If the "Real Presence" isn't real, then why were the Church Fathers so adament about its importance?

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135

...

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus' glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father's kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?":161 the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

From the very beginning of the Church, the Eucharist central to the Christian faith. Even before the Church began, when Jesus was still walking the Earth, he descibes the nature of the Eucharist, and many of his disciples leave him because of it (John 6).

And the Church Fathers, the bishops, priests, and popes of the the early Church, had very powerful things to say about it! (1st link below)

But all this raises a question...if the early Church was so adament about the importance of the Eucharist, how can we change Church teachings to say that it's only a symbol? And what about the Old Testament parrallels of the Passover, the celebration of the sacrificial lamb, bread & wine symbolizing a covenant (3rd link)?

If Christ left a Church, that means there's a historical aspect to it, and we can learn a lot about our faith by studying its history. Studying the Church Fathers in particular is helpful for settling issues like the Eucharist, where "proof texts" have tendency to swing either way, based all too often on which texts people like better, or have so long heard interpreted one way that they don't know any different. Please pray with humility that the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth, wherever that may take you. (Don't worry, I'm praying for it, too!

Thank you for your time, and pray for God to make it all worthwhile.

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist

The Passover Bread and Wine: The Meaning of the Passover Symbols

Bread and Wine, Symbols of A Covenant – Grace thru faith

 

[Root of Jesse]

Following...

 

[Radagast]

If the "Real Presence" isn't real, then why were the Church Fathers so adament about its importance?

You wouldn't be conflating "Real Presence" and "Transubstantiation" by any chance, would you?

 

[Rubiks]

The church fathers were mistaken.

Virtually every ancient Christian sect (being declared orthodox, heretical, or anywhere in between) claimed its teachings go back to the original apostles themselves.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You wouldn't be conflating "Real Presence" and "Transubstantiation" by any chance, would you?

There's no confusion. Transubstantiation is how bread becomes the Real Presence.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The church fathers were mistaken.

Virtually every ancient Christian sect (being declared orthodox, heretical, or anywhere in between) claimed its teachings go back to the original apostles themselves.

You are mistaken.

 

[Radagast]

There's no confusion. Transubstantiation is how bread becomes the Real Presence.

According to Catholics.

There are other, non-Catholic, versions of the Real Presence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

and many of his disciples leave him because of it (John 6).

They left Him at that time because they did not want to violate TORAH, and Jesus , although He NEVER violated TORAH, seemed to them,
since they did not wait for His Understanding like the other disciples did who waited, they saw no way to continue with Him - no one TORAH observant, obeying Yahweh, would ever eat anyone's body nor ever even let blood touch their lips, let alone drink it.

But all this raises a question...if the early Church was so adament about the importance of the Eucharist, how can we change Church teachings to say that it's only a symbol? And what about the Old Testament parrallels of the Passover, the celebration of the sacrificial lamb, bread & wine symbolizing a covenant (3rd link)?

Not to change to "it's only a symbol"

but to "MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT, and THEY ARE LIFE" (as Jesus said to those disciples who did not leave Him but remained for His Understanding) .

 

[anna ~ grace]

Yes... the Real Presence is True. It is truly Christ, with us. The first 1,500 years of Christian thought and faith and practice were not wrong.

 

[Root of Jesse]

According to Catholics.

There are other, non-Catholic, versions of the Real Presence.

You are free to describe it however you want. We call it Transubstantiation. You should know, it's impossible to correctly describe something we cannot possibly understand.

 

[Albion]

Hi, Alex. Here is a sensible answer to your question, not necessarily reflective of my own beliefs. I understand that you are not spoiling for a fight but really would like to know how the alternate POV can be justified:

From the very beginning of the Church, the Eucharist central to the Christian faith. Even before the Church began, when Jesus was still walking the Earth, he descibes the nature of the Eucharist, and many of his disciples leave him because of it (John 6).

For one thing, it isn't really "from the very beginning of the Church." It is from later in the first century. Things had developed by that time.

Second, and as for John 6, that passage is always read by some churches to be about the Eucharist, but since the Eucharist had not been instituted by the time Jesus is saying what he did to the Jews, it may be that he is speaking metaphorically and referring more generally to the acceptance of Him.

And the Church Fathers, the bishops, priests, and popes of the early Church, had very powerful things to say about it! (1st link below)

Early in church history, yes, but not from the beginning as noted above.

But all this raises a question...if the early Church was so adament about the importance of the Eucharist, how can we change Church teachings to say that it's only a symbol? And what about the Old Testament parrallels of the Passover, the celebration of the sacrificial lamb, bread & wine symbolizing a covenant (3rd link)?

Well, the Jews certainly did not think that any of those events and commemorations involved literally eating God, did they?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, the Jews certainly did not think that any of those events and commemorations involved literally eating God, did they?

Neither Yeshua King of the Jews, nor any Jews, thought that , no. You are correct.
Spiritual Food, obviously yes - as Jesus says "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE" right ?
And as Jesus Says "My Words Are Spirit, and They Are Life" explaining to His disciples, Jews, concerning things not understood for the last 2000 years because of tradition or unbelief like the disciples who walked away from Jesus because they did not understand and didn't wait around in faith, to learn as Jesus taught the other disciples who remained with Hm.

 

[Athanasius377]

You are free to describe it however you want. We call it Transubstantiation. You should know, it's impossible to correctly describe something we cannot possibly understand.

So let me get this straight. It’s a mystery but we’ve figured out this mystery and one is under pain of mortal sin if one denies our explanation. Seems reasonable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So let me get this straight. It’s a mystery but we’ve figured out this mystery and one is under pain of mortal sin if one denies our explanation. Seems reasonable.

It is not a mystery in Scripture. Yahweh says it is simple.

Man comes up with many devices. Not simple. Not pure.

 

[Albion]

Of course, Transubstantiation is not the only way to believe in the Real Presence. That fact was mentioned earlier here but it got brushed off. And it, Transubstantiation, did not come along until the Middle Ages and was not made the official belief of the one and only denomination that holds to it--until the 13th century.

 

[Radagast]

You are free to describe it however you want. We call it Transubstantiation. You should know, it's impossible to correctly describe something we cannot possibly understand.

Historically, the Catholic Church has condemned and burned people for not accepting the quite detailed definition of Transubstantiation contained in the Tridentine Catechism:

"The Catholic Church firmly believes and professes that in this Sacrament the words of consecration accomplish three wondrous and admirable effects.

The first is that the true body of Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament.

The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.

The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine."

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, All

This was addressed very directly by a pope of the Roman Church, seeing I am not a member of the Roman Church it is quite interesting with in their history.

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

Commenting on this passage from Gelasius, the Jesuit scholar Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. wrote: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

I would say Eusebius is the most consistent in offering historic insight in to this question from the 4th century Church.

"And then 'He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,' and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1:10)


"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

"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.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)

As to John Chapter 6 recommend Augustine on the passage quoted as to why they left.. The text is clear and Rome's understanding of the text is weak and careless at best.

While we are on Augustine:

Augustine denies that there is any bodily presence of Christ in the church today:

"It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

In Him,

Bill

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is one of the issues that I consider to make modern Churches which deny the real presence illegitimate. The a fundamentally modern having rejected the historic and what is the general consensus amongst the majority of Christendom surrounding the fundamental point of worship.

If we got this wrong, we have likely got everything wrong and what else could be trusted?

 

[concretecamper]

Historically, the Catholic Church has condemned and burned people

so sad. It took only 16 post for this tactic to be employed. Indicative of a weak position.

Back to the topic at hand.

“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).

People get hung up on when the word transubstantiation was coined. It's only a word to describe what the Church has Always believed.

 

[prodromos]

The Liturgy of St James preceded the New Testament Scriptures, and the eucharist is central to the liturgy. I don't see how some can claim the understanding of the real presence 'developed' over the 1st century.