - Basil (Letter 8:4)

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. '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." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/6/2006 5:27p).]

It's the real thing...

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

Irenaeus actually believed in Consubstantiation rather than the current RC view of Transubstantiation:

"For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)

I believe Augustine stated best what the Reformed Prot view is here where He compares it to a holiday, showing it is called by the same name, but it simply “symbolizes” the reality and yet doesn't actually constitute the reality that it resembles:

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why eating blood and flesh would not be against the Law of Moses.

This whole argument is pretty stupid anyway, if I may be blunt. Even the people who follow the "literal" tradition say it is a holy mystery which they can't explain. As long as you don't think you are an actual cannibal (forbidden by the Law and something Jesus would never have taught) it really doesn't matter.

RamblinAG - Wrong kind of flesh, wrong kind of blood that you are referring to...

........."Our brother and sister Christians of the early centuries were accused of cannibalism because non-Christians misunderstood what Christians received when they ate the Sacred Flesh and drank the Precious Blood of Jesus in Holy Communion. They didn't understand that it is not the dead flesh and blood of a human person we eat. It is the glorified, divine Flesh and Blood of Jesus, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity ~ God, risen from the dead, Who will never die again. The Flesh we eat and the Blood we drink is flesh and blood that has been divinized; It is Divine Food. It is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, our Lord and our God."






http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html



[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 1/7/2006 10:54a).]

[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 1/7/2006 11:00a).]

I realize it is not the dead flesh of a human being. However eating living flesh of anything is just as bad.

I will admit that I have no idea what the physical makeup of Jesus' resurrected body is. For all I know, that body is a sort of marshmallow man made of yeast-free bread with wine for blood. In that case you would literally be eating His flesh and blood. I can also buy the Reformed view that the bread is bread and the wine is wine, but the intention and act parallels a spiritual reality happening simultaneously.

What I can't understand is people thinking they are eating and drinking living human flesh whether divine or not.

Jesus is literally and wholly present — body and blood, soul and divinity — under the appearances of bread and wine.

Here's some early Christians and Saints on the question.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

RamblinAg - You aren't the first person to disbelieve Jesus' doctrine of the Eucharist....

John 6:58: 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."
59: This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um.
60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
61: But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62: Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64: But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65: And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
66: After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Thanks Redstone. I'll check that link soon.

73,

As long as you want to attack me with Scripture I will defend myself. Those people left Jesus, because they thought he was being literal. This was a common situation for Jesus. He spoke in parables so they would listen but not hear. We have the benefit of His explanations in the Gospels, but most of His followers had to discern metaphor.

The eating of living flesh and drinking of blood have been sins since the Creation of man. If you think you are drinking anyone's blood, divine or otherwise, then you are sinning. If you eat living flesh, then you are sinning. If your faith is rooted in sinful acts, it is not faith at all. Christ commanded only two things to enter the Kingdom and neither included literally drinking blood or eating living flesh.

Short list of verses regarding blood, living flesh, and whether we should eat it.

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Lev 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.

Lev 7:26 And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of bird or of beast, in any of your dwellings.

Lev 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Lev 17:14 For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Lev 19:26 Ye shall not eat anything with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantments, nor practise augury.

Deu 12:16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water.

Deu 12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.

1Sa 14:33 Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against Jehovah, in that they eat with the blood. And he said, ye have dealt treacherously: roll a great stone unto me this day.

All OT. The NT is different. According to John 6, unless we eat and drink His Flesh and Blood, we have no life in us (John 6:53). I just don't know how you can interpret this scripture any other way, especially when combined with His pronouncement at the Last Supper that "This IS my body".

Guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is..

More church fathers on Eucherist...


"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" - Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)


"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" - Origen (On Matthew, 11:14)


“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" - Athenagoras (On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

Did the disciples leave Jesus in John 6 because they were confused?


The theory acknowledges that Jesus said 5 times "you have to eat me" but suggests that Jesus clarified this in Jn 6:63 and said (paraphrased) "the bread is only a metaphor, what I mean is that you have to believe in me." The theory states that after this clarification the disciples were still confused and many of them left. The theory says that after Jesus died, those who left (in Jn6), finally understood that Jesus was just talking metaphorically and they returned and learned all the teachings from the 12 disciples that they missed after they left him in Capernaum (Jn 6).

The theory explains that Jesus confused them by his teaching about the bread. There are only two explanations for why Jesus could have confused them.

He intended to confuse them - or -
He didn't intend to confuse them (made a mistake and did not teach well)
It appears to me that the confusion theory is saying he confused them intentionally. I'm glad the theory is not saying he was an unskilled speaker because that would discredit the theory before beginning an analysis. Jesus had the ability to know how his words would be taken and he was also a very gifted speaker.

Analysis- Let's look at the possibility that Jesus led them astray on purpose.
The "confusion theory" appears to be saying he led them astray on purpose even though Jesus says many times in Scripture that it is a sin to lead people astray. (i.e., Mat 24:4, 2 Peter 2:21). Evangelicals say that the disciples who left him in Jn6 came back after he died. There are no documents in existence that give evidence about how disciples who left in Capernaum came back after the tent was torn in two (Mk 15:38). I think this would be an important event and that Scripture (or the early writings of the Church) would have made clear that these disciples who left at Capernaum later returned. On the other hand, Jesus prophesied that it will go worse for those in Capernaum than it will for Sodom and Gomorrah (Mat 10:15) It doesn't appear he expected them back.

The theory appears to suggest that Jesus' purpose in confusing them was that he thought that they would be better disciples if they heard his teachings 2nd hand from the original 12 disciples after his death than if they heard it first hand from him during his life. This does not make sense to me.

In Mat 18:12 Jesus tells us the parable of the sheep. If one sheep goes astray, the shepherd leaves the 99 to go in search of the one who went astray. At Capernaum the majority went astray. (Jn 6:66) Jesus said he was the Shepherd, so why did he not chase after them? The confusion theory says the reason for this is that he knew they would find their own way back after his death. That doesn't sound like the same kind of shepherd Jesus was talking about in Mat 18:12.

The "confusion" theory is less than 300 years old. All of the writings of early Christians that have been discovered to date make it clear that they believed Jesus was teaching his "real presence" in the bread here. These early disciples were closer to the events than we are and they were closer to the events than those who are advancing the "confusion" theory. I think the early Christians are better witnesses.

From http://davidmacd.com/catholic/confusion_theory.htm

quote:

---

Did the disciples leave Jesus in John 6 because they were confused?

---

No, Jesus himself says why they left…

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.”

It’s because the Spirit Gives life, and flesh profits nothing. Spiritual things are foolishness to those who have not been born again (spiritually born, given spiritual eyes to see)

1Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/8/2006 1:34p).]

Notafraid....In all due respect and with peace, in referring to your Early Church Fathers, should you not reference Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, Wesley, Wycliffe, Zuingli et all? After all, that is the Reformed Churches earliest leaders....

Augustine, Justin, Ignatius, Cyril, Cyprian et all are the Fathers of The One True Church, and to say that this group and more of the early Fathers (several sited as Fathers and were Popes as well) regarded the Eucharist as anything other than the Holy Gift The Church and Scripture says it is today and for 2000 years, its misquoting all of these Fine and Holy Men:
_______________________________________________
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

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 6:55]" (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]).
_______________________________________________
Just a little more as well:
___________________________________________

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Year 110
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [+]
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Year 110
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 7
I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Year 110
St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1 [+]
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

St. Justin Martyr
Year 155
St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66 [+]
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

St. Irenaeus
Year 180
St. Irenaeus Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis 5:2, 2-3 [+]
So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.

St. Irenaeus
Year 180
St. Irenaeus Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis 4:18 4-5 [+]
For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.

St. Irenaeus
Year 189
St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4,18,5 [+]
Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

St. Irenaeus
Year 189
St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5,2,2 [+]
He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

Serapion
Year 190
Serapion The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice [+]
Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.' Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation., To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, 'Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.' On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church., We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, 'Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.' For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!, For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: - after the mentioning of their names: - Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.

St. Ambrose of Milan
Year 190
St. Ambrose of Milan The Patriarchs 9,38 [+]
His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And 'rich' is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.

Clement of Alexandria
Year 202
St. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 2,2,19,4 [+]
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

Clement of Alexandria
Year 202
St. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 1,6,41,3 [+]
The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. "Eat ye my flesh," He says, "and drink my blood." Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery

Tertullian
Year 212
Tertullian Against Marcion 4,40,3 [+]
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread," which means, of course, the cross upon His body.

St. Hippolytus
Year 215
St. Hippolytus The Apostolic Tradition 21 [+]
27Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed winec, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him; 28and the milk and honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said, "a land flowing with milk and honey," which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word, softening the bitter heart; 29and water also for an oblation, as a sign of the baptism, so that the inner person, which is psychic, may also receive the same as the body. 30The bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving. 31Breaking the bread, distributing a piece to each, he shall say, "The Bread of Heaven in Jesus Christ." 32And the one who receives shall answer, "Amen."

Origen
Year 244
Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3 [+]
I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. But if you observe such caution in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?

St. Cyprian of Carthage
Year 252
St. Cyprian of Carthage The Lord's Prayer 18 [+]
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: 'Give us this day our daily bread.' This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say 'Our Father,' because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say 'our Bread,' because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: 'I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.' Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.' And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.

St. Cyprian of Carthage
Year 258
St. Cyprian of Carthage The Unity of the Catholic Church 8 [+]
So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: 'In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.' The flesh of Christ and the Lord's sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.

Aphraates Treatises
Year 345
Aphraates Treatises 12,6 [+]
But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, 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; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Year 350
St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 22,1 [+]
Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, ye are become of the same bad and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, lie said, Take, drink, this is My Bloods. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Year 350
St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 22,6 [+]
Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouch-safed to thee.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Year 350
St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 22,3 [+]
Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we became partakers of the divine nature.

St. Hilary of Poitiers
Year 359
St. Hilary of Poitiers The Trinity 8,14 [+]
For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.

St. John Chrysostom
Year 370
St. John Chrysostom Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 82,4 [+]
When the word says, 'This is My Body,' be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, 'I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!

St. Basil the Great
Year 372
St. Basil the Great Letter 93 [+]
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life."

St. Basil the Great
Year 372
St. Basil the Great The Morals 22 [+]
What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for 'he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.' What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.

St. Athanasius
Year 373
St. Athanasius Sermon to the Newly Baptized [+]
after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

St. Ephraim
Year 373
St. Ephraim Homilies 4,4 [+]
Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats it in Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." But if anyone dispise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.

St. Ephraim
Year 373
St. Ephraim Homilies 4,6 [+]
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out. ...Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: 'This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.

St. Epiphanius
Year 374
St. Epiphanius The Man Well-Anchored [+]
We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: 'This is really Me.' And He gave to His disciples and said: 'This is really Me.' And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, 'This is really Me.'; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.

St. Gregory of Nyssa
Year 383
St. Gregory of Nyssa Orations and Sermons [+]
He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and 'Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.' When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.

St. Gregory of Nyssa
Year 383
St. Gregory of Nyssa Orations and Sermons [+]
The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.

St. Gregory of Nyssa
Year 383
St. Gregory of Nyssa The Great Catechism, 37 [+]
So nourishment (bread and wine) by becoming flesh and blood gives bulk to the human frame: the nourishment is the body. Just as in the case of other men, our Saviour's nourishment (bread and wine) was His Body; but these, nourishment and Body, were in Him changed into the Body of God by the Word indwelling. So now repeatedly the bread and wine, sanctified by the Word (the sacred Benediction), is at the same time changed into the Body of that Word; and this Flesh is disseminated amongst all the Faithful.

St. Ambrose of Milan
Year 387
St. Ambrose of Milan Letter to Horontianus [+]
Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.

St. John Chrysostom
Year 388
St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Judas, 1,6 [+]
Christ is present. The one who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man that makes the sacrificial gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and grace is of God. "This is my Body" he says. This statement transforms the gifts.

St. Ambrose of Milan
Year 391
St. Ambrose of Milan The Mysteries, 9,50-51 [+]
50. Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?" And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. 51. Moses was holding a rod, he cast it down and it became a serpent. Again, he took hold of the tail of the serpent and it returned to the nature of a rod. You see that by virtue of the prophetic office there were two changes, of the nature both of the serpent and of the rod. The streams of Egypt were running with. a pure flow of water; of a sudden from the veins of the sources blood began to burst forth, and none could drink of the river. Again, at the prophet's prayer the blood ceased, and the nature of water returned. The people of the Hebrews were shut in on every side, hemmed in on the one hand by the Egyptians, on the other by the sea; Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided and hardened like walls, and a way for the feet appeared between the waves. Jordan being turned back, returned, contrary to nature, to the source of its stream. Is it not clear that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the river stream was changed? The people of the fathers thirsted, Moses touched the rock, and water flowed out of the rock. Did not grace work a result contrary to nature, so that the rock poured forth water, which by nature it did not contain? Marsh was a most bitter stream, so that the thirsting people could not drink. Moses cast wood into the water, and the water lost its bitterness, which grace of a sudden tempered. In the time of Elisha the prophet one of the sons of the prophets lost the head from his axe, which sank. He who had lost the iron asked Elisha, who cast in a piece of wood and the iron swam. This, too, we clearly recognize as having happened contrary to nature, for iron is of heavier nature than water. 52. We observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ.

St. Jerome
Year 398
St. Jerome Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew 4,26,26 [+]
After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.

Marcarius
Year 400
Marcarius The Magnesian Apocriticus 3,23 [+]
[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.

St. Augustine
Year 400
St. Augustine Sermons 172,2 [+]
For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

St. Cyril of Alexandria
Year 428
St. Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Matthew (26:27) [+]
He states demonstratively: "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," lest you might suppose the things that are seen are a figure. Rather, by some secret of the all-powerful God the things seen are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, truly offered in a sacrifice in which we, as participants, receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ.

St. Augustine
Year 429
St. Augustine Explanations of the Psalms, 33,1,10 [+]
Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said 'This is My Body'

St. Cyril of Alexandria
Year 444
St. Cyril of Alexandria Catecheses 22,9; Myst 4 [+]
We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.

______________________________________________

Notafraid, it was just this undeniable fact and this Truth that brought me home to The Church.... To deny it for one moment longer would have been to deny Christ Himself, Incarnate and Divine.

May God have Mercy on My Soul.

His Blessings to you.




texag_89

texag89 - Great post - The early church fathers definitely recognized the truth in John 6 and 1 Corinthians about the Real Presence of our Lord in the consecrated bread and wine.

As someone who left the Eucharist for a year to pursue my earthly pleaures, I can tell you that it was a literal hell on earth time for me. When I came back to the Eucharist, it was SOOOO great...

Doesn’t Augustine explain that kind of speech from many of those saying “it is his flesh and blood” as if they are the same as the spiritual realities that they are said to point to, by this?

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

Does the most quotes win? Because I can try to catch up if that helps us get to the truth...

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/9/2006 9:09p).]

notafraid - Even Luther taught that Christ was present in the Eucharist, although in consubstantiated form, rather than transubstantiaed form.

The proof is in the pudding, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is much, much more than a memorial sacrifice. That is why Paul reminds us all in 1 Corinthians that if we eat the Lord's Supper without first discerning the Body of Christ that we eat it to our own condemnation. If that's only a symbol, it is a powerful one indeed.

quote:

---

notafraid - Even Luther taught that Christ was present in the Eucharist, although in consubstantiated form, rather than transubstantiaed form.

---

Well, heck, us Calvinists say he attends it and we are nourished us spiritually by it, so what are we arguing about?

quote:

---

The proof is in the pudding, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is much, much more than a memorial sacrifice. That is why Paul reminds us all in 1 Corinthians that if we eat the Lord's Supper without first discerning the Body of Christ that we eat it to our own condemnation. If that's only a symbol, it is a powerful one indeed.

---

The whole doctrine is not contained in the single word ‘symbol” or “sign”, see, here in the WCOF:

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

And

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Well, let me throw my 2 cents in:


1. Calvinists tend to take the Bible very literally, at least in my experience with some PCA churches, however that literal interpretation is thrown to the wayside sometimes when such a reading would cross into a Catholic understanding.

2. Most all denominations will agree that there is a very spiritual element to the sacrament, however the disagreement (obviously as we see here) rises from how far to take the Bible as literal and where to stop.

I see much thought and honesty from both sides (or all 3 sides, trans, cons, spiritual).

I was listening to a co worker whom I have much respect for, one of the most well read folks I know talking about this Catholic/Protestant divide and I think part of the it can fit here in this discussion, though I opened the thread with Sola Fide. I think another Sola, Sola Scriptura, is where a lot of this disagreement begins.

My co worker mentioned that for the Reformers, Sola Scriptura was the initial assumption to the reading of Scripture, but that it was faulty because Scripture even refutes this notion in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

I am coming to realize that Scripture, when we find ourselves disagreeing must be looked at through the lense of the teachings of the early church. Therein though lies the difficulty all denominations must overcome, the ability to say...you know it's possible we're wrong on some matters.

quote:

---

I am coming to realize that Scripture, when we find ourselves disagreeing must be looked at through the lense of the teachings of the early church. Therein though lies the difficulty all denominations must overcome, the ability to say...you know it's possible we're wrong on some matters.

---

Well, exactly, I don’t think anyone can just say that you have got to do it in this specific way or else, because nobody does the Eucharist the way the 1st century church did it. (I’m not saying use coke, and saltines, or take it in a glib manor.) It was originally a part of a larger meal called the Agape (love feast), and was separated out into two parts of a larger meal that was usually paid for by the wealthier Christians for the poorer. The first part around the bread (the meal), and the second part around the cup (after the meal). It was not until the 2nd century that the Agape, was separated form the Eucharist, and the 2 parts were combined into one. If it were truly so important to imitate the early church, then we should all abandon our current traditions.

One thing that the extremely beautiful Mrs. Lovelight was saying to me was that she felt that perhaps the “unworthy manor” that some of them were taking the bread and wine in that we hear about in the scriptures, is the same events that were mentioned where there were some who were making sure that they got their fill, making sure they ate first, and there was none left for the others. This is truly not loving ones brothers and sisters in Christ, something the Lord takes very seriously.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/9/2006 10:56p).]

Jesus is really, not just symbolically, present in the Eucharist:

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:23-29; and especially John 6:32-71.

Redstone is right - Again...

quote:

---

One thing that the extremely beautiful Mrs. Lovelight

---

Notafraid - Picture, please...

quote:

---

Sola Scriptura was the initial assumption to the reading of Scripture, but that it was faulty

---

Oceanstate - You are correct. Sola Scriptura certainly was not around for the first 400 years of Christianity, because there was no official canon of the NT until the Council of Carthage in 397. The Christians that lived after Jesus until then would have no chance of being saved if sola scriptura was the doctrine then. They depended on what Paul said in 2nd Thessolonians 2:15, for sure.

OceanStateAg,

The modern protestant position is much different from the traditional reformed position. The liberal protestant position sees the supper as symbolic and a mere rememberance to be used as a guide on how to live. As was mentioned, the reformed position holds that though the bread and wine is not literally transformed into flesh and blood, there is a real spiritual effect to the believer in the taking of the bread and wine.

To my knowledge, any language I have known has spoken of something in a manner beyond what it is. An example may clarify what I am saying. I grew up in Pittsburgh. When I speak of the Steelers, I refer to them as my team. This is not literally the case, but I so closely associate myself with them that I speak in this manner.

I have read most of the anti-nicene church fathers set. I have not yet read anything to adequately show me from Scripture, or any other place, that the body and blood is being spoken of in another manner.

At this point, we are at an inevitable impasse. Neither of us will be convinced of any other interpretation by human means.

SDG,
Riggs

Texasag73,

quote:

---

Notafraid - Picture, please...

---

I value my own life too much to do that... Besides, I do not wish to cast my Lovelight before the whole world like that...

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/11/2006 7:56a).]

nm

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/11/2006 8:10a).]