The Real Presence Debate Thread

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

TWO OBSERVATIONS:

1) Well, in this we actually partecipate we can find a base difference between the catholic and the lutheran/anglican view of the Eucharist.
I'm not refering here to the Real Presence: let's say for this post that we have the same understanding of the Real Presence using different languages.

The core problem is the sacrifical meaning of the Eucharist.
For us it is the very same single sacrifice of the Cross, and so we dont simply partecipate to the Last Supper but we actually partecipate to the sacrifice of the Cross.
How it is possibile? only in the liturgical time, that is an eschatological time, not an ordinary time. (the orthodox call the altar the burial of Christ!!)
The protestants differently say that the Mass is not a sacrifice, the altar simple a table, and the the Eucharist can simply give us the benefits of the Cross previously produced (a very mechanical view). On the other hands at Mass we offer to the Father the Body and the Blood of the Son because the Eucharist is the very one single sacrifice of the Cross: only through the sacrifice of the Cross made new for us on the altar we can hope mercy and live from the Father

2) please remember that there were different kinds of sacrifices at the Temple: mainly two: sacrifices of communion (improperly said sametime 'of thanksgiving') and sacrifices of espiation.

The lamb of Passoover (as the two daily olocausts) were sacrifices of Communion, not of Espiation.

Christ sacrifice is unique: it superseaded both the ones of communion and the one of espiation. (there is not a Chiristian equivalent to Kippur: Easter is both Passover and Kippur)
Perhaps (but it is a my idea) we can see that Jesus used for the Bread words more in line with a sacrifice of Communion, and for the Blood words more in line for the sacrifice of Espiation

Actually I, and many Lutherans, would agree with all that. In communion, we absolutely participate with the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

It was the popular medieval perception in Germany of the mass-as-repeated-sacrifice to which we objected (and the appropriation of this language in the Council of Trent). But it is absolutely, necessarily so that the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, and that it is eschatological in nature.

 

[a_ntv]

Actually I, and many Lutherans, would agree with all that. In communion, we absolutely participate with the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

It was the popular medieval perception in Germany of the mass-as-repeated-sacrifice to which we objected (and the appropriation of this language in the Council of Trent). But it is absolutely, necessarily so that the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, and that it is eschatological in nature.

No, the Council of Trent never said that the Eucharist was a re-peation, but it said that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice: the one single true sacrifice of the cross.

Lutherenas and Anglicns rejeceted this doctrine, an in fact Mr Luther deleted all the reference to the sacrifice in the Eucharistic Prayer and use to call their altar simply table.

Also the Jews, when celebrated Passover, did not made simply an historical commemoration, but they actually lived the power of God that saved its people. In the same way the catholics and the orthodox when celebrate the Eucharist live the sacrifrice of the Cross that happen on the altar. That differently from the protestants that when celebrate the Eucharist, in the best case, simply sit at table with Jesus and simply thinking to the sacrifice of the cross.

A little test. I've already done it to an Anglican to check if we have the same understanding of this mandatory aspect of the Eucharist (the resul was that we have a different mind - see all this thread)

Do you think that the following Eucharistic prayer is acceptable for you (=you could use it without saying mistakes)

(dialogue)...
(Preface)...
(Sanctus)...
(Te igitur) Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of You and entreat You through Jesus Christ Your Son, Our Lord. Hold acceptable and bless + these gifts, these + offerings, these + holy and unspotted oblations which, in the first place, we offer You for your Holy Catholic Church. Grant her peace and protection, unity and guidance throughout the worlds, together with Your servant (name), our Pope, and (name), our Bishop; and all Orthodox believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
(Memento Domine) Remember, O Lord, Your servants and handmaids, (name) and (name), and all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to You. On whose behalf we offer to You, or who themselves offer to You this sacrifice of praise for themselves, families and friends, for the good of their souls, for their hope of salvation and deliverance from all harm, and who offer their homage to You, eternal, living and true God
(Comunicantes) In the unity of holy fellowship we observe the memory, first of all, of the glorious and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Next we observe the memory of Blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin, and of Your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and all Your Saints. By their merits and prayers grant that we may be always fortified by the help of Your protection. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(Hanc igitur) Graciously accept, then, we beseech You, O Lord, this service of our worship and that of all Your household. Provide that our days be spent in Your peace, save us from everlasting damnation, and cause us to be numbered in the flock you have chosen. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(Quam oblationem) O God, deign to bless + what we offer, and make it approved, + effective, + right, + and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood + of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Qui pridie) Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having raised His eyes to heaven to you, God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to You, He blessed, "it broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: "Take and eat of this, all of you, +FOR THIS IS MY BODY." Similarly, when the supper was ended, taking also this goodly chalice into His holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks to You, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: "Take and drink of this, all of you, THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH IS BEING SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS As often as you shall do these actions, do this in memory of Me."
(Unde et memores) Mindful, therefore, Lord, we, Your ministers, as also Your holy people, of the same Christ, Your Son, our Lord, remember His blessed passion, and also of His Resurrection from the dead, and finally of His glorious Ascension into heaven, offer to Your supreme Majesty, of the gifts bestowed upon us, the pure + Victim: the holy +Victim, the all-perfect+Victim, the holy Bread +of life eternal and the Chalice + of perpetual salvation.
Deign to regard with gracious and kindly attention and hold acceptable, as You deigned to accept the offerings of Abel, Your just servant, and the sacrifice of Abraham our Patriarch, and that which Your chief priest Melchisedech offered to You, a holy Sacrifice and a spotless victim.
(Supplices te rogamus) Most humbly we implore You, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Your Holy Angel to Your altar above, before the face of Your Divine Majesty. And may those of us who by sharing in the Sacrifice of this altar shall receive the Most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Your Son, be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing, Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(Memento etiam) Remember also, Lord, Your servants and handmaids (name) and (name) who have gone before us with the sign of faith and rest in the sleep of peace. To these, Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, we beg You to grant of Your goodness a place of comfort, light, and peace. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(Nobis quoque) To us sinners also, Your servants, trusting in the greatness of Your mercy deign to grant some part and fellowship with Your Holy Apostles and Martyrs with John Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all Your Saints. Into their company we implore You to admit us, not weighing our merits, but freely granting us pardon. Through Christ our Lord.
(doxology) Through Whom, Lord, You always create, sanctify, + fill with life, + bless +and bestow upon us all good things.
Through Him, + and with + Him, and in + Him, is to You, God the Father + Almighty, in the unity of the + Holy Spirit, all honor and glory, forever and ever. AMEN

I've highlighted for you the references to the sacrifice.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Lutherenas and Anglicns rejeceted this doctrine, an in fact Mr Luther

Why must you consistently disparage Doctor Luther? He was a professor of theology at a pretigeous university. Not 'mister.'

Lutherenas and Anglicns rejeceted this doctrine, an in fact Mr Luther deleted all the reference to the sacrifice in the Eucharistic Prayer and use to call their altar simply table.

This is just plain untrue. I don't know where you're getting you're information, but the Lutheran confessions and catechisms consistently refer to the Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Altar. The Eucharistic table has historically and always been called an altar within Lutheran churches.

You're just biased against Lutheranism and think of it as just another Protestant group. But of course, you refuse to read Dr. Luther's works, so I guess it's unfair to expect a close knowledge of Lutheranism.

 

[CathNancy]

I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?

If what Jesus was saying in John 6 was that he was symbolically the bread of life and we were only to consume the bread and wine as a symbol of him, then why would he ask if this shocked them? It is only if he meant the Eucharist to be taken literally does it make any sense that the disciples could be shocked by what he said.

God bless,
Nancy

 

[a_ntv]

This is just plain untrue. I don't know where you're getting you're information, but the Lutheran confessions and catechisms consistently refer to the Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Altar. The Eucharistic table has historically and always been called an altar within Lutheran churches.

You're just biased against Lutheranism and think of it as just another Protestant group. But of course, you refuse to read Dr. Luther's works, so I guess it's unfair to expect a close knowledge of Lutheranism.

I've read his 1523 and 1526 Masses (I'm interested in the liturgy) and a biography of him by a lutheran (I dont plan to read other texts from him).

And it is clear from the 1523 Mass that all the terms 'sacrifice' were deleted form his new text of the eucharistic Prayer: ad instance he deleted everthing form the preface to the 'qui pridie' (institution narrative). If you dont know it, you can find here: link (see points I ij- iiJ)

Anyway I think that the present lutherns are better that Luther himself ( they are not excomunicated).

So I repeat to you the same question I made before: do you consider acceptable (=doctrinally correct) the canon of the Mass in my previous post?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No. Largely, yes, but the Scriptures clearly refer to the Eucharist, when consumed, as bread and wine- and therefore I am compelled not to believe in transubstantiation, as implied in "that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood +."

Some other parts make me uncomfortable, especially refering to Christ as Victim and the general emphasis on what we are offering instead of what God offering, but I wouldn't refer to them expressly as unorthodox.

 

[a_ntv]

Some other parts make me uncomfortable, especially refering to Christ as Victim and the general emphasis on what we are offering instead of what God offering, but I wouldn't refer to them expressly as unorthodox.

You are great

You are great because Luther considered the part I bolded (the ones about the sacrifical meaning of the Mass) as completly un-acceptable and to be deleted from the eucharistic prayer (as he did)

If you consider them non unorthodox you are better than Luther himself.
I think that if you actually consider such parts as acceptable you could partake the catholic cummunion.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You are great

You are great because Luther considered the part I bolded (the ones about the sacrifical meaning of the Mass) as completly un-acceptable and to be deleted from the eucharistic prayer (as he did)

If you consider them non unorthodox you are better than Luther himself.
I think that if you actually consider such parts as acceptable you could partake the catholic cummunion.

That's probably the best news I've heard this month (no sacarsm).

 

[LibraryOwl]

Did anyone notice that peacelover started this conversation as a conservative protestant, then converted to catholocism in the middle of it, and now displays a wiccan faith icon?

<scratchead>

 

[a_ntv]

That's probably the best news I've heard this month (no sacarsm).

on the other side, it is clear you are not a so good lutheran, if you disagree with luther in such a base point

Did anyone notice that peacelover started this conversation as a conservative protestant, then converted to catholocism in the middle of it, and now displays a wiccan faith icon?

Honestly I or I'm catholic or I'm atheist.
Jesus was clear: or a 100% commitment, or nothing. Not a "take what you like more in the faith" typical of many denominations
So I think that her attititude to seek is seriuos, and we shall respect for that.

 

[LibraryOwl]

No, seriously, i did a google search. Apparently she was also once a baptist and a mormon. One poster says "she changes her faith icon almost every week, should she even be allowed to vote in this poll?"

PL, whats up? I almost feel like i've been fooled around with. I was a bit worried that what I had quoted from Justin had converted you to Catholicism, but now im not even sure if you're for real.

 

[sunlover1]

Not sure.
But don't think so.

I think it's safe to just go with what Jesus said to
do and to do this (receive communion)
in remembrance of Him.

I don't see where that breaks any Scripture.

Hope you figure things out PL.

I have a friend who's Catholic and yet
disagrees with most of their doctrine.
I am confused about this desire to be
labeled I guess. I've seen you go from Catholic
to non, to catholic to non, and now again to Catholic.
Just pray your hearing God and not listening to men.

God bless you in your journey to truth.
sunlover

Did anyone notice that peacelover started this conversation as a conservative protestant, then converted to catholocism in the middle of it, and now displays a wiccan faith icon?

<scratchead>

No, seriously, i did a google search. Apparently she was also once a baptist. One poster says "she changes her faith icon almost every week, should she even be allowed to vote in this poll?"

PL, whats up? I almost feel like i've been fooled around with. I was a bit worried that what I had quoted from Justin had converted you to Catholicism, but now im not even sure if you're for real.

YEs, Hey PL, I didnt mean to be rude, and now
you're wiccan?

I too ask, what's up?
We'd love to discuss with ya.

I know for sure it can be so confusing.
But there's simplicity in Christ alone.

sunlover

 

[Fireinfolding]

If I may add something to Library Owl's Justin Martyr quote: many of the ECFs were well educated in philosophy. It is hard to imagine the depth of humility required to turn from the "wisdom of the world" and believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

Thelka, didnt Paul include the scribes in the wisdom of the world? Reason I ask is that manna, bread, or showbread was highly thought of and the eating of bread something they could relate to I would think. Jesus mentions David and his men being hungry and eating the shewbread that was lawful only for the preists (sounds familiar lol)sorta... and not to mention the big deal they made of Jesus disciples transgressing the tradtions of the elders themselves not washing before they actually ate bread and such like things.

Why didnt Jesus say, "keep eating the bread your already eating"?

I have more but my phone line is down and I'm on my hubbys puter right now and cant get to my "stuff"

I was curious, especially given that the wisdom of the world is very scribey (which would include those who were somewhat familiar with he scriptures) right?

 

[Thekla]

Thelka, didnt Paul include the scribes in the wisdom of the world? Reason I ask is that manna, bread, or showbread was highly thought of and the eating of bread something they could relate to I would think. Jesus mentions David and his men being hungry and eating the shewbread that was lawful only for the preists (sounds familiar lol)sorta... and not to mention the big deal they made of Jesus disciples transgressing the tradtions of the elders themselves not washing before they actually ate bread and such like things.

Why didnt Jesus say, "keep eating the bread your already eating"?

I have more but my phone line is down and I'm on my hubbys puter right now and cant get to my "stuff"

I was curious, especially given that the wisdom of the world is very scribey (which would include those who were somewhat familiar with he scriptures) right?

Yeah, the "wisdom of the world" infects a lot (including the heart to this day )

even Paul had much "wisdom" (intellect/learning) that had to be left when Christ called him (I wonder if expelling it was part of the struggle during his "absence", in Acts ...)

I'm not sure about Jewish scribes, but scribes are copyists -- that sort of work would likely drive me buggy !

I have the sense that the Pharisees were washing out of self-aggrandizing. Like much else they did, it was "showing off", which showed their heart to be more interested in the world than God.

David, in doing the will of God, knew that God's directions were above the rules given to help "get one to God". Paul teaches this (in Corinthians ?). In the EO, we see this happening after the state of theosis -- union (full) with God.
The holy fools are an example - they "bust" through to show the heart. All who are "holy" are a gift from God to the "community of believers" and the world -- if we will "see them".

Many of the ECFs that wrote were well educated. (Some of them left accounts of Saints who were not educated; these are also our examples of what union with Christ, filled, can look like). The "real presence" was a scandal, just as the cross and the humility of Christ were a "scandal" to the world. What kind of God would become a helpless infant ?

So, though well educated in pagan philosophy, which could have earned them respect and position in the world, these educated ECFs embraced Christ, and the "scandal" of His example and teachings. How much easier it would be to "water down" the teachings, like the real presence - make Christianity into another "philosophy" - and be rid of the scandal.

They instead, in embracing Christ, embraced the scandal that the world hated. Some of them were blessed to share the "scandal" of execution for their love of Christ.

Hope you phone line comes back on -- aaaaaahhhhhhh, memories of Bellsouth and Duke Power

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yeah, the "wisdom of the world" infects a lot (including the heart to this day )

even Paul had much "wisdom" (intellect/learning) that had to be left when Christ called him (I wonder if expelling it was part of the struggle during his "absence", in Acts ...)

I'm not sure about Jewish scribes, but scribes are copyists -- that sort of work would likely drive me buggy !

I have the sense that the Pharisees were washing out of self-aggrandizing. Like much else they did, it was "showing off", which showed their heart to be more interested in the world than God.

David, in doing the will of God, knew that God's directions were above the rules given to help "get one to God". Paul teaches this (in Corinthians ?). In the EO, we see this happening after the state of theosis -- union (full) with God.
The holy fools are an example - they "bust" through to show the heart. All who are "holy" are a gift from God to the "community of believers" and the world -- if we will "see them".

Many of the ECFs that wrote were well educated. (Some of them left accounts of Saints who were not educated; these are also our examples of what union with Christ, filled, can look like). The "real presence" was a scandal, just as the cross and the humility of Christ were a "scandal" to the world. What kind of God would become a helpless infant ?

So, though well educated in pagan philosophy, which could have earned them respect and position in the world, these educated ECFs embraced Christ, and the "scandal" of His example and teachings. How much easier it would be to "water down" the teachings, like the real presence - make Christianity into another "philosophy" - and be rid of the scandal.

They instead, in embracing Christ, embraced the scandal that the world hated. Some of them were blessed to share the "scandal" of execution for their love of Christ.

Hope you phone line comes back on -- aaaaaahhhhhhh, memories of Bellsouth and Duke Power

Hi Thelka, I dont know who the EFC is... that shouldnt surprise you by now, theres not too much I do know lol

I just noticed many times it speaks of wisdom of the world that theres an assumption that its outside the realm of scripture. Paul includes the scribes (who were more then familiar with the scriptures). The disciples would ask Jesus, "why do the scribes say this" or that"? God making foolish the wisdom of this world for the world in its wisdom knew not God. It included them. Ironically to those who quoted principles from the scriptures to Jesus (in asking Him questions) it was to them (who were most familiar with them) he made fools of. On one occasion sayng, "ye know not the scriptures or the power of God" and the like.

The tradition of the very elders (themselves) includng washing before the eating "bread". There was shewbread and manna, which shewbread was part of the tradition already. Why didnt Jesus say I am "that" bread you serve already? There was what was lawful and what was unlawful in relation to this bread already.

The physical bread (in their tradition) that they ate was in their eyes sacred having what is lawful in accord with it. What I have hard time understanding is, why would that (then) be extremely difficult for any one of disciples to believe (if that were the case) in its sacredness (as so treated) to doubt Jesus will make himself that very physical bread?

How is it that "food and drink" commendeth us not unto God yet at the same time it appears that it does?

Now I (personally) believe in His REAL presence because He IS and He certainly has the power to make His presence known. I do not question this reality. Though when He reveals His presence (to me) I have had no physical bread before me or anything which enters my mouth. I also have no problem believing He could do the very same if there is physical bread before us as well. He could do both very easily.

They were taking and eating physical bread before after the tradition of he elders long before the Last supper, what changed between the breads?

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[simonthezealot]

If what Jesus was saying in John 6 was that he was symbolically the bread of life and we were only to consume the bread and wine as a symbol of him, then why would he ask if this shocked them? It is only if he meant the Eucharist to be taken literally does it make any sense that the disciples could be shocked by what he said.

If he meant it literally then why didn't those whom stayed and as you say understood him literally...WHY DIDN"T they bumrush him and take a bite of his arm skin? therefore guaranteeing at that point eternal life??? People have searched for eternal life both fleshly and spiritually since the begining of time, now this guy who speaks the truth and you understand Him literally says eat my flesh and NO ONE bumrushes Him...Yeah RIGHT!!!! No way is this literal, Peter in the end says "to whom shall we go YOU alone have the WORDS of eternal life...It's about faith!!!! All of John 6 is about faith unto salvation!

 

[simonthezealot]

Some other parts make me uncomfortable, especially refering to Christ as Victim and the general emphasis on what we are offering instead of what God offering, but I wouldn't refer to them expressly as unorthodox.

Not sure if I am understanding you correctly, are suggesting that the RCC does not consider Christ as victim, and it is only an unorthodox POV?
Just clarifying.

 

[Trento]

If he meant it literally then why didn't those whom stayed and as you say understood him literally...WHY DIDN"T they bumrush him and take a bite of his arm skin? therefore guaranteeing at that point eternal life??? People have searched for eternal life both fleshly and spiritually since the begining of time, now this guy who speaks the truth and you understand Him literally says eat my flesh and NO ONE bumrushes Him...Yeah RIGHT!!!! No way is this literal, Peter in the end says "to whom shall we go YOU alone have the WORDS of eternal life...It's about faith!!!! All of John 6 is about faith unto salvation!

St. Ignatius[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius is given the title of Apostolic Father of the Church since he was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajen (98-117),


Eucharistic Teachings of St. Ignatius of Antioch
[SIZE=+2]Letter to the Smyrnaeans [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Eucharist is the true participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Here he directly challenges the Docetists who found no reason to celebrate the Eucharist since they denied the humanity of Christ:[/FONT]

Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.[/FONT]
Let no one do
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/FONT]

[/FONT][/SIZE]The united Catholic and Orthodox witness to the Euchrist along with the unanimous testimony and constant teaching of all the Church Fathers including the very ones who were instructed by Apostles like the example above contradicts your ludicrous attempt to interpret Holy Scripture without the guidance of the Church that authored it.
I am guessing that only someone of your Faith would propose that God might have difficulty doing something. We Catholics believe that God CAN do anything.

 

[simonthezealot]

St. Ignatius[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] was the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius is given the title of Apostolic Father of the Church since he was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajen (98-117),


Eucharistic Teachings of St. Ignatius of Antioch
[SIZE=+2]Letter to the Smyrnaeans [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Eucharist is the true participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Here he directly challenges the Docetists who found no reason to celebrate the Eucharist since they denied the humanity of Christ:[/FONT]

Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness.[/FONT]
Let no one do
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[/FONT]

[/FONT][/SIZE]The united Catholic and Orthodox witness to the Euchrist along with the unanimous testimony and constant teaching of all the Church Fathers including the very ones who were instructed by Apostles like the example above contradicts your ludicrous attempt to interpret Holy Scripture without the guidance of the Church that authored it.
I am guessing that only someone of your Faith would propose that God might have difficulty doing something. We Catholics believe that God CAN do anything.

Try responding to my question!!!

AGAIN, a simple question. Those who stayed and understood Him to be literall, why no BITE of flesh?

 

[Hap]

If he meant it literally then why didn't those whom stayed and as you say understood him literally...WHY DIDN"T they bumrush him and take a bite of his arm skin? therefore guaranteeing at that point eternal life??? People have searched for eternal life both fleshly and spiritually since the begining of time, now this guy who speaks the truth and you understand Him literally says eat my flesh and NO ONE bumrushes Him...Yeah RIGHT!!!! No way is this literal, Peter in the end says "to whom shall we go YOU alone have the WORDS of eternal life...It's about faith!!!! All of John 6 is about faith unto salvation!

The attacking and eating Jesus argument always seems bizarre to me as does my belief about the real presence must seem to you. I did not always have the belief about the real presence and viewed scripture much in the same way as you on this topic. But after reading some early Church Fathers....I do not claim to be anywhere close to your knowledge of church history.....and watching a program on TBN about how the Romans accused the early Christian of eating there God started to change the way I looked at John 6 and what Christ meant when he said "This is my body."