Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

The Roman Catholic Church did not yet exist in 170 A.D. there was no well-established ecclesiastical structure. The RCC later tried to trace a line back to Peter but there was no documented succession of a supreme leader of the church. You had various bishops in different cities, but they did not report to a central bishop or pope. They were unified in the teachings of the Apostles and the written Word though there were already some differences of opinion on certain doctrines.

Of course, there is only one truth. There can only be one. Just as there is only one body of Christ, that is his "church" not a "Church." The RCC church developed at a later time.

Incorrect.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus commanded us to "Do this" which includes saying the words of consecration and consuming the Eucharist. It so holy that Paul told us:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” Corinthians 11:27
What happens during the consecration has not changed in almost 2000 years, the Church eventually came up with a name to describe what happens, "transubstantiation."

There is no conclusive evidence that the early Christians believed in transubstantiation (by any name) and it is not Biblical.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Incorrect.

Of course we disagree.

 

[Valletta]

There is no conclusive evidence that the early Christians believed in transubstantiation (by any name) and it is not Biblical.

As we see in John 6, many walked away. The Bible seems very clear, I know during the reformation the the three main leaders of the reformation each decided on their own definitions and who knows how many there are today.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As we see in John 6, many walked away. The Bible seems very clear, I know during the reformation the the three main leaders of the reformation each decided on their own definitions and who knows how many there are today.

Also in John 6, Jesus says:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (emphasis added).

The Jews present were looking for another miracle from Jesus after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. They were thinking of their temporal needs (i.e. thinking with their stomachs). Jesus goes on to contrast the literal food (manna) they received in their wilderness journey, with the spiritual food He will supply them with through His death and resurrection. This is still long before the Last Supper. Since they were thinking in a literal sense he chose words that corresponded to their thinking. He makes a point that He who eats his "food" will never hunger again as He told the woman at the well that He who drinks the water he gives, shall never thirst again.

If you want to take that literally, then one participation in the Eucharist should suffice. You would not need to keep going back Sunday after Sunday. You would "never hunger again" or "never thirst again." Yet, you do keep going back. If the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ, then as a human being His body had finite dimensions. We would have consumed all his body and all his blood thousands of years ago. In the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, God created new loaves and new fish so they could continue to eat. It was not the same loaf or the same few fish eaten over and over again.

As Jesus states in verse 63, it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh is of no help at all. He is pointing out to them that while full bellies are satisfying, they do nothing for you spiritually. Jesus instructed the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of me" at the Last Supper. He instituted it as a memorial. We receive spiritual blessings from God through non-material means. If the Eucharist became Jesus' literal body and blood, then it would be through material means. The Bible tells us that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was "once and for all." Yet the RCC re-sacrifices Him over and over again during the Mass. Once was not enough. The sacrifice was not "once and for all."

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . 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," show 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” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

As you can see, not all the early church fathers held the view of transubstantiation. They saw Christ's body and blood as figures and symbols to be spiritually understood. It is curious to me that the RCC quit serving wine at communion centuries ago suddenly insisting the priest was taking the wine for everyone and it was represented in the bread. Why withhold the wine if it is indeed the very blood of Christ? The RCC goes so far as to teach that the Lord is obligated to appear at Mass commanded to do so by the priest.

So far as I know, there are only two views of communion among Protestants. Consubstantiation and the Spiritual Presence view. Neither believes in the Catholic view of transubstantiation.

 

[Valletta]

Also in John 6, Jesus says:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (emphasis added).

The Jews present were looking for another miracle from Jesus after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. They were thinking of their temporal needs (i.e. thinking with their stomachs). Jesus goes on to contrast the literal food (manna) they received in their wilderness journey, with the spiritual food He will supply them with through His death and resurrection. This is still long before the Last Supper. Since they were thinking in a literal sense he chose words that corresponded to their thinking. He makes a point that He who eats his "food" will never hunger again as He told the woman at the well that He who drinks the water he gives, shall never thirst again.

If you want to take that literally, then one participation in the Eucharist should suffice. You would not need to keep going back Sunday after Sunday. You would "never hunger again" or "never thirst again." Yet, you do keep going back. If the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ, then as a human being His body had finite dimensions. We would have consumed all his body and all his blood thousands of years ago. In the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, God created new loaves and new fish so they could continue to eat. It was not the same loaf or the same few fish eaten over and over again.

As Jesus states in verse 63, it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh is of no help at all. He is pointing out to them that while full bellies are satisfying, they do nothing for you spiritually. Jesus instructed the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of me" at the Last Supper. He instituted it as a memorial. We receive spiritual blessings from God through non-material means. If the Eucharist became Jesus' literal body and blood, then it would be through material means. The Bible tells us that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was "once and for all." Yet the RCC re-sacrifices Him over and over again during the Mass. Once was not enough. The sacrifice was not "once and for all."

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . 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," show 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” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

As you can see, not all the early church fathers held the view of transubstantiation. They saw Christ's body and blood as figures and symbols to be spiritually understood. It is curious to me that the RCC quit serving wine at communion centuries ago suddenly insisting the priest was taking the wine for everyone and it was represented in the bread. Why withhold the wine if it is indeed the very blood of Christ? The RCC goes so far as to teach that the Lord is obligated to appear at Mass commanded to do so by the priest.

So far as I know, there are only two views of communion among Protestants. Consubstantiation and the Spiritual Presence view. Neither believes in the Catholic view of transubstantiation.

"The flesh" means things of the flesh. That is much different than Christ's true body and his true blood.

And we are to “do this,” in remembrance of Jesus (the blessing and breaking of the bread,the words of consecration, and giving the Eucharist to the people to consume). “Remembrance” in no way indicates Jesus was lying about the consecrated bread being his true flesh and the consecrated wine being His true Blood. Don’t be deceived by those who misrepresent the beliefs of the early Church and hide some of the following quotations from you. You used Justyn Martyr as an example to supposedly show the denial of the true flesh and blood of Jesus. I suggest you read Apologies(and other early documents) for yourself, you might be surprised to find that Justyn Martyr describes the mass in there. Martyr also said:

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)”

You brought up St. Clement, who likewise believed in the Real Presence but said there was also symbolism. Clement describe the mystery of the Holy Eucharist:

“Eat my flesh, he says, and drink my blood (John 6:53-5). Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and he offers his flesh and pours forth his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O, amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving him if we can, to hide him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh. “ (The Instructor of Children [A.D. 191]

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And certainly the Holy Eucharist is spiritual because it is God Himself! I hope you get the idea, why even the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist in other ways:

1402 In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us." If the Eucharist is the memorial of the Passover of the Lord Jesus, if by our communion at the altar we are filled "with every heavenly blessing and grace,"242 then the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the heavenly glory.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

That does not negate what the Church states about the teaching of Our Lord that the Holy Eucharist is His true flesh and His true blood.

 

[jas3]

So far as I know, there are only two views of communion among Protestants. Consubstantiation and the Spiritual Presence view. Neither believes in the Catholic view of transubstantiation.

A clarification of terminology is in order:

• Real Presence: the general belief that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, without reference to the category of "substance."
• Transubstantiation: the particular belief that the Real Presence is accomplished by a replacement of the substance of the bread and wine with the substance of Christ's body and blood.
• Consubstantiation: the belief that the Real Presence is accomplished by the substance of the body and blood coexisting with the substance of the bread and wine.
• Spiritual presence: a rejection of the material reality of the presence of Christ, which says that He is present, but not substantially, only spiritually.
• Memorialism: a total rejection of the Real Presence which says that communion is only symbolic and there is no form in which Christ is present.

All of these views can be found in Protestantism. Transubstantiation would be found among traditional Anglo-Catholics, Consubstantiation among Lutherans, the Real Presence among those groups as well as denominations coming from Anglicanism, the Spiritual Presence view among Presbyterians and other Reformed denominations, and the Memorialist view among evangelicals as well as some others.

 

[Valletta]

A clarification of terminology is in order:

• Real Presence: the general belief that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, without reference to the category of "substance."
• Transubstantiation: the particular belief that the Real Presence is accomplished by a replacement of the substance of the bread and wine with the substance of Christ's body and blood.
• Consubstantiation: the belief that the Real Presence is accomplished by the substance of the body and blood coexisting with the substance of the bread and wine.
• Spiritual presence: a rejection of the material reality of the presence of Christ, which says that He is present, but not substantially, only spiritually.
• Memorialism: a total rejection of the Real Presence which says that communion is only symbolic and there is no form in which Christ is present.

All of these views can be found in Protestantism. Transubstantiation would be found among traditional Anglo-Catholics, Consubstantiation among Lutherans, the Real Presence among those groups as well as denominations coming from Anglicanism, the Spiritual Presence view among Presbyterians and other Reformed denominations, and the Memorialist view among evangelicals as well as some others.

Here's a post about the different opinions on the Holy Eucharist between the three major leaders of the reformation:

What is the difference between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin teachings?

Answer (1 of 3): Luther and Zwingli met in person at a place called Marburg where they attempted to reconcile their teachings. They agreed on every thesis/loci/teaching except the one on Communion or the Eucharist. In one of the great “Luther the Troll” stories, Luther carved “est” (Latin for is)...

www.quora.com

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

"The flesh" means things of the flesh. That is much different than Christ's true body and his true blood.

The Greek word translated "flesh" in John 6:63 is the word sarx. Consider these other passages in which the same word is used:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Same Greek word. Surely that is not talking about "things of the flesh" but rather the actual body and blood of Christ. There are numerous other examples of that word being used unmistakably about the human body. Can the word be used in the sense of "of the flesh?" Yes, but then so could Jesus' words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood have been used figuratively. One must look at the usage to decide.

The setting was the Last Supper. They were celebrating the Passover. Interestingly, Jesus was breaking bread when He said "this is my body broken for you." He made no mention of the bread having been turned into His flesh nor would it make sense since He had not yet died. It was the lamb that signified the bloody sacrifice that was made to deliver the Israelites from the angel of death, not the bread. Why did Jesus not say those words when carving up the Lamb? You might say Jesus was the "bread of life" but He was also the "lamb of God." He chose bread, no doubt because it would be easier for them to obtain and use in the future when celebrating communion. It was a symbol of His body. Bread contains no blood. If Jesus intended to transform some food into His body, the lamb would have been a much more fitting recipient. The four cups of wine served at the Passover represented their deliverance from bondage in Egypt. It has no relation to blood. It too was being used as a symbol as it would also be common and easy to obtain.

And we are to “do this,” in remembrance of Jesus (the blessing and breaking of the bread,the words of consecration, and giving the Eucharist to the people to consume). “Remembrance” in no way indicates Jesus was lying about the consecrated bread being his true flesh and the consecrated wine being His true Blood. Don’t be deceived by those who misrepresent the beliefs of the early Church and hide some of the following quotations from you. You used Justyn Martyr as an example to supposedly show the denial of the true flesh and blood of Jesus. I suggest you read Apologies(and other early documents) for yourself, you might be surprised to find that Justyn Martyr describes the mass in there. Martyr also said:

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)”

You brought up St. Clement, who likewise believed in the Real Presence but said there was also symbolism. Clement describe the mystery of the Holy Eucharist:

“Eat my flesh, he says, and drink my blood (John 6:53-5). Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and he offers his flesh and pours forth his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O, amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving him if we can, to hide him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh. “ (The Instructor of Children [A.D. 191]

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And certainly the Holy Eucharist is spiritual because it is God Himself! I hope you get the idea, why even the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist in other ways:

1402 In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us." If the Eucharist is the memorial of the Passover of the Lord Jesus, if by our communion at the altar we are filled "with every heavenly blessing and grace,"242 then the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the heavenly glory.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

That does not negate what the Church states about the teaching of Our Lord that the Holy Eucharist is His true flesh and His true blood.

The most we can say about the testimony of the early church writers is that it's not conclusive. No doubt some did believe it was the actual body and blood of Christ. Others clearly did not. They were fallible men and their writings not Scripture. We don't have near enough writings that have survived for us to gauge what was the consensus and even still it would be the consensus of fallible men.

Remember too, Jesus' sacrifice was "once and for all." It fully paid the price for our sins. There is no need to re-sacrifice Him over and over again. The life we have in Christ is a spiritual life. It is not based on the flesh. We will receive new bodies in heaven. Jesus told Satan that His bread was the Word of God. We don't receive spiritual blessings through the flesh. We receive them spiritually.

 

[Valletta]

The Greek word translated "flesh" in John 6:63 is the word sarx. Consider these other passages in which the same word is used:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Same Greek word. Surely that is not talking about "things of the flesh" but rather the actual body and blood of Christ. There are numerous other examples of that word being used unmistakably about the human body. Can the word be used in the sense of "of the flesh?" Yes, but then so could Jesus' words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood have been used figuratively. One must look at the usage to decide.

The setting was the Last Supper. They were celebrating the Passover. Interestingly, Jesus was breaking bread when He said "this is my body broken for you." He made no mention of the bread having been turned into His flesh nor would it make sense since He had not yet died. It was the lamb that signified the bloody sacrifice that was made to deliver the Israelites from the angel of death, not the bread. Why did Jesus not say those words when carving up the Lamb? You might say Jesus was the "bread of life" but He was also the "lamb of God." He chose bread, no doubt because it would be easier for them to obtain and use in the future when celebrating communion. It was a symbol of His body. Bread contains no blood. If Jesus intended to transform some food into His body, the lamb would have been a much more fitting recipient. The four cups of wine served at the Passover represented their deliverance from bondage in Egypt. It has no relation to blood. It too was being used as a symbol as it would also be common and easy to obtain.


The most we can say about the testimony of the early church writers is that it's not conclusive. No doubt some did believe it was the actual body and blood of Christ. Others clearly did not. They were fallible men and their writings not Scripture. We don't have near enough writings that have survived for us to gauge what was the consensus and even still it would be the consensus of fallible men.

Remember too, Jesus' sacrifice was "once and for all." It fully paid the price for our sins. There is no need to re-sacrifice Him over and over again. The life we have in Christ is a spiritual life. It is not based on the flesh. We will receive new bodies in heaven. Jesus told Satan that His bread was the Word of God. We don't receive spiritual blessings through the flesh. We receive them spiritually.

You were the one who provided examples and I showed you actual quotations about what they did believe. There were disciples of Jesus who did walk away and it was indeed a "hard saying" and I sympathize. Jesus is not "re-sacrificed," this is a huge misunderstanding of the Catholic faith. Jesus sacrificed once for our sins and we "enter in" to that sacrifice at the mass. God is above time. I agree with you that to receive the actual Body and Blood of Jesus is indeed to receive Jesus spiritually, it not just another meal, like the manna even though the manna came from Heaven. The Holy Eucharist is a spiritual meal, since as Jesus says, "he who eats this bread will live forever." Jesus is not contradicting Himself, He explains:

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” John 6:53-58 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Why do you think that Saint Paul (Heb 6:20) states that Jesus is a high priest forever of the order of Melchizedek?” Why would Paul even mention him? You see, the first high priest, Melchizedek, who offered mere bread and wine, was a forerunner of what was to come, what was to be fulfilled by Jesus:

18 And Melchiz′edek[a] king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

 

[JoeT]

Also in John 6, Jesus says:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (emphasis added).

The Jews present were looking for another miracle from Jesus after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. They were thinking of their temporal needs (i.e. thinking with their stomachs). Jesus goes on to contrast the literal food (manna) they received in their wilderness journey, with the spiritual food He will supply them with through His death and resurrection. This is still long before the Last Supper. Since they were thinking in a literal sense he chose words that corresponded to their thinking. He makes a point that He who eats his "food" will never hunger again as He told the woman at the well that He who drinks the water he gives, shall never thirst again.

If you want to take that literally, then one participation in the Eucharist should suffice. You would not need to keep going back Sunday after Sunday. You would "never hunger again" or "never thirst again." Yet, you do keep going back. If the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ, then as a human being His body had finite dimensions. We would have consumed all his body and all his blood thousands of years ago. In the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, God created new loaves and new fish so they could continue to eat. It was not the same loaf or the same few fish eaten over and over again.

As Jesus states in verse 63, it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh is of no help at all. He is pointing out to them that while full bellies are satisfying, they do nothing for you spiritually. Jesus instructed the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of me" at the Last Supper. He instituted it as a memorial. We receive spiritual blessings from God through non-material means. If the Eucharist became Jesus' literal body and blood, then it would be through material means. The Bible tells us that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was "once and for all." Yet the RCC re-sacrifices Him over and over again during the Mass. Once was not enough. The sacrifice was not "once and for all."

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . 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," show 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” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

As you can see, not all the early church fathers held the view of transubstantiation. They saw Christ's body and blood as figures and symbols to be spiritually understood. It is curious to me that the RCC quit serving wine at communion centuries ago suddenly insisting the priest was taking the wine for everyone and it was represented in the bread. Why withhold the wine if it is indeed the very blood of Christ? The RCC goes so far as to teach that the Lord is obligated to appear at Mass commanded to do so by the priest.

So far as I know, there are only two views of communion among Protestants. Consubstantiation and the Spiritual Presence view. Neither believes in the Catholic view of transubstantiation.

Pneuma is a Greek word most always translated spirit, it’s meaning however is more an inner force that reaches and unites us to God, that which “quickens”. Catholics are one pneuma with the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:17). And, as in John 6:64(63) and in Paul’s Galatians 3 we receive this power from God, you might say as a quickening (which is more often thought of as grace today). Sarx refers to the flesh or the physical body of a person. Thus, in john 6:64 we see it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh (sarx) profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. If we take this verse to metaphoric then every time “flesh” was used previously in John 6 it is undone if we are to be raised like Christ body, and soul, i.e. Person of Christ. And conversely, what profits the soul will indeed prophet the flesh (or the body).

Pneuma, ‘spirit’, is the inner force moving toward God when quickened. Continuing Christ said it does nothing for the sarx, i.e., the physical body; and how can it? The words He speaks, say Christ are pneuma (about the inner force), the inner force that binds us to life, i.e. God.

Let’s be even clearer still, soma is a Greek word for body as well, however it refers to the whole person, more literally, ‘the thing that is self’, i.e. person. In Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 we hear Christ say this is my Body; soma, “the thing that is His Person”, i.e. the real deal, His essence. To be a person requires body, soul, intellect in which resides the will. Actually, he is saying “toútó estin tó sómá mou”, (this is my Person) which means His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, the whole or the essence of what Jesus Christ is. And you are told, eat and drink the very essence of Christ; not His symbol, not His metaphor, not a empty cross, one without the Corpus Christi. Likewise the wine, not grape juice which gives us an emotional fuzzy feeling inside, but the very substance that is Christ. It’s called the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

My person is not a symbol, pinch me and I protest so when Christ says to eat Him its the real presence consumed. One commandment is given by Christ, either partake of the Real Presence in Christ (His Person) else you do not have life in you [John 6:54]. Conversely, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." [John 6:55]. Whereas, eating symbols does nothing but gum up the works and put excess weight on the sarx.

Most people are different, but I can’t go more than a day, sometimes two, without sustenance. Likewise eating symbols, pictures on the food boxes, may hold me over but it doesn’t seem to help. Rather we need a real food that quickens us.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You were the one who provided examples and I showed you actual quotations about what they did believe. There were disciples of Jesus who did walk away and it was indeed a "hard saying" and I sympathize. Jesus is not "re-sacrificed," this is a huge misunderstanding of the Catholic faith. Jesus sacrificed once for our sins and we "enter in" to that sacrifice at the mass. God is above time. I agree with you that to receive the actual Body and Blood of Jesus is indeed to receive Jesus spiritually, it not just another meal, like the manna even though the manna came from Heaven. The Holy Eucharist is a spiritual meal, since as Jesus says, "he who eats this bread will live forever." Jesus is not contradicting Himself, He explains:

53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” John 6:53-58 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Why do you think that Saint Paul (Heb 6:20) states that Jesus is a high priest forever of the order of Melchizedek?” Why would Paul even mention him? You see, the first high priest, Melchizedek, who offered mere bread and wine, was a forerunner of what was to come, what was to be fulfilled by Jesus:

18 And Melchiz′edek[a] king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

They left because Jesus was making it clear he was not there to set up an earthly kingdom that would fill their bellies and deliver them from the Romans. He was telling them that to be a part of His kingdom, they had to share in His sufferings. By "eating" His flesh and "drinking" His blood it means we throw in our lot with Him. We share in His sufferings (take up our cross daily). That was the message that was too hard for some to hear.

Yes, Melchizedek was a forerunner but like most of the OT, what he offered was a symbol of what was to come. In the OT, these symbols had to be used/repeated over and over again. In Jesus, His death paid the price for our sins once and for all. No further offerings are needed. We abide in Him by obeying Him and following Him. Not be eating his flesh and drinking His blood. We cannot do that and you are missing the obvious symbology of Jesus' words. I won't try to convince you further since I can see you will never think otherwise.

We don't enter into His sacrifice. He sacrificed Himself for us. It is finished, as He said on the cross. We have no more need of daily bread like manna. We never hunger of thirst again (spiritually) because we are in Christ. That happens when we confess and believe and the Holy Spirit comes to reside in us. It is not through communion/Eucharist.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Pneuma is a Greek word most always translated spirit, it’s meaning however is more an inner force that reaches and unites us to God, that which “quickens”. Catholics are one pneuma with the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:17). And, as in John 6:64(63) and in Paul’s Galatians 3 we receive this power from God, you might say as a quickening (which is more often thought of as grace today). Sarx refers to the flesh or the physical body of a person. Thus, in john 6:64 we see it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh (sarx) profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. If we take this verse to metaphoric then every time “flesh” was used previously in John 6 it is undone if we are to be raised like Christ body, and soul, i.e. Person of Christ. And conversely, what profits the soul will indeed prophet the flesh (or the body).

Pneuma, ‘spirit’, is the inner force moving toward God when quickened. Continuing Christ said it does nothing for the sarx, i.e., the physical body; and how can it? The words He speaks, say Christ are pneuma (about the inner force), the inner force that binds us to life, i.e. God.

Let’s be even clearer still, soma is a Greek word for body as well, however it refers to the whole person, more literally, ‘the thing that is self’, i.e. person. In Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 we hear Christ say this is my Body; soma, “the thing that is His Person”, i.e. the real deal, His essence. To be a person requires body, soul, intellect in which resides the will. Actually, he is saying “toútó estin tó sómá mou”, (this is my Person) which means His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, the whole or the essence of what Jesus Christ is. And you are told, eat and drink the very essence of Christ; not His symbol, not His metaphor, not a empty cross, one without the Corpus Christi. Likewise the wine, not grape juice which gives us an emotional fuzzy feeling inside, but the very substance that is Christ. It’s called the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

My person is not a symbol, pinch me and I protest so when Christ says to eat Him its the real presence consumed. One commandment is given by Christ, either partake of the Real Presence in Christ (His Person) else you do not have life in you [John 6:54]. Conversely, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." [John 6:55]. Whereas, eating symbols does nothing but gum up the works and put excess weight on the sarx.

Most people are different, but I can’t go more than a day, sometimes two, without sustenance. Likewise eating symbols, pictures on the food boxes, may hold me over but it doesn’t seem to help. Rather we need a real food that quickens us.

JoeT

Yet salvation is by faith alone. Paul and others put no requirement on eating Christ's body and drinking His blood to be saved. Drinking His blood and eating His flesh are symbols of a spiritual change that is already taken place and which we now walk in. Our sustenance is walking in the Spirit in communion with God, not eating or drinking something.

 

[Valletta]

They left because Jesus was making it clear he was not there to set up an earthly kingdom that would fill their bellies and deliver them from the Romans. He was telling them that to be a part of His kingdom, they had to share in His sufferings. By "eating" His flesh and "drinking" His blood it means we throw in our lot with Him

That's quite an interpretation. So why did they say "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Why not say, "Why did this man want us to throw in our lot with him?" Why would Jesus say "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you?"

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

That's quite an interpretation. So why did they say "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Why not say, "Why did this man want us to throw in our lot with him?" Why would Jesus say "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you?"

As usual, Jesus spoke in parables or figurative language to the masses but when His disciples questioned him privately, He used plain language. In verses 41 and 52, we find the "Jews" disputing or grumbling among themselves. These are the masses gathered to hear Him. The masses did not understand. They wanted another miracle of loaves and fishes. They were thinking with their stomachs. Jesus countered with hard words. He foreshadowed His death and the cost of following Him. His kingdom would begin with His death and first be a spiritual kingdom. The common Jew wanted a physical kingdom providing temporal reward. When Jesus switched the metaphor to His body and blood, they did not understand. Bread they could relate to eating. They took His words literally and did not understand how they could eat His flesh.

Starting in verse 60, His disciples were also confused and asked Him what He meant. He explains that the flesh profits nothing. It is the spirit that gives life. He could have offered this explanation to the masses but did not. This is not the only time we see Jesus speaking in metaphor or parables to the common Jews but privately telling His disciples the plain truth.

When Jesus said He was the bread of life, that was a metaphor. Jesus was not made of bread. Bread gives sustenance. We need to eat to live physically. His flesh and blood were a metaphor for the spiritual food He would provide through His death and resurrection. Because of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the Jews could easily take the bread metaphor literally. When Jesus turned the metaphor into something bloody and harsh, it broke their spirits and confused them. They went from visions of full bellies to a confusing image of eating flesh and drinking blood not understanding that he was speaking in metaphors. He cleared that up for His disciples by saying the flesh profits nothing. If He had meant His literal flesh and blood, He would have made that clear but instead says He's not talking about literal flesh and blood. Those things profit not. Those among His disciples who were weak in faith, still could not stomach it. Like the wheat sown among the weeds that soon choke it of life, their faith failed them when they saw the cost of following the Lord and the kind of kingdom He was there to establish.

This is all in keeping with how Jesus spoke to the masses as opposed to His disciples. His words often confused the masses. He did not always speak plainly to them. One must keep this in mind when understanding the response of the masses.

 

[JoeT]

Yet salvation is by faith alone.

Not unless alone means with grace, hope and charity.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Not unless alone means with grace, hope and charity.

JoeT

Salvation is by faith alone, through God's grace, through His Son Jesus Christ. Obviously, we have hope when we make that decision. Our new life will lead to charity.

 

[DJWhalen]

Not unless alone means with grace, hope and charity.

JoeT

I am new to Catholicism and I am looking for answers. Can you give me some verse's that says Mary is the only Virgin that God chooses.
I am on my phone so I am slow.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I am new to Catholicism and I am looking for answers. Can you give me some verse's that says Mary is the only Virgin that God chooses.
I am on my phone so I am slow.

If you read Luke, chapter one, you will read of the angel Gabriel coming to Mary to inform her that God has chosen her to bear His son. Mary is the only virgin God chose. There is no mention of any other woman being considered. It was God's plan from eternity past to choose Mary. Gabriel came to announce God's choice. He wasn't polling women to see who might be interested. God had chosen Mary.

 

[DJWhalen]

If you read Luke, chapter one, you will read of the angel Gabriel coming to Mary to inform her that God has chosen her to bear His son. Mary is the only virgin God chose. There is no mention of any other woman being considered. It was God's plan from eternity past to choose Mary. Gabriel came to announce God's choice. He wasn't polling women to see who might be interested. God had chosen Mary.

Thank you., I will go read it.