Candlepower wrote:
This is as much as I read of your last lengthy post, Alan. Please give a Bible reference (not the opinion of a pope or Church Father) that confirms your definition of a sacrament. If you can't do that, then I see zero sense in reading another word of your post.
Candlepower, first off, if you are looking for an EXAMPLE of a Sacrament in the Scriptures that fits this definition, you would have found one had you continued reading my post (for, the whole post is on the Eucharist, which is a Sacrament, i.e., it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace, as the post shows). Secondly, more fundamentally in terms of methods of argumentation, as we learn in logic, to begin an argument, one begins with a "nominal definition" of a thing-- this definition is not "right" or "wrong", it simply states what one means when one uses this term. As one continues the argument, one may show that this thing actually exists or not, or one may develop a better definition of the thing. But, to start, one is simply saying, "This is what I personally mean when I use this particular word." Just passing that on as an "fyi" related to proper method of logical argumentation.
Homer wrote:
So you believe that at the last supper the Apostles believed they were consuming Jesus' body and blood while he stood before them, alive and well? Wouldn't they have been shocked at the idea of consuming blood, especially that of another man?
You present a good question as to how much the Apostles themselves realized what was going on at the Last Supper itself; I am inclined to say that they did, although I suppose it is possible that at least some of them did not. For, as we know, even after the Resurrection, even the Apostles themselves were still struggling with their Faith in Christ, and it seems that it was only after Pentecost that they really were firm in their Faith. So, I’d have to think a little more about whether or not they realized AT THE LAST SUPPER what was going on (again, I’m inclined, right now, to say they were, but I suppose it is possible that, at that point in time, with their Faith still immature, that they—at least some of them—did not).
But, regardless of whether or not the Apostles, at the Last Supper, realized what was going on when Christ pronounced the words that He did over the Bread and Wine, the fact remains that the change in substance DID occur, i.e., the substance of the bread and wine changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Would they have been shocked at consuming blood, especially that of another man? Again, in consuming the Body and Blood of Christ in the SACRAMENT of the Eucharist, one is not consuming His Body and Blood in a natural way (for that would be cannibalistic and wrong) but, rather, one is consuming His Body and Blood in a Sacramental manner. There is a huge difference.
Homer also wrote:
Seems to be to be an absurdity to think they would have even have considered this, especially at a Passover meal where the various things consumed were representative of the bitterness of slavery, the bricks they made while enslaved, etc. etc. They would have never thought the food they consumed actually became that which it represented.
It’s true that, in the Passover meal, as even still today in the Catholic Mass, there are many things that are merely representative of other things. That said, this does not contradict the idea that there can be some thing or things that not only represent other things, but which actually contain the substance of that thing. Such is the case of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, in which that which has the appearance of bread not only represents, but actually contains the substance of Christ’s Body (and, likewise, with that which maintains the appearance of wine). That the Apostles had this Faith is seen in the writings of the Apostle Paul, as stated above (see 1 Cor. 10:16; 1 Cor. 11:23-29).
Steve wrote:
You say that Jesus never explained that His words in John 6 were not literal, but He did do so, in John 6:63.
John 6:63 states: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”
The way I see these words of Our Lord are as follows. One can understand his words in a spiritual way, or in a “fleshly” way. They are understood in a “fleshly” way when understood in a superficial manner; eg., to think that Jesus would give us His flesh to eat in a natural, cannibalistic manner (similar to the way Nicodemus understood Christ’s words on being born again in a “fleshly” manner by thinking, at first, that he’d have to go back into his mother’s womb). Jesus condemns this sort of thinking (and, so, the objections raised here against a natural, cannibalistic consumption of Christ’s Blood, Christ Himself, I think, condemns right here in this verse). But, one understands Christ’s words here (and in John 3, when He was speaking about being “born again” or “born from above”) in a spiritual way when one, by Faith, realizes that Christ will effect these realities in some sort of “spiritual manner”; this “spiritual manner” in which Christ effects these realities (both of giving us His Body and Blood to consume, as well as being born again) are done through
Sacramental signs, namely, the Sacramental signs of the Eucharist (with respect to consuming His Body and Blood; and, with respect to being born again, through the Sacramental sign of Baptism). Not that Christ’s Body and Blood are not really, truly, and substantially present in the Sacramental Sign of the Eucharist; for They are, as He has already declared in saying, “The Bread that I shall give IS my flesh,” and, “My flesh is real food, and my blood real drink.” But, the manner in which His Body and Blood is consumed is done in a certain, you could say, “spiritual or divine way”, because They are consumed through the Sacrament. So, the correct meaning of these words is spiritual, not “fleshly”.
And, so, he says, The words that I have spoken to you, about eating my flesh, are spirit and life, which is to say that they have a spiritual (and Sacramental)—not “fleshly”-- meaning, and understood in this way they give life. (And it is not surprising that they have a spiritual meaning, because they are from the Holy Spirit: “It is the Spirit who tells mysteries” (1 Cor 14:2). And therefore, the mysteries of Christ give life: “I will never forget your justifications, because through them you have brought me to life” (Ps 118:93)). Again, this is how the early Church, and the Church throughout the ages, has understood Christ’s words, and it makes perfect sense to me given the data we have from all the Scriptures we are looking at here.
Steve also wrote:
Amazingly, you say that Jesus' words "Do this..." was authorizing the disciples to change the elements in future eucharistic observances. One needs only to read the passage to see that "Do this..." means, "eat this bread and drink this cup."
Steve, the “THIS” in the “DO THIS in memory of me” certainly refers to the eating and drinking; but, it does not refer ONLY to that—indeed, it can not refer ONLY to the eating and drinking, but, rather, it must necessarily refer to the ENTIRE “ceremony” that Christ was instituting at the Last Supper. For, Our Lord was instituting a ceremony for the Apostles to repeat, which they did; and that ceremony includes, of course, not only the eating and the drinking, but, also, everything that preceded the eating and the drinking, namely, a re-enacting of the words that Christ Himself pronounced over the bread and wine, which words--“This is my Body,” “This is my Blood”-- by Christ’s Divine power, changed the substances of those things into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Steve also wrote:
The citations from church fathers have one thing in common with each other. None of them speak of any "Real Presence" of Christ having been spooked into baked goods and wine. I find their wording to be such as I myself could use, and which the Bible itself uses, without a hint of transubstantiation.
In a way, you are getting at the crux of the problem here. For, in one sense, you are right: the Church Fathers quoted are no more explicit than Our Lord Himself with respect to the reality of the Eucharist. And, well, that’s actually my whole point—Our Lord explicitly stated that the Bread that He was to give us IS His Flesh! What need have we of any more witnesses!?
Yet, on the other hand, since some continue to doubt Our Lord’s words, and to deny that the Sacramental Bread He gives us actually contains His Real Body, there is the need for some of the Fathers to emphasize this reality even more explicitly and directly. Thus, the statements given by the Fathers quoted here explicitly and directly declare that the Eucharist IS (or contains) the Real Body of Christ, and, in some cases, they are declaring it in opposition to those who DENY this reality (thus, making it CLEAR that they are TRULY teaching that the Lord’s Body is REALLY contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that there is a Real Presence there effected by what can properly be called “transubstantiation”).
So, in all of this, we have both the Church Fathers and Our Lord Himself (along with the Apostle Paul) explicitly and repeatedly saying, in various ways, “The Eucharist IS the Body/Flesh of Christ,” and doing so in opposition to those who deny this reality. What more would have to be said to convince you or any other doubter that they ACTUALLY do MEAN that?
Steve also wrote:
Some of the fourth-century voices probably really were thinking of the Catholic doctrine. They were hundreds of years removed from Christ and thew apostles, just as we are. The tendency of religious people to tolerate the intrusion of superstitions is so commonly known as to require no documentation.
It is true that superstitions can creep into a religion. However, when we are talking about the Christian Church, we have to remember Our Lord’s promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against this Church. Given that reality, is it reasonable (or faithful) to believe that not only did a superstition creep into Christ’s Church, but that this supposed superstition became, from the earliest times of the Church and throughout the centuries, the CENTER of Christian belief and worship?! To hold this position is to hold that the GREAT majority of CHRISTIANS throughout the ages were not only wrong, but were WAY off with respect to what is at the CENTER of Christian belief and practice. For, again, when we are talking about the Eucharist (and the Mass) we are not talking about a ‘side issue’; we are talking about beliefs that the GREAT Majority of Christians throughout the ages (both Catholic, as well as Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) have held as being at the CENTER of the Christian Faith. That position seems to be, more than anything, an argument AGAINST Christianity altogether.
And, if that does not convince one as to the error of that position (or, at least, of the grave and seemingly ridiculous practical consequences of holding that position), one must also consider, once again—and I am going to keep harping on this, because it is vitally important—that the SAME CHURCH which gave us the Holy Scriptures is ALSO the Church that held FIRMLY to belief in Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (as well as, I might add, to such other typically Catholic and Orthodox beliefs/practices as devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints). For, the New Testament Canon was solidified in the 4th century; THAT Church, the Church of the 4th century, was most clearly a Church centered on the Eucharist and the Mass. So, if one is willing to trust that Church to deliver to us something as important as the correct belief on which Books belong in the Bible, are we not being not-a-little inconsistent in not only saying that same Church is wrong, but WAY wrong, on what is to be considered as the center of Christian belief and worship (namely, the Holy Eucharist and the Mass)? Think about it…
On the other hand, given the Scriptural data, as well as the testimony of the earliest Church Fathers on the Eucharist, is it not more reasonable to believe that Christ’s Church, as promised, did not falter to the gates of hell but, rather, in the face of some opinions contrary to her authentic Apostolic Faith, as well as through a desire to understand her own Faith better, developed, throughout the centuries, a more perfect, crystalized, and clear doctrine on the Holy Eucharist (leading to the formation of such theological terms/phrases as “transubstantiation”, and the “real, true, and substantial presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist)?
Steve also stated:
The earliest authority you quoted, Ignatius, is particularly damaging to your point. You cite him as saying: "I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ…and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible.” Love incorruptible is neither literal wine nor literal blood. Nor can one find a verse of scripture suggesting equivalence oil them.
First off, Steve, you failed to note that the other statements from Ignatius, as well as the other Fathers of the Church, clearly teach that the Eucharist is the Body/Flesh of Christ. Let me repeat Ignatius again, “[Those who hold heterodox opinions] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans) And, “I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ.” (Letter to the Romans) And, Justin, “The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him…is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology 66, 20) You can re-read the other quotes from the other Fathers to see that they reiterate this clear teaching that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ (which is what we mean when we refer to the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist).
Secondly, with regard to your pointing out that “[Christ’s Blood] is love incorruptible” is metaphorical speech. Yes, you’re right; THAT part of Ignatius is metaphorical speech. So, what of it? His use of metaphor there does not change the fact that, in the other parts, he clearly states the reality of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist. In fact, the very ability for him to use this particular metaphor here is actually based on the fact that he believes he TRULY IS drinking the Lord’s BLOOD! For, he says that the Lord’s Blood is “love incorruptible” (metaphor), but it is THAT VERY BLOOD which he desires to drink! So, the fact that he can actually use this metaphor in reference to Christ’s Blood actually proves the point that he believes he truly is consuming Our Lord’s Blood, in a Sacramental manner, in the Holy Eucharist.
There is no sense in citing the church fathers in order to contradict what Biblical exegesis teaches.
Steve, to WHOSE Biblical exegesis are you referring?! YOURS!? You act as if there is one, and only one and authoritative, Biblical exegesis out there; are you purporting that there is some sort of INFALLIBLE interpreter of Scripture out there!? If so, from WHOM do YOU think this infallible exegesis of Scripture comes?? (Sometimes it has been said-- perhaps with SOME exaggeration, but, yet, I think, getting at a kernel of truth-- that Protestants don’t deny that there is an infallible interpreter of Scripture; they just deny it to the Pope, while asserting it for themselves or their own pastors!)
The fact is, as we have seen, there are different ways that different persons have interpreted these passages. BUT, the fact that we have a virtually UNANIMOUS agreement among the Church Fathers—men of HIGH authority in ALL Christian tradition—on this matter certainly lends GREAT credibility to the interpretation given which holds that Christ, in a Sacramental manner, is truly Present in the Holy Eucharist. Those who hold to a different interpretation are in the GREAT minority of Christians throughout the ages (and even today).
And, lest we think we can just “blow off” the virtually unanimous interpretation of the CHURCH FATHERS on this point, let’s remember the words of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you, and IMITATE their Faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever! Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings!” (Heb. 13:7-9) These Church Fathers are, truly, our LEADERS; we got the Faith, and our SCRIPTURES, from THEM! Thus, we must IMITATE their FAITH—which Faith includes, as a CENTRAL belief, belief in Christ’s Presence in the Holy Eucharist! Jesus, being God, is the same forever; He is the eternal, unchanging Truth. Thus, we must not be carried away by strange teachings. My friends, to the great majority of Christians throughout the ages, and even to this day, this DENIAL of Christ’s Presence in the Holy Eucharist is a strange, a VERY strange teaching— one that goes against the Faith of our Fathers in the Faith, a teaching that THEY would CERTAINLY hold as extremely strange…and, more than that, they would hold that it is a LIE from the father of lies himself, that serpent who wants nothing more than to prevent us from coming to Christ, truly and lovingly Present to us in the Most Holy Eucharist. Amen.
In Christ, the Bread of Life,
BrotherAlan