A conversation about unity.

[Hentenza]

I can and I do.

They have and they did from the ear;y centuries until now.

The earliest Church Fathers interpreted John 6 as a direct reference to the Holy Eucharist from the very beginning of post-apostolic Christianity. Their writings reflect a robust, literal understanding of Christ’s words—“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”—as referring to the sacramental reality of the Eucharist.

Here are some of the earliest and most explicit examples:
️ Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107)

• In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius condemns the Docetists for refusing the Eucharist “because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
• This shows a clear link between John 6 and the Eucharistic realism he defends.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 180)

• In Against Heresies, Irenaeus affirms that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and he uses this to argue against Gnostic denial of Christ’s true humanity.
• His incidental references to John 6 reinforce the Eucharist as both sacrament and doctrinal safeguard.

️ Tertullian (c. AD 200)

• Tertullian refers to the Eucharist as “the Lord’s body” and insists that the flesh “feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.”
• His theology of sacramental realism is grounded in the same Johannine logic.

️ Hippolytus of Rome (early 3rd century)

• He speaks of salvation coming “through the body and blood,” again echoing the language of John 6 in a sacramental context.

⛪ Cyprian of Carthage (mid-3rd century)

• Cyprian warns that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily “do violence to his body and blood,” clearly affirming the Real Presence and its moral implications.

These Fathers did not treat John 6 as mere metaphor or moral exhortation. Rather, they saw it as the theological foundation for the Eucharist’s sacramental reality—body, blood, soul, and divinity. Their witness is unanimous and early, predating later doctrinal formulations by centuries.


Do more research.
The linkage between John 6 and the Last Supper dialogues emerged organically in early patristic theology, though not always with explicit textual cross-referencing. The Fathers understood both passages as part of a unified Eucharistic theology, even if they did not always cite them side by side. Here's a chronological synthesis of how this connection developed:

---

️ Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107)

• While Ignatius does not explicitly quote John 6 alongside the Last Supper accounts, he affirms that the Eucharist is “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” echoing both Johannine and Synoptic language.
• His emphasis on Eucharistic realism presupposes a theological unity between Christ’s discourse in John 6 and His institution at the Last Supper.

---

Justin Martyr (c. AD 150)

• In First Apology (ch. 66–67), Justin describes the Eucharist as “not as common bread and common drink,” but as the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.
• Though he doesn’t cite John 6 directly, his sacramental theology clearly reflects its influence, especially in tandem with the Synoptic institution narratives.

---

️ Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 180)

• Irenaeus links the Eucharist to both the Incarnation and the Passion, drawing from John 6’s “flesh for the life of the world” and the Last Supper’s “this is my body.”
• He uses both traditions to argue against Gnostic denial of the real humanity of Christ (Against Heresies, Book IV).

---

️ Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century)

• Clement’s Paedagogus speaks of Christ as “the bread of life,” and while he leans allegorical, he still affirms the Eucharist as spiritual nourishment grounded in both John 6 and the Last Supper.

---

⛪ Origen (early 3rd century)

• Origen offers a more mystical reading of John 6, but he does connect it to the Eucharist, especially in his Commentary on Matthew.
• He sees the Last Supper as the sacramental fulfilment of the promise in John 6.

---

️ Cyprian of Carthage (mid-3rd century)

• Cyprian’s Eucharistic theology is deeply sacramental and moral. He warns against receiving the Eucharist unworthily, echoing John 6:53 and the Pauline Last Supper warnings (1 Cor 11).
• His synthesis implies a theological unity between the two passages.

---

Augustine of Hippo (late 4th–early 5th century)

• Augustine explicitly links John 6 to the Eucharist and interprets it in light of the Last Supper.
• In Tractates on the Gospel of John, he writes: “This bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”
• He sees John 6 as a prefiguration and theological exposition of the sacrament instituted at the Last Supper.

---

Summary Table

Church Father	Date	Linkage Type	Notes
Ignatius of Antioch	c. 107	Implicit Eucharistic realism	No direct citation
Justin Martyr	c. 150	Theological synthesis	No textual cross-reference
Irenaeus of Lyons	c. 180	Doctrinal defence	Uses both traditions
Clement of Alexandria	c. 190	Allegorical Eucharistic reading	Symbolic emphasis
Origen	c. 220	Mystical and sacramental	Connects promise to fulfilment
Cyprian of Carthage	c. 250	Moral and sacramental unity	Echoes both traditions
Augustine of Hippo	c. 400	Explicit textual linkage	Directly connects John 6 and Last Supper

---

In short, while the earliest Fathers did not always cite John 6 and the Last Supper narratives together, they consistently treated them as part of a unified Eucharistic theology. Augustine marks the point where explicit textual linkage becomes standard.

How many of those that you copied and pasted in your post actually described an ontological change in the elements?

 

[Strong in Him]

I can and I do.

Up to you.
It might be foreshadowing, or prophesying about, the Last Supper. But it gives no teaching at all about believers literally eating his body, or believing that the bread they eat will literally become his body.

The earliest Church Fathers interpreted John 6 as a direct reference to the Holy Eucharist from the very beginning of post-apostolic Christianity. Their writings reflect a robust, literal understanding of Christ’s words—“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”—as referring to the sacramental reality of the Eucharist.
ne marks the point where explicit textual linkage becomes standard.

POST Apostolic Christianity. Did the 12 disciples at the time understand Jesus to be saying, "you must literally eat my flesh"?

Here are some of the earliest and most explicit examples:

I don't care how many examples you find of what other people believed years later. I'm talking about the text and what people would have understood at the time.
At the final Passover meal that Jesus shared with his friends, did he remind them of that conversation and say, "this bread will literally become my flesh when you eat it. And you are literally drinking my blood, even though it hasn't yet been shed"?

And still none of that takes away from the fact that believers are in Jesus and he is in us by his Spirit.
Someone could become a Christian and not "have communion" for several months - Jesus was in them, and they were in fellowship with him, from the moment they believed.
Someone could become a Christian and die before they could receive communion - because in most churches it involves teaching and confirmation classes. They would still have died in the faith, in Christ and in fellowship with God. That's why Jesus died so that we could be reconciled to, and have fellowship, with God.

We don't need an ordained priest and bread and wine for us to be in communion with God.
So whoever it was that said "without these things there is no communion", is wrong.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Let me qualify my argument because you are misinterpreting it. My argument is against transubstantiation not against real presence. Your argument above centers on real presence, which is your church’s belief. Scripture teaches that where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name He is there.

Catholics are bound to affirm the dogma of transubstantiation: that in the Most Holy Eucharist, the entire substance of bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine becomes His Blood, while the appearances (or “accidents”) of bread and wine remain. This doctrine was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent (Session XIII, Chapter IV), which declared: “By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. Which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called transubstantiation”. You are not permitted to interpret this change as merely symbolic or spiritual; the Church insists on a real, substantial presence.

Catholics must also hold that this mystery is not subject to empirical verification, nor reducible to philosophical metaphor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC §1376) reiterates Trent’s teaching: “The Council of Trent summarises the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God… that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance… This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’” This is not a matter of theological opinion but of divinely revealed truth, to be accepted with the obedience of faith. Pope Paul VI, in Mysterium Fidei (1965), reaffirmed this: “Christ is really, truly, and substantially contained in the blessed sacrament under the outward appearance of material things”.

Catholics are therefore required to approach the Eucharist with reverence, recognising it as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC §1324). The Church teaches that Christ is present “whole and entire” in each species and in each fragment thereof (CCC §1377), and that this presence endures as long as the appearances remain. St Thomas Aquinas, whose Eucharistic theology underpins the Church’s dogmatic formulations, writes in Summa Theologiae III, q.75, a.2: “The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority.” You are not expected to comprehend the metaphysical mechanics of this change, but you are obliged to believe it, as a revealed mystery that transcends human reason yet is fully consistent with it.

 

[Hentenza]

Catholics are bound to affirm the dogma of transubstantiation:

Naturally.

 

[Yarddog]

What an individual truly believes is irrelevant.

Objectively speaking, there is One Church, One Baptism, One Faith. All the others are false.

I was at Mass, several years ago, when I had a vision. God started pointing out individuals and said, "This person cannot be one with God, and person person cannot be one with God,...and you cannot be one with God, without each being one with each other. Whether they understand it or not."

This was pointing out that possession of the Holy Spirit is what makes us one with God and anyone that possesses that Spirit is also one, even if they disagree about God.

 

[concretecamper]

In John 6, I don't think any of the disciples could perceive that Jesus was talking about the cross where he would give his flesh and blood as food and drink.

Irrelevant

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Catholics are bound to affirm the dogma of transubstantiation: that in the Most Holy Eucharist, the entire substance of bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine becomes His Blood, while the appearances (or “accidents”) of bread and wine remain. This doctrine was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent (Session XIII, Chapter IV), which declared: “By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. Which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called transubstantiation”. You are not permitted to interpret this change as merely symbolic or spiritual; the Church insists on a real, substantial presence.

Catholics must also hold that this mystery is not subject to empirical verification, nor reducible to philosophical metaphor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC §1376) reiterates Trent’s teaching: “The Council of Trent summarises the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God… that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance… This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’” This is not a matter of theological opinion but of divinely revealed truth, to be accepted with the obedience of faith. Pope Paul VI, in Mysterium Fidei (1965), reaffirmed this: “Christ is really, truly, and substantially contained in the blessed sacrament under the outward appearance of material things”.

Catholics are therefore required to approach the Eucharist with reverence, recognising it as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC §1324). The Church teaches that Christ is present “whole and entire” in each species and in each fragment thereof (CCC §1377), and that this presence endures as long as the appearances remain. St Thomas Aquinas, whose Eucharistic theology underpins the Church’s dogmatic formulations, writes in Summa Theologiae III, q.75, a.2: “The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority.” You are not expected to comprehend the metaphysical mechanics of this change, but you are obliged to believe it, as a revealed mystery that transcends human reason yet is fully consistent with it.

So, my takeaway from your discussion here is that the RCC view on Unity is contingent upon full comprehension and subscription to the RCC magisterial pronouncements.

Alright then. That was an interesting discussion.

 

[Hawkins]

In today's world, unity only means tolerance.

Daniel 12:4
But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.

As prophesied, humans will divide due to knowledge difference. Legit denominations are variance in knowledge, but reckon the same salvation from the same gospel. Unity means we have to accommodate our difference caused by pursuing knowledge as a end time syndrome. It's never about the unity of Catholics with Protestants, the argument (Catholics vs. Protestands) itself actually remains a cause of division, as displayed in this very thread of discussions.

 

[public hermit]

So, my takeaway from your discussion here is that the RCC view on Unity is contingent upon full comprehension and subscription to the RCC magisterial pronouncements.

Alright then. That was an interesting discussion.

Perhaps it helps to add that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not clearly established until Lateran IV in 1215 (along with the requirement for annual confession). That's pretty late in the game to then argue that it represents Jesus' teaching. But to be fair, many think their flavor of Christianity represents the true faith.

Catholics are bound to affirm the dogma of transubstantiation: that in the Most Holy Eucharist, the entire substance of bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine becomes His Blood, while the appearances (or “accidents”) of bread and wine remain. This doctrine was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent (Session XIII, Chapter IV), which declared: “By the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. Which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called transubstantiation”. You are not permitted to interpret this change as merely symbolic or spiritual; the Church insists on a real, substantial presence.

Catholics must also hold that this mystery is not subject to empirical verification, nor reducible to philosophical metaphor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC §1376) reiterates Trent’s teaching: “The Council of Trent summarises the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God… that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance… This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’” This is not a matter of theological opinion but of divinely revealed truth, to be accepted with the obedience of faith. Pope Paul VI, in Mysterium Fidei (1965), reaffirmed this: “Christ is really, truly, and substantially contained in the blessed sacrament under the outward appearance of material things”.

Catholics are therefore required to approach the Eucharist with reverence, recognising it as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC §1324). The Church teaches that Christ is present “whole and entire” in each species and in each fragment thereof (CCC §1377), and that this presence endures as long as the appearances remain. St Thomas Aquinas, whose Eucharistic theology underpins the Church’s dogmatic formulations, writes in Summa Theologiae III, q.75, a.2: “The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority.” You are not expected to comprehend the metaphysical mechanics of this change, but you are obliged to believe it, as a revealed mystery that transcends human reason yet is fully consistent with it.

There wouldn't have been a Council of Trent if it hadn't been for Protestants. So it was clearly reactionary, which is fine since most councils are reactionary. But it undercuts the idea that what the RCC believes goes back to Jesus. It just simply does not.

 

[The Liturgist]

My argument is against transubstantiation not against real presence. Your argument above centers on real presence, which is your church’s belief.

Forgive me, but it seems you and I do not agree on the meaning of the Real Presence because your criticism of the Roman Catholic position has not been nearly specific enough so as to only critique the Thomistic doctrine.

Also far be it for me as a clergyman to correct what an outsider believes is the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, but it is the case that some Orthodox fathers have described our doctrine as transubstantiation, without reference to the exact Aristotelian categories used by Aquinas (which are nonetheless helpful but perhaps overly restrictive - the problem with transubstantiation is it does not explain miracles where the accidents have also apparently changed and people have seen flesh and blood on the altar in various forms, which led to a Muslim converting to Orthodoxy and winning a crown of martyrdom, and similar experiences for Roman Catholics).

 

[PloverWing]

...Common Worship, still in use today, the traditional language services of which including Holy Communion owe more to the 1928 Deposited Book than to the 1662 BCP which still remains nominally official but which contains some material offensive to most Anglicans at present...

I got a bit lost in this sentence; can you clarify? Is it Common Worship, or the 1928 book, or the 1662 book that contains material offensive to current Anglicans? Can you say in a sentence what material you're referring to? I don't recall seeing anything offensive in Common Worship, but maybe you have one of the older books in mind.

 

[The Liturgist]

doctrine of transubstantiation was not clearly established until Lateran IV in 1215

The specific model, yes. But there were older models such as that of Theodore of Mopsuestia that were even more specific, and the Eastern churche (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East) have not only always believed that the bread and wine are the true Body and Blood of Christ our God, as evinced by the Eucharistic text, but we also originated the Presanctified Liturgy and the reservation of the sacrament (actually most likely the first Presanctified Liturgy was the Signing of the Chalice written by St. Severus of Antioch, which the Eastern Orthodox refined as the Presanctified Liturgy of St. James and which was then adopted by the Armenians, Assyrians and the Copts (the Coptic version is lost but the Armenian text survives and the Assyrians recently resumed celebrating this liturgy), and then Pope St. Gregory I, the Dialogist as we venerate him in the Eastern Orthodox church, composed the definitive version still in use in the Orthodox Church at present and used in all Roman Rite parishes until it was rewritten by Pope Pius XII in his spectacularly ill advised changes to the Paschal Triduum in 1955, which I would argue were more destructive of cultural heritage than the Novus Ordo Missae, since the Triduum is the apex of the liturgical year and no entirely licit way exists for RCC or SSPX priests to celebrate the ancient pre-1955 version with all of its manifold parallels to the Byzantine Rite services of the Tridion.

At any rate, when I see people criticizing transubstantiation, unless they are Lutherans or Orthodox or others who I know are specifically criticizing the Aristotelian philosophical technicalities of the Thomistic explanation, it is usually a safe bet their objection is actually to the Real Presence (as differentiated to Calvinist spiritual presence or Receptionism, essentially any Eucharistic doctrine that would oppose the Reservation of the Sacrament or the Presanctified Liturgy).

If this is not the case in your post, and you are only criticizing the Thomistic doctrine, do forgive me.

 

[Hentenza]

Also far be it from me as a clergyman to correct what an outsider believes….

It is though a travesty that professed Christians washed by the same blood of Christ are outsiders from your church. I hold the hope that our Lord Jesus will one day rectify this since all saved Christians are going to the same heaven.

Have a blessed day.

 

[The Liturgist]

I got a bit lost in this sentence; can you clarify? Is it Common Worship, or the 1928 book, or the 1662 book that contains material offensive to current Anglicans? Can you say in a sentence what material you're referring to? I don't recall seeing anything offensive in Common Worship, but maybe you have one of the older books in mind.

I was referring to the 1662 book, forgive me. I love Common Worship.

Most Anglicans I am aware of object to one or more aspects of it, variously ranging from the wife pledging to obey the husband in Matrimony to the Black Rubric, the Commination and the Visitation of the Sick. The Deposited Book and the 1928 American book have the virtue of having the presbyter lay hands on the sick and optionally anoint them with oil and pray for them rather than delivering a lecture about how their illness is God’s just punishment for their sins (the Visitation of Prisoners from the 1666 Irish BCP is even worse, insofar as it does not envisage the possibility of one unjustly detained).

Indeed I would say the 1892, 1928 and 1979 American BCP, the 1929 Scottish BCP, the 1938 Melanesian BCP, and the 1928 Deposited Book are my favorite versions, and I also love the Anglican Service Book, a traditional language adaptation of tne 1979 BCP (which comes very close to being my favorite but for a few … minor problems, but the beauty of the 1979 version is that it is in the public domain and the rubrics expressly allow traditional language adaptations of it, and “Rite III“ also provides enough flexibility to celebrate, for instance, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which some Episcopal parishes have done, and which I love to see. Conversely, the 1666 Irish Book is my least favorite, since in addition to the Visitation of Prisoners, it also has failed to engender the likable traditional parishes in the UK such as the Temple Church which continue to use the best parts of the 1662 version.

 

[public hermit]

The specific model, yes. But there were older models such as that of Theodore of Mopsuestia that were even more specific, and the Eastern churche (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East) have not only always believed that the bread and wine are the true Body and Blood of Christ our God, as evinced by the Eucharistic text, but we also originated the Presanctified Liturgy and the reservation of the sacrament (actually most likely the first Presanctified Liturgy was the Signing of the Chalice written by St. Severus of Antioch, which the Eastern Orthodox refined as the Presanctified Liturgy of St. James and which was then adopted by the Armenians, Assyrians and the Copts (the Coptic version is lost but the Armenian text survives and the Assyrians recently resumed celebrating this liturgy), and then Pope St. Gregory I, the Dialogist as we venerate him in the Eastern Orthodox church, composed the definitive version still in use in the Orthodox Church at present and used in all Roman Rite parishes until it was rewritten by Pope Pius XII in his spectacularly ill advised changes to the Paschal Triduum in 1955, which I would argue were more destructive of cultural heritage than the Novus Ordo Missae, since the Triduum is the apex of the liturgical year and no entirely licit way exists for RCC or SSPX priests to celebrate the ancient pre-1955 version with all of its manifold parallels to the Byzantine Rite services of the Tridion.

At any rate, when I see people criticizing transubstantiation, unless they are Lutherans or Orthodox or others who I know are specifically criticizing the Aristotelian philosophical technicalities of the Thomistic explanation, it is usually a safe bet their objection is actually to the Real Presence (as differentiated to Calvinist spiritual presence or Receptionism, essentially any Eucharistic doctrine that would oppose the Reservation of the Sacrament or the Presanctified Liturgy).

If this is not the case in your post, and you are only criticizing the Thomistic doctrine, do forgive me.

I certainly could criticize the Thomistic doctrine since it is clearly grounded in an Aristotelian metaphysic, which is fine in itself, but only one option among others. What I am criticizing is any pretense that these late-coming doctrines somehow represent the intention of Christ or are grounds for claims to being the "true church." Or better, that unless others embrace them, they are somehow outside. As I've stated before, any pursuit of unity between many different Christians is going to have to be more general. We have two creeds that are widely accepted. These are a much better ground for unity between existing Christians.

As far as real presence goes, I'm happy to accept it as both fact and mystery. To try and work out the details is a fool's errand, imo.

 

[childeye 2]

How many of those that you copied and pasted in your post actually described an ontological change in the elements?

If we consider the semantics at play, there is a time during the ceremony where the bread and wine are consecrated. The term consecrate implies the bread and wine is "made sacred" which is the same as saying it ---> "becomes revered as his flesh and his body which was sacrificed" inferring his real actual physical flesh and blood on the cross. I believe the self-sacrificing Love is the Spiritual food and the incarnate quickening Spirit. The consecration lasts for a short time wherein the bread and wine are revered as his flesh and blood, wherein he suffered for our sake.

I believe the judgment at the cup is whether we partake worthily or unworthily. For Paul said, "to eat unworthily is to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". I take that to mean we are guilty of crucifying him to save ourselves. For those who plotted to kill him sought to save themselves:

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.


For we know he suffered and died to provide a way for the resurrection so as to justify us, even those who crucified him. And it becomes us to also sacrifice ourselves for him, so as to justify his sacrifice for us. Wherefore Paul said that we are baptized into his death. ---> "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life".

To wit, I believe those who are pure of heart eat and drink his Love in sincere reverence, and they will also pick up their cross and exhibit the same Love, wherefore Jesus says, ---> "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Conversely those who are not purified, eat and drink his flesh and blood to save themselves, wherefore Jesus says, "And he that taketh NOT his cross, and followeth after me, is NOT worthy of me." , <---- That is made worthy to follow me.


So, since we must partake of the same cup as the Christ, this is also why I believe Justin martyr said this ---> "...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”. <--- The body and blood on the cross ---> baptized into his death ---> newness of life.

 

[childeye 2]

Irrelevant

I must have misunderstood you.

 

[Hentenza]

I must have misunderstood you.

You didn’t.

 

[PloverWing]

I was referring to the 1662 book, forgive me. I love Common Worship.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

 

[Valletta]

Perhaps it helps to add that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not clearly established until Lateran IV in 1215 (along with the requirement for annual confession). That's pretty late in the game to then argue that it represents Jesus' teaching. But to be fair, many think their flavor of Christianity represents the true faith.
There wouldn't have been a Council of Trent if it hadn't been for Protestants. So it was clearly reactionary, which is fine since most councils are reactionary. But it undercuts the idea that what the RCC believes goes back to Jesus. It just simply does not.

Of course these councils didn't start until Catholics were free to worship, until the 300s. Thus you could just as well say everything brought up by any of the Councils was "late in the game." Because the Catholic Church comes up with a word or specific words for a mystery or anything else, for example the mysteries of "transubstantiation" or "Trinity," in no way means the Church previously believed in no such thing. Rather than "establishing" a doctrine it is better thought of as a statement of what the Church knows.