A conversation about unity.

[The Liturgist]

This is a perfect example of the literary sin of presentism. In short presentism is the tendency to interpret past texts in terms of modern concepts. You are using this text to prove transubstantiation which is the literal change of the elements to Christ actual flesh and blood while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. Let’s examine your interpretation.

That’s not presentism, since we know from the oldest Eucharistic text such as the ancient Antiochene Anaphora of the Apostles still used in the Church of Ethiopia, but attested to in the second century writings of St. Hippolytus, or the Anaphora of St. Mark still occasionally used by Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, and by the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox (who refer to it as the Anaphora of St. Cyril), attested to in the Strasbourg Papyrus, which at least dates from the fourth century, and the fourth century Euchologion of St. Sarapion of Thmuis, and other ancient anaphoras, such as that of St. James, used since antiquity in Jerusalem, and the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, itself a minor variant of of the Antiochene Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, itself a textual variant of the aforementioned Anaphora of the Apostles, and the ancient Byzantine and Egyptian versions of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, and the ancient Roman Canon, estimated to date from the third or fourth century (the most cutting-edge liturgiological hypothesis suggests the Roman Canon is related to the Anaphora of St. Mark), and finally the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, believed by many liturgiologists since well before Dom Gregory Dix to be the oldest liturgy still in use, among the Aramaic-speaking Assyrians and Indians in the Church of the East and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Chaldeans of the Chaldean Catholic Church and some Western and Filipino converts to the aforesaid churches, and also disused liturgical texts such as that of the Apostolic Constitutions and that of the Didache.

All of these contain strong affirmations that the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of our Lord, and ancient hymns, such as the fifth or sixth century Haw Nurone, and other anaphoras of similar age, confirm that it retains the perceptual attributes of bread and wine.

Thus, while the specific Scholastic explanation given by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica is of comparatively recent origin, the idea it refers to is not, and is shared with the Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics and other High Church Anglicans, and the Lutherans (who reject the specific wording of transsubstantion but accept the Real Presence of Christ in, with and other the species of bread and wine).

I should add that there are no statements in the ancient liturgical texts that I have encountered that are denials of the Real Presence, such as the infamous Black Rubric introduced in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, removed in the Elizabethan book, reintroduced in 1662 due to fears of renewed civil war with the Puritans, and removed again in the Scottish, American and other more recent BCPs, including the 1928 Deposited Book which, had non-Anglican Members of Parliament not conspired to prevent this, would be the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England now (except it is no longer relevant, since in the aftermath of that scandal the Church of England became liturgically autonomous, publishing various Trial Liturgies followed by the Alternative Service Book and its successor, 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 (which at least culturally would include myself insofar as I joined the Episcopal Church before becoming an Orthodox Christian and would serve in a Western Rite Orthodox parish which is basically the realization of the attempted union of the Episcopal Church and the Russian Orthodox Church which was thwarted by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, and advocate for full communion between the Orthodox and all traditional Anglicans…I am what in the UK they jokingly call “Angliochian”).

 

[childeye 2]

We Orthodox confess this is True.



To a large extent, along with John 3:16, and John 6 which connects the Eucharist and Passion of the Lord to the free gift of salvation he offers, and similar pericopes concerning Baptism, and also John 1:1-18 and the Sermon on the Mount … actually it seems the Heart of the Gospel is the Gospel entire which cannot be reduced to a paraphrase of a pericope or a pious platitude however pleasant.

The Holy Spirit is about knowing His Person and The Way is a singularity (strait and narrow). These can therefore only come through revelation wherefore we know it's not of us, but of God. For what creature could ever have imagined this Image of God that is presented on the cross of suffering in the Gospel, and represented in the remembrance of His Love for us?

 

[Valletta]

This is a perfect example of the literary sin of presentism.

1. The Christians in the second century totally despised the thought of eating actual flesh and drinking actual blood.

If presentism is to be applied to anyone it should be you. You look at very plain straightforward statements through your own lens of preconceived ideas.
Understand it wasn't just Christians who were against cannibalism, it was the Jews and pagan Romans as well. Our Lord told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood in remembrance of Him. Jesus is present in a consecrated host under the appearance of bread and wine, Jesus is alive, and His Body remains no matter how many people eat of it. That is NOT cannibalism. In the early Church such charges of cannibalism were made by the pagans and the Jews against Christians. The early Christians were persecuted over such charges because they indeed believe what appeared to be bread and wine was truly the body and blood of Our Lord. In fact,Justin Martyr himself addressed the Jews over this matter:

"And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you."
Chapter 26, The First Apology

CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem with this interpretation of the words of Ignatius is that it lacks the context in which he wrote his letter. He was fighting Docetism at the time. Docetists believed that Jesus only appeared to be human but was not fully incarnated in a physical body. In context, the heretics at the time denied the body of Christ so how could Ignatius celebrate the Lord’s Supper if they denied that Christ physically existed? Furthermore, Ignatius calls the gospel the “flesh of Jesus Christ“ in Philadelphians 5. Sensibly and responsibly, given the context, it would be an over reach to consider the interpretations of Ignatius words to refer to the present RCC doctrine of transubstantiation.

The problem with that argument is that we have the Didache and other liturgies generally dated to the second century, and the definite third century liturgy of Antioch, which affirm a belief in the Real Presence, and also such a reading is the most obvious interpretation of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 (and corresponding pericopes in the Synoptics).

The reality is the Thomistic doctrine of Transubstantiation is just a more detailed explanation of how the miracle of the Eucharist happens.

Some Church Fathers proposed even more elaborate explanations, for example, the lifelong friend of St. Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who the Chalcedonian Emperor Justinian controversially anathematized post-mortem, causing a schism in Spain, the Three Chapters Controversy, and who is still venerated as a saint in the Church of the East, taught that the Liturgy of Preparation made the Bread and Wine the dead Body and Blood of Christ, and these were then resurrected in the Epkiesis. This doctrine was not what got him anathematized; rather it was the belief that his views had inspired Nestorius, and Justinian anathematized him (and the Fifth Ecumenical Synod apparently ratified this anathema) in a failed attempt to persuade the Oriental Orthodox to accept Chalcedon.

Indeed I know of no contemporaries of Mar Theodore the Interpreter, as the Assyrians call him, who denounced him for his Eucharistic theology; rather all criticism of it postdates the post-mortem association of his theology with that of Nestorius (who caused the infamous schism after the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia). It is the case that Nestorius may have borrowed some problematic speculations of Theodore in order to prop up his theology, which was itself an attempt to modify Christology in order to support his violent persecution of those in his Patriarchate (he became Patriarhc of Constantinople) who confessed the ancient belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Theotokos. For this he was properly deposed at the Third Ecumenical Synod, but in their eagerness to depose Nestorius, the synod angered some Assyrians (others enthusiastically embraced it and are members of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Melkite Catholic Church), which caused a shortlived uptake of Nestorianism by some bishops of the Church of the East, until under Mar Babai it was replaced with what amounted to a Syriac translation of Chalcedon, and while the Assyrian Church of the East still venerates Nestorius as a confessor (despite the fact he was not tortured, merely deposed to Syria, where he wrote his memoirs, the Bazaar of Heraclides, an exile in which he sought to foment disunity by expressing his support of Chalcedon, a statement which was one of several events connected to Nestorius and crypto-Nestorians that contributed to the schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians which is only now finally healing), is the standard for confessors in the Orthodox church), the doctrines of Nestorius were renounced by Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV of blessed memory after he was consecrated following the tragic assasination of the last hereditary Catholicos of the East, Mar Shimun XXIII, in 1974.

 

[The Liturgist]

The early Christians were persecuted over such charges because they indeed believe what appeared to be bread and wine was truly the body and blood of Our Lord. In fact,Justin Martyr himself addressed the Jews over this matter:

That’s also a good point - people forget that this along with sexual promiscuity were the two slanderous accusations made against the Christians. In the case of some non-Christian heretical sects, it may have been partially true (although most heretics of the Docetic-Emanationist-secret knowledge salvation type rejected childbearing many were known for promiscuity otherwise, such as the Nicolaitans), but it is false with regards to our religion.

 

[childeye 2]

The reality is the Thomistic doctrine of Transubstantiation is just a more detailed explanation of how the miracle of the Eucharist happens.

I believe it's about remembering his suffering for us, such is His Love and His Person. I received The Holy Spirit through the revelation of the Gospel (The power of the cross). I believe the cross is where he gave his flesh and blood as food and drink.

 

[ozso]

Is my friend @MarkRohfrietsch correct?

It appears you object to the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutherans having different doctrine from you, because you perceive this as a threat to ecumenical unity.

I don't have a doctrine. Churches / denominations have doctrines. How can doctrines that exclude disciples of Christ bring unity?

I should point out that statements such as attacks on our Eucharistic and Marian doctrine and closed communion and a seeming desire of evangelicals to assimilate us is precisely what is fueling the popularity of the schismatic Old Calendarists, who believe ecumenism is some kind of Masonic conspiracy that is engulfing the “World Orthodox”, that is to say, the canonical Orthodox churches. They are wrong, of course, but it is because of similar sentiments encountered in the World Council of Churches and its “Lima Liturgy” intended to be used by all and offend none that have caused the Orthodox Churches of Georgia and Bulgaria to leave the WCC and several others such as Jerusalem to reduce their participation to nothing.

We don’t want to receive communion in churches that are not in fellowship with us and that agree with our doctrine, and entrust their salvation to Christ our True God, who is fortunately infinitely merciful. St. Theophan the Recluse taught we should not worry about other Christians because they have a Savior who desires the salvation of all men, but, he added, if we abandon that faith which we have received unchanged from the Apostles we jeopardize our soul.

Thus anyone who wants the Orthodox Eucharist should become a catechumen rather than attacking our theology, since partaking of Holy Communion is for us the supreme act of accepting the teachings of Christ as received by the millions of men, women and children who are martyrs and confessors of the Orthodox Church, receiving their crowns of Martyrdom under the Pharisees and Romans, Persians, even the pagan Hindus and Armenians in the case of St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew, and more recently, since 600 AD, the Saracens, the Turks, the Communists and now the Islamic Fundamentalists, among others who have decided to seek our demise.

Conversely we desire the demise of no other Christians but love all and confess ourselves to be the worst of sinners.

You speak of attacks. I take it you don't agree with the doctrine of eternal security aka once saved always saved. And I take it that you can explain why you don't agree with it without attacking the churches that teach it or those who believe it.

​

 

[sincerity2u]

for me anyway, In order for the Church to be of one accord (in unity of purpose) then we must speak the same things, and to be perfectly joined together we must have the same mind and the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10): but alas, since the bringing in of all of the massive amounts of rendering of scripture, therefore is the Church no more of one accord; for it cannot be except again, only when we speak the same things, and are of the same mind, and the same judgment, which is not possible as long as we continue to hold to various renderings of scripture, and just only one, as we had in times past. It is evident that since the bringing on of more than one rendering, that the Church has fractured into bits and pieces because of the various rendering.

 

[Strong in Him]

The understanding of the Holy Eucharist caused great divisions, many disciples who had followed Jesus walked away from Jesus,

If you're talking about those who walked away from Jesus in John 6:66, the Last Supper, from which the Eucharist came, had not happened, or even been mentioned then.

It seems they were taking Jesus' words literally, and drinking any kind of blood was forbidden as blood contained life, Genesis 9:4-6.

 

[Strong in Him]

I recall reading that Ignatius was addressing certain beliefs that had arisen in those days claiming that Jesus was an apparition and didn't actually have a flesh and blood body.

There was a heresy going around at the time which said that Jesus was only God but not man.
I think it was Gnosticism. They believed that because God is Spirit, anything that was not spirit - matter - was not of God and therefore evil.
So a perfect God cannot possibly have been born in a sinful body of flesh, cannot have died, etc.
This is why John says that anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh is an antichrist.

It's the basis of Christian Science. They also deny sickness as not being real.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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.

But he was.

 

[ozso]

49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;

55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

​

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”

61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. John 6:49-66

 

[Strong in Him]

But he was.

But you cannot say that John 6 was teaching about the Eucharist.

Nobody who heard Jesus' words would have understood him to be talking about his future death. Far less that he would one day have a final Passover meal with his friends, give them a piece of bread saying "this is my body", expect them to remember words that he had spoken possibly eighteen months before and believe that it was literal.

The point of Pentecost is that God's Spirit was poured out on all, as Joel prophesied.
Jesus had already told his disciples that he would be with them through his Spirit - after Pentecost, God could be IN all believers, by his Spirit.
We are IN Christ if we have received him, believed in him and been filled with his Spirit. Yes, communion is special and God can come to us in a special way. But we don't have to eat a piece of bread for Jesus to be IN us.

So not believing that Eucharistic bread somehow, mystically, turns into Christ's real flesh, does not mean that Christ is not with us, nor does it mean we cannot be in communion with God.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't have a doctrine. Churches / denominations have doctrines. How can doctrines that exclude disciples of Christ bring unity?

You speak of attacks. I take it you don't agree with the doctrine of eternal security aka once saved always saved. And I take it that you can explain why you don't agree with it without attacking the churches that teach it or those who believe it.

​

But you do have a doctrine; one that compels you to to tread on the doctrines of others to obtain something that you do not have.

What you are advocating for is like deciding you are going to drive a car, after deciding you don't need either drivers training, a license, or insurance.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But you cannot say that John 6 was teaching about the Eucharist.

Nobody who heard Jesus' words would have understood him to be talking about his future death. Far less that he would one day have a final Passover meal with his friends, give them a piece of bread saying "this is my body", expect them to remember words that he had spoken possibly eighteen months before and believe that it was literal.

The point of Pentecost is that God's Spirit was poured out on all, as Joel prophesied.
Jesus had already told his disciples that he would be with them through his Spirit - after Pentecost, God could be IN all believers, by his Spirit.
We are IN Christ if we have received him, believed in him and been filled with his Spirit. Yes, communion is special and God can come to us in a special way. But we don't have to eat a piece of bread for Jesus to be IN us.

So not believing that Eucharistic bread somehow, mystically, turns into Christ's real flesh, does not mean that Christ is not with us, nor does it mean we cannot be in communion with God.

Our Lord told his Decuples that a lot of what they heard, they will not understand until a later time (after Pentecost?); this was not only a prophesy about the crucifixion but the promise of real grace given through the eucharist.

 

[ozso]

But you do have a doctrine; one that compels you to to tread on the doctrines of others to obtain something that you do not have.

It's an opinion. And it's about all disciples of Christ, the entire body of Christ.

What you are advocating for is like deciding you are going to drive a car, after deciding you don't need either drivers training, a license, or insurance.

In my opinion being baptized disciples of Christ and members of the body of Christ is all the license Christians should need.

Please be accurate and call it an unpopular opinion.

 

[Strong in Him]

Our Lord told his Decuples that a lot of what they heard, they will not understand until a later time (after Pentecost?); this was not only a prophesy about the crucifixion but the promise of real grace given through the eucharist.

Yes, a lot of things made sense to them after the resurrection. And Jesus stayed on earth for 40 more days before his ascension, teaching them about the kingdom.

But IF he said to them, "remember what I said after the feeding of the 5000? When you break bread together you have to believe that this literally becomes my body and that only through IT can I be in you", it's not recorded anywhere.

There is a big difference between the 12 disciples understanding a few years later what Jesus meant, and us reading into his words over 1000 years later.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But you cannot say that John 6 was teaching about the Eucharist.

I can and I do.

Nobody who heard Jesus' words would have understood him to be talking about his future death.

They have and they did from the early 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.

Far less that he would one day have a final Passover meal with his friends, give them a piece of bread saying "this is my body", expect them to remember words that he had spoken possibly eighteen months before and believe that it was literal.

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.

The point of Pentecost is that God's Spirit was poured out on all, as Joel prophesied.
Jesus had already told his disciples that he would be with them through his Spirit - after Pentecost, God could be IN all believers, by his Spirit.
We are IN Christ if we have received him, believed in him and been filled with his Spirit. Yes, communion is special and God can come to us in a special way. But we don't have to eat a piece of bread for Jesus to be IN us.

So not believing that Eucharistic bread somehow, mystically, turns into Christ's real flesh, does not mean that Christ is not with us, nor does it mean we cannot be in communion with God.

 

[Hentenza]

That’s not presentism, since we know from the oldest Eucharistic text such as the ancient Antiochene Anaphora of the Apostles still used in the Church of Ethiopia, but attested to in the second century writings of St. Hippolytus, or the Anaphora of St. Mark still occasionally used by Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, and by the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox (who refer to it as the Anaphora of St. Cyril), attested to in the Strasbourg Papyrus, which at least dates from the fourth century, and the fourth century Euchologion of St. Sarapion of Thmuis, and other ancient anaphoras, such as that of St. James, used since antiquity in Jerusalem, and the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, itself a minor variant of of the Antiochene Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, itself a textual variant of the aforementioned Anaphora of the Apostles, and the ancient Byzantine and Egyptian versions of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, and the ancient Roman Canon, estimated to date from the third or fourth century (the most cutting-edge liturgiological hypothesis suggests the Roman Canon is related to the Anaphora of St. Mark), and finally the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, believed by many liturgiologists since well before Dom Gregory Dix to be the oldest liturgy still in use, among the Aramaic-speaking Assyrians and Indians in the Church of the East and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Chaldeans of the Chaldean Catholic Church and some Western and Filipino converts to the aforesaid churches, and also disused liturgical texts such as that of the Apostolic Constitutions and that of the Didache.

All of these contain strong affirmations that the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of our Lord, and ancient hymns, such as the fifth or sixth century Haw Nurone, and other anaphoras of similar age, confirm that it retains the perceptual attributes of bread and wine.

Thus, while the specific Scholastic explanation given by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica is of comparatively recent origin, the idea it refers to is not, and is shared with the Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics and other High Church Anglicans, and the Lutherans (who reject the specific wording of transsubstantion but accept the Real Presence of Christ in, with and other the species of bread and wine).

I should add that there are no statements in the ancient liturgical texts that I have encountered that are denials of the Real Presence, such as the infamous Black Rubric introduced in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, removed in the Elizabethan book, reintroduced in 1662 due to fears of renewed civil war with the Puritans, and removed again in the Scottish, American and other more recent BCPs, including the 1928 Deposited Book which, had non-Anglican Members of Parliament not conspired to prevent this, would be the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England now (except it is no longer relevant, since in the aftermath of that scandal the Church of England became liturgically autonomous, publishing various Trial Liturgies followed by the Alternative Service Book and its successor, 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 (which at least culturally would include myself insofar as I joined the Episcopal Church before becoming an Orthodox Christian and would serve in a Western Rite Orthodox parish which is basically the realization of the attempted union of the Episcopal Church and the Russian Orthodox Church which was thwarted by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, and advocate for full communion between the Orthodox and all traditional Anglicans…I am what in the UK they jokingly call “Angliochian”).

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.

 

[Hentenza]

If presentism is to be applied to anyone it should be you. You look at very plain straightforward statements through your own lens of preconceived ideas.
Understand it wasn't just Christians who were against cannibalism, it was the Jews and pagan Romans as well. Our Lord told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood in remembrance of Him. Jesus is present in a consecrated host under the appearance of bread and wine, Jesus is alive, and His Body remains no matter how many people eat of it. That is NOT cannibalism. In the early Church such charges of cannibalism were made by the pagans and the Jews against Christians. The early Christians were persecuted over such charges because they indeed believe what appeared to be bread and wine was truly the body and blood of Our Lord. In fact,Justin Martyr himself addressed the Jews over this matter:

"And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you."
Chapter 26, The First Apology

CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

So you agree with me for point one of my argument. Now please address points 2 and 3. Thanks.