Zone1 Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ

[ding]

The Church did make it into a ritual exercise to be done with reverence whether Transubstantiation (the elements become the physical body and blood of Christ), Consubstantiation (the essence of the Christ is present in the elements) or, as most Protestant Churches believe, it is a meaningful memorial service to the sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ, and the salvation that he offers us through that sacrifice.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was not officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church until I bleieve the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was clarified and strengthened at the council of Constance in 1415 and evenmoreso at the Council of Trent in 1551 The doctrine would be challenged by the 14th Century forerunners of the Reformation like John Wycliffe, however, and was rejected by most of the prominent leaders of the Reformation by the 15th and 16th Centuries.

Did you notice the dates in the OP?

Do you have any examples from antiquity in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries that were different?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ergo we look to the traditions of the early Christians who were closer to the event than we were.

From Acts 2: ". . .42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

 

[TNHarley]

Actually it was the second question; does saying the things you are saying make you feel superior? The first question was an important one too though. I figured you would say you would. You see yourself through rose colored glasses.

If it was me or my son, its gonna be me. Id like to think most people are like that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you notice the dates in the OP?

Do you have any examples from antiquity in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries that were different?

I know that it seems to be important to humankind to develop customs and rituals to live by. If we go by the examples of the very first Christians there were no such rituals mentioned in the Bible. See Post #22.

And if you study the Church leaders mentioned from the 2nd through 4th Centuries, it is unclear what their doctrine, if any, regarding the elements actually were. Did the Apostle Paul and those early Church fathers consider the Eucharist/communion ritual to be important and to be done with the utmost reverence? Yes they did. But any actual doctrine regarding the elements themselves just aren't there.

In truth I don't think God cares about our doctrines all that much and respects what ever honorable rituals or routines we use to honor Him. I believe how we seek to know and Honor Him and do His will, including how we love and treat each other, are what is important as Jesus is quoted as saying. On those two things hang all the Law and the prophets.

So for those who believe in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or the elements are nothing more than a means to help us focus and remember, I just don't think any will be faulted in the final analysis. I can't/won't say any are wrong in what they believe. But I do think we change more hearts and minds if we keep the history honest, acknowledge what we know and don't know and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in what is right and wrong.

 

[rampart]

It's true. Early Christians believed that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

The Real Presence is taught by St. Paul. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).

The Real Presence was taught by the twelve apostles. “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred” (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or Didache, 9:5).

The Real Presence was upheld by early Christians.

It was upheld by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the first century: “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 90 AD).

It was upheld by St. Justin Martyr in the second century: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, circa 150 AD).

It was upheld by St. Clement of Alexandria in the third century: “The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word” (St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of the Children, circa 202 AD).

It was upheld by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century: “Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, circa 350 AD).

Early Church Fathers Upholding Transubstantiation in Their Own Words

Transubstantiation, wherein bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharist has been part of Catholicism since the very beginning..

www.magiscenter.com

the baltimore catechism would surely confirm the miracle of transfiguration.

i had a little trouble with thus one.

observed from the proper perspective the substances are equal in size mass and form and substance.

 

[ding]

From Acts 2: ". . .42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

Not really seeing anything there that makes your point. This passage is way more specific.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).

How could one ever be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Christ if they are merely wine and wheat?

Not too mention over 300 years of documented early Christian tradition. You don't have one documented example.

 

[ding]

I know that it seems to be important to humankind to develop customs and rituals to live by. If we go by the examples of the very first Christians there were no such rituals mentioned in the Bible. See Post #22.

And if you study the Church leaders mentioned from the 2nd through 4th Centuries, it is unclear what their doctrine, if any, regarding the elements actually were. Did the Apostle Paul and those early Church fathers consider the Eucharist/communion ritual to be important and to be done with the utmost reverence? Yes they did. But any actual doctrine regarding the elements themselves just aren't there.

In truth I don't think God cares about our doctrines all that much and respects what ever honorable rituals or routines we use to honor Him. I believe how we seek to know and Honor Him and do His will, including how we love and treat each other, are what is important as Jesus is quoted as saying. On those two things hang all the Law and the prophets.

So for those who believe in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation or the elements are nothing more than a means to help us focus and remember, I just don't think any will be faulted in the final analysis. I can't/won't say any are wrong in what they believe. But I do think we change more hearts and minds if we keep the history honest, acknowledge what we know and don't know and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in what is right and wrong.

It's not about customs. It's about what they believed.

 

[ding]

If it was me or my son, its gonna be me. Id like to think most people are like that.

Hopefully you will never have to find out. I think most people think they are like that. No one really knows until they have to make that choice.

But back to you thinking you are superior to people of faith, why is that?

 

[TNHarley]

No one really knows until they have to make that choice.

I agree 100% with this. You can say how you will react in a life/death situation, but you dont know. Unless you have been there.

But back to you thinking you are superior to people of faith, why is that?

I dont. I just think yall believe in some silly shit.
Hell, I think the astronaut theory is plausible. And many people think thats silly.

 

[ding]

I dont. I just think yall believe in some silly shit.
Hell, I think the astronaut theory is plausible. And many people think thats silly.

I think this might be those rose colored glasses I was talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really seeing anything there that makes your point. This passage is way more specific.

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27).

How could one ever be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Christ if they are merely wine and wheat?

Not too mention over 300 years of documented early Christian tradition. You don't have one documented example.

Whether the elements are symbolic or transubstantiation or consubstantiation, they still can be taken in a worthy or unworthy manner and in all cases could be seen as 'profaning the body and blood of the Lord.'

I am not out to convince anyone or change anybody's mind. We all believe what we believe. I just want to reassure those who don't believe as you do but who love the Lord and seek to do His will are probably okay.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not about customs. It's about what they believed.

All I am saying, that with the Bible manuscripts we have, it is quite reasonable to see the belief of the first Christians re the elements of communion differently. They did not spell it out specifically that the wine becomes the literal blood of Jesus or the bread His literal flesh. I personally am comfortable that is not the case. And I fully respect those of you who believe that. I believe God respects purity of heart and mind and allows us our beliefs in our effort to love and obey Him.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I've had both and they don't taste like flesh and blood.

 

[Meriweather]

The Real Presence was upheld by early Christians.

Possibly...even earlier than that.

Yall believe in weird stuff. Make believe cannibalism

It is belief in the real presence of God within all which is noted several places in the Bible, the word of God.

Thats what it is. You are pretending to eat a 2k year old dead mans flesh and drink his blood.

Perhaps take a moment to reflect on history. Exodus tells of manna, bread that came down from heaven, that came from God. What comes from God retains God's presence as God is in all. Exodus continues with how God's presence was especially strong in the Tabernacle. Loaves of bread were placed there and were known as The Bread of the Presence. Weekly the Bread of the Presence, also showing the love God has for his people, was eaten only by priests--except for the time King David and his men were hungry and ate it. Jesus mentions this event.

Jesus, who identified himself as I AM, took bread, saying, "This is my body" and wine, "This is my blood."

You speak of cannibalism which is the eating of dead human flesh. God is living, and down through the ages he has offered, through bread, not just his life, but his glorified life--not for our bodies which will return to dust, but for the life our bodies hold within us.

It's natural for us to think of our earthly bodies and how it is constructed, without wondering about the construct of what the future holds in store...glorified bodies, a glorified presence, that has fed God's people down through the ages. There have been miracles regarding the Eucharist that has turned to the body and blood, some so easily dismiss. In these miracles, studied by modern science, the tissue is always a muscle located deep within the heart, and always the same type of blood.

Awe. God goes beyond feeding us the same food he eats, he feeds us through his own being. Glorified bodies...do they feed themselves...do they feed others... If, TNHarley, you cannot believe our reality, perhaps upgrade your imagination from "make believe cannibalism" to glorified heavenly bodies, able to provide their own nourishment, without the need to hunt and farm (work by the sweat of their brow). Think of the Supreme heavenly body who can nourish the lives within his creation through his own glorified, heavenly body.

 

[ding]

All I am saying, that with the Bible manuscripts we have, it is quite reasonable to see the belief of the first Christians re the elements of communion differently. They did not spell it out specifically that the wine becomes the literal blood of Jesus or the bread His literal flesh. I personally am comfortable that is not the case. And I fully respect those of you who believe that. I believe God respects purity of heart and mind and allows us our beliefs in our effort to love and obey Him.

I disagree. Here's why.

1. Jesus said he was the bread of life and whoever ate this bread would have eternal life. John 6:48-51
2. The Jews quarreled and said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. John 6:52
3. So rather than softening his stance he doubled down and said very clearly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. John 6:53
4. Afterwards his disciples said, this is hard to take. John 6:60
5. Jesus asked them, does this shock you. John 6:61
6. Then Jesus explained that it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. John 6:62-63
7. But they didn't believe in Jesus and they couldn't accept what he was saying because it shocked them like it is shocking you. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:64-65

He let disciples walk away rather than to soften his stance and make it symbolic. He was given an opportunity to soften it and instead he reinforced what he said by saying the flesh is of no avail.

Paul admonished early Christians that they were not eating just bread and drinking wine.
Paul said taking communion in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. How can eating bread and drinking wine symbolically profane the body and blood of Christ if it isn't the body and blood of Christ?

The only documented positions on the Eucharist in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries from the early Christians states that Christians believed it's not just bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. There's no evidence at all that early Christians saw it or practiced it any other way.

People reject it because it shocks them. That's it. There is no other reason. They don't and can't understand it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. Here's why.

1. Jesus said he was the bread of life and whoever ate this bread would have eternal life. John 6:48-51
2. The Jews quarreled and said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. John 6:52
3. So rather than softening his stance he doubled down and said very clearly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. John 6:53
4. Afterwards his disciples said, this is hard to take. John 6:60
5. Jesus asked them, does this shock you. John 6:61
6. Then Jesus explained that it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. John 6:62-63
7. But they didn't believe in Jesus and they couldn't accept what he was saying because it shocked them like it is shocking you. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:64-65

He let disciples walk away rather than to soften his stance and make it symbolic. He was given an opportunity to soften it and instead he reinforced what he said by saying the flesh is of no avail.

Paul admonished early Christians that they were not eating just bread and drinking wine.
Paul said taking communion in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. How can eating bread and drinking wine symbolically profane the body and blood of Christ if it isn't the body and blood of Christ?

The only documented positions on the Eucharist in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries from the early Christians states that Christians believed it's not just bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. There's no evidence at all that early Christians saw it or practiced it any other way.

People reject it because it shocks them. That's it. There is no other reason. They don't and can't understand it.

Again I respect your beliefs and would never try to change your mind. But Jesus taught via parables, symbolism, metaphor, imagery that people could relate to and understand and learn the lesson but were not to take literally, i.e. a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, etc. And I have studied the writings of the early Church fathers through the time of Constantine and beyond and just don't interpret them the same way.

I have never felt my interpretation was wrong and I'm sure you do not believe your interpretation is wrong. As long as the heart is pure, I think God is okay with either. If not my prayer is always that the Holy Spirit lead me into all truth and that I have the good sense to see it.

 

[ding]

Again I respect your beliefs and would never try to change your mind. But Jesus taught via parables, symbolism, metaphor, imagery that people could relate to and understand and learn the lesson but were not to take literally, i.e. a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, etc. And I have studied the writings of the early Church fathers through the time of Constantine and beyond and just don't interpret them the same way.

I have never felt my interpretation was wrong and I'm sure you do not believe your interpretation is wrong. As long as the heart is pure, I think God is okay with either. If not my prayer is always that the Holy Spirit lead me into all truth and that I have the good sense to see it.

I think what he said shocks a lot of people. That didn't seem to dissuade him.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think what he said shocks a lot of people. That didn't seem to dissuade him.

That's why He was crucified. But it doesn't change anything about His teaching style/methods.

 

[ding]

That's why He was crucified. But it doesn't change anything about His teaching style/methods.

He was crucified because he allowed disciples to walk away because they were shocked by his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood and wouldn't make that command a symbolic command? That makes no sense at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

He was crucified because he allowed disciples to walk away because they were shocked by his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood and wouldn't make that command a symbolic command? That makes no sense at all.

Again you believe what you believe. I don't believe that at all. Jesus was crucified because the Pharisees and Sadducees saw him as a threat to their (then) orthodox beliefs and authority.