The Last Supper – And The Two Types of Bread

Lastsupper2

The Last Supper

And The Two Types of Bread

Most Christians are familiar with the dispute over whether Jesus was talking metaphorically or literally during the Bread of Life Discourse.

If Jesus was talking metaphorically then the eucharist is just symbolic. If Jesus was talking literally, then the Holy Eucharist becomes, in some mysterious way, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

St. John gives us something that is often overlooked at the Last Supper by the other Gospel writers. He tells us that Judas received bread from the very hand of Jesus while in the Upper Room. This bread is not the Eucharistic bread that Jesus gives to the 11 other Apostles.

Throughout John’s Gospel, the Evangelist lays down markers pointing to something that will happen sometime in the future. Jesus speaks about future events to help his disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe” (John 14:29). We are to make several connections based on specific references St. John makes in his Gospel. An example of John laying down these crumbs or markers, is when the Virgin Mary approaches Jesus to tell him that the wedding feast has ran out of wine. Jesus responds, John 2:4, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” Several times in Johns Gospel references are made that “My hour has not yet come or My time has not yet come.” Besides John 2:4 other examples of “My time or My hour” include: John 7:6-8, 30, John 8:20. These markers point to John 12 and 13 where Jesus’ hour does come.

This is one of the ways St. John leads us into the revealed and Holy Spirit inspired Word of God. We should take note of these markers or pointers that John laid down for us. When we connect the dots, the Gospel opens up and we discover what the Holy Spirit inspired words of the Gospel writer wants us to see in the passages. Another veil is peeled away and our understanding of the Gospels grow.

A careful study of several scenes in Johns Gospel is significant to understanding the Bread of Life Discourse in its proper context. It’s always been believed by the Early Church Fathers that St. John writes his Gospel to supplement the synoptic gospels.

But before we look at Johns Gospel we need to look at several scenes from Matthew’s Gospel to supplement our understanding of what John reveals to us in his account of the Last Supper.

In St Matthew’s account of “The Temptation of Jesus,” after receiving the Baptism of John the Baptist, Jesus was led, by the Holy Spirit, into the wilderness to engage the devil.

Matthew 4:3-4

And the tempter came and said to Him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’”

The question begs to be asked, “Did satan not know that Jesus was the Son of God?” The devil is aware of the scriptures in the Book of Moses and the Prophets, that the Messiah has come into the world: The Incarnation of the Word (Logos) became Flesh, and the Baptism of Jesus.

What satan asks Jesus to do is change the lifeless stones into something substantial that would provide sustenance after His 40 days of fasting and praying in the desert. This is an allusion to the Exodus and the 40 years that the Jews wandered in the desert.

Jesus asks in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:9, “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?” Again, the mention of the stone and the bread. The tempter asks that stone be turned to bread and then the Father giving his son stone when he asks for bread. God the Father gives us the True Bread which is Christ. But that Bread must be Blessed and Consecrated to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus, in the divinely given Lords Prayer, has us pray to “Give us this day our daily bread.” The Greek word Epiousios which is translated “daily” can also be translated as “supersubstantial” and this is how St. Jerome translated this word in the Latin Vulgate.

With this in mind, we will now focus on what St. John is pointing us to. Without getting into the entire controversy of the Bread of Life Discourse, the focus will be on several verses that the Evangelist highlights and wants us to understand and see a connection.

The Bread of Life Discourse

In verse 6:45 Jesus says this: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.'(…..).” he is evoking both Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:33ff, where both prophets refer to the future Covenant which God will establish with his people when the Messiah comes, the Covenant which will be sealed forever with the blood of the Messiah and which God will write on their hearts. This is a clear link to the Discourse and the Last Supper where Jesus Institutes the Holy Eucharist and the New Covenant. Another dot.

In the Bread of Life Discourse, we know that the learned Jews are grumbling among themselves when Jesus says in verse 6:41 “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” Jesus also reveals that He is “The Bread of Life and that we must Eat His Body and Drink His Blood.”

Any Jew reading John 6 would be aware that the Jews in the desert were grumbling because they were hungry, as noted in Exodus 16 and 17. God of course provides. He provides Water, the Manna and Flesh (Quail) for the Jews to survive in the wilderness. St. John also tells us that the Bread of Life Discourse, as well as the feeding of the 5,000 and the Walking on Water is near the time of the Passover. He drops another dot for us to connect later on.

With this in mind we need to look at another significant verse:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

In verse 6:62, Jesus is referring to a future event by saying “What if…” We, the readers, of course know that Jesus will be Resurrected, but the Apostles and Disciples don’t yet know this. So, Jesus is asking them to put their faith in him, even if it is just based on seeing the signs and miracles he has displayed before them. Another dot to connect later on.

Because the Jews took Jesus literally, that he was asking them to do what the Torah explicitly condemns, they no longer walked with him, as revealed in John 6:66. Jesus lets them go, as if to say, “I shake off the dust from my feet” or “Let the dead bury the dead,” He lets them walk away. No explanation, no calling them back to explain that He was talking metaphorically, or symbolically or even sacramentally. He doesn’t stop them and explain to them that He is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity. He doesn’t call them back and say its all a misunderstanding and just hang with me a little longer. None of these things are said or done. Jesus, without any explaination given to them or to the Apostles, watch as they walk away from the Word made Flesh.

64. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Notice that Jesus himself links Judas to satan and St. John links Judas as the one who will betray him. Simon Peter asks the question that we all must ask: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Judas hears these words also. Judas stays and doesn’t leave with the other disciples for John 6:66. Here is another dot to connect later on.

St. Johns Account of The Last Supper

imagesCAF5GDC7John 13:21-30
21 After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.”
22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking.
23 One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was reclining next to him;
24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking.
25 So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”
26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” a So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. b
27 After he received the piece of bread, c Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.”
28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.
29 Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival”; or, that he should give something to the poor.
30 So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.

Now turning to the Last Supper in John Chapter 13, Jesus and the 12 Apostles are in the Upper Room for the celebration of the Passover Meal. The Passover Meal, in the time of Jesus, was an event that took hours to complete. In verse 13:2, during the long celebration of Passover, Jesus rises up and washes the disciples feet, and definitely washed the feet of Judas as well. Because the Passover Meal is hours long, containing many parts and many offerings of bread and wine, it may appear that Jesus could have already Instituted the Holy Eucharist while Judas is present. But it is very unlikely because why would Jesus speak the words of Institution, whether we are speaking of the Holy Eucharist as His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, or in a spiritual sense, as most Protestant denominations prefer to understand it while Judas is there. Would Jesus offer Satan His body and blood?

I propose that this is unlikely. Luke has Judas participating in the Last Supper during institution, but scholars have noted that Luke doesn’t put many events in time-order. A close examination of Lukes account of the Last Supper.

Luke 22:17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves;

This is not the Cup of Blessing which will Institute the New Covenant.

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
21 But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.
22 For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!”

Notice in verse Luke

22:19, that Judas is given the Holy Eucharist. Jesus does pick up the cup Instituting the New Covenant, but in the same breath, He states that Judas is the one who will betray Him. I propose that Judas leave here without accepting the cup of Salvation which inaugurates the New Covenant. Although it is not explicitly state if he did or did not drink of this cup, it can also be argued that he leaves because Satan has entered him to put the betrayal into action.

In verse 13:21, Jesus echo’s the same dire warning again, that one of them, the 12, will betray Him, see John 6:70-71. Jesus here is himself pointing us to the connection of the Discourse to St. Johns account of the Last Supper. Another dot.

The Apostles, of course don’t know which one of them will betray Jesus. John 13:24: So Simon Peter asks St. John, who has his head on the bosom of Christ, (where else should one ever place their head to rest), “Tell us to who He is speaking.” Jesus then says in 13:26, “it is the one to whom I give this piece of bread…..” He gave it to Judas. Note that again, only these two Apostles are mentioned by name. Another dot to connect later on.

St. John does not give us any other details of The Last Supper or The Institution of the Eucharist. That has been given by the other Gospel writers. We have John’s eyewitness account of Jesus giving ordinary, unblessed, unconsecrated bread to Judas. Jesus, according to the other Gospel writers takes Bread, Blesses it and says “This is My Body and This is My Blood.” This is the Institution of the Holy Eucharist and Jesus thus reveals the full meaning of the Bread of Life Discourse with the word: “This is My Body, This is My Blood.”

The Two Types of Bread at the Last Supper

The bread of denial

The Bread of Life

The first bread offered during the Last Supper is symbolic of nothing but the denial of Jesus as the Son of God. It was unsubstantial bread and it is, as Judas represents, the denial of the very words of Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Savior.

The second Bread is the Word that Becomes Flesh. His Flesh is True Food and His Blood is True Drink indeed. It is Supersubstantial Bread; greater than the Manna and the Flesh that the Jews ate in the wilderness and died. This Bread that He gives us is to Eternal Life.

The first bread was ordinary bread and is devoid of the eternal life that Jesus says we will receive when we Eat of His Body and Drink of His Blood, when it is blessed and consecrated by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Early Church, founded upon the faith of the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, has celebrated the Divine Liturgy from the very beginning of the Apostolic Churches, right up to this very day.

Of the four Gospels only St. John indicates there were two types of bread. Was St. John letting us know this? We know that St. John relates other scenes that the other writers didn’t mention. What is equally important to note is not just that Judas receives unblessed bread from the hand of Jesus, but that there is only 2 types of bread, not 3 or 4 types of bread. The first bread is ordinary bread, contrasted by his dipping it into sop; the second bread is held up and the words, This is My Body, et., etc., are invoked. Another dot.

St. John is an eyewitness during the scene in the Upper Room. He sees Jesus give Judas the unblessed bread. The disciples did not know why Judas leaves the Last Supper supposing him to be on an errand. They do not know the real reason of his leaving until a few days later. Judas was banished from the Institution of the Holy Eucharist. He was truly deaf, blind and fractured.

When Jesus hands Judas the unblessed bread, satan and Judas became one. Each abiding one in the other.

When Jesus blesses the First Eucharist, he institutes the New Covenant. Judas and therefore satan are not witnesses of this Holy Sacrament instituted by our new High Priest.

When Jesus gives the blessed bread to the disciples from the Road to Emmaus, they immediately recognize him and he disappears; not bound by space and time. Those who partake of a symbolic wafer or cracker, also do not recognize Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in this Holy Sacrament.

Let’s connect the dots:

  • During the Exodus, God provides Manna in the morning and Flesh in the evening. At the Last Supper, Jesus takes Bread and says “This is My Body.” His body is His Flesh as he also stated in the Bread of Life Discourse.
  • Jesus, in the Bread of Life Discourse evokes the prophets that God will establish a New Covenant with his people. This is the cup of the New Covenant. (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:25, 1 Cor 11:25)
  • Both the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper occur near or on the Passover.
  • Jesus connects the The Bread of Life Discourse to the Last Supper with the same dire warning of betrayal.
  • Two named Apostles at the Bread of Life Discourse are linked to the Last Supper: Simon Peter and Judas.
  • Two named Apostles at the Last Supper in the Upper Room: Simon Peter and Judas.
  • At the Bread of Life Discourse, The Bread of Life is denied thus denying the Divinity of Christ Jesus, and the disciples leave Jesus: John 6:66
  • Judas and Satan leave the Upper Room, and therefore are not witnesses to the Institution of the Eucharist: John 13:27 and John 13:30
  • At the Last Supper, two types of bread are given. The first bread given is the bread of denial given to Judas, who should have left Jesus in John 6:66.
  • The second Bread given to the other Apostles, although not mentioned by John, is the Institution of the Eucharist, by the Word made Flesh.

To fully undertand the Holy Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, it is paramount to look at the Liturgical Worship of the Early Apostolic Church. The Bread of Life Discourse is to be understood both Spiritually and Sacramentally, in tandum and fully revealed to the Apostles after the resurrection of our Lord and Savior; under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

R. Zell.

7/26/2015

Just as an aside: John 21:20, St. John is again pointing us to the Last Supper one more time to highlight it’s importance to us.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “The Last Supper – And The Two Types of Bread

  1. MJ: I have detected so many holes in this article, I was reminded of a slice of swiss cheese.

    RZ: St. John gives us something that is often overlooked at the Last Supper by the other Gospel writers. He tells us that Judas received bread from the very hand of Jesus while in the Upper Room.

    MJ: I believe “The Judas Factor” is an extremely weak apologetic whether one is arguing either for or against the RC Eucharist. In any case, you repeatedly mention the significance of John’s gospel, yet you know very well that this is the only gospel that does NOT contain the institution of the Eucharist.
    John’s gospel is significant, yes, but it militates against your position. By understanding Jesus metaphorically, it all makes sense. The Protestant view allows his audience in chapter 6 to obey Christ right there on the spot, while the Catholic scheme has Jesus commanding them to do the impossible; namely, to consume him in “sacramental form” which they could not possibly do right there on the spot. Even if Transubstantiation were true, it would not be taught until a year later at the Last Supper; and would not be “officially” defined until 1,500 years later at the Council of Trent. Therefore, our interpretation has the upper hand. Essentially, the Evangelical/Protestant position allows the Text to breathe on its own, giving the audience in chapter 6 the opportunity to do as Christ commanded; namely, to believe on him (aka, eating his flesh and drinking his blood). When the papal position is anachronistically read back into the Text, there are immediate problems. You admit:

    RZ: the Jews took Jesus literally, that he was asking them to do what the Torah explicitly condemns

    MJ: We agree that the Jews took Jesus literally. And where, may I ask, did THAT notion get them Mr. Zell? Nothing but a passport to hell. Which will be your fate also I’m afraid if you don’t wake up out of your spiritual coma.
    But O.K., let us suppose Jesus was commanding them to actually eat him. How, pray tell, would his audience comply with this command? Catholics can give us nothing but a blank stare.

    RZ: Jesus speaks about future events to help his disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe” (John 14:29).

    MJ: However, the Text clearly says he was speaking to unbelievers (6:36), so to equate these people with the disciples is out of order. We notice the catechism uses this same trick. They tell us that John 6 was a …”preparation”… for the institution of the Eucharist (1338), as well as an… “extended promise… of what would be instituted at the Last Supper” (Keating, “Catholicism & Fundamentalism”, p. 234). However, these assertions fall to pieces when one realizes that John’s gospel is the only book which claims to stand alone, in that the author thought the content by itself, ALONE, was sufficient to grasp the message of salvation. “These are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in his name” (20:31). The ability of John’s gospel to stand alone is detrimental to the Catholic position because Rome claims that the episode in John 6 was a promise for eternal life via the Eucharist which would later be instituted the following year at the Last Supper. But without the Last Supper account, the promise of eternal life via the Eucharist (which Rome claims is necessary for salvation) does not exist! Contextually, the discussion centers on salvation by believing in JESUS, not on the Lord’s Supper which was chronologically in the distant future. If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have accentuated the Last Supper account to ensure the promise was fulfilled and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established. Yet this did not happen. As a result, anyone reading John’s gospel by itself and WITHOUT the “words of institution” recited at the Last Supper included, could not possibly imagine the concept of Transubstantiation as the “extended promise” of chapter 6, let alone as a necessity for eternal life. For, “Only by aligning chapter 6 with their interpretation of the passages with the Last Supper, can the RCC arrive at its teaching on Transubstantiation” (“Salvation, the Bible & Roman Catholicism”, by Webster, p. 66).

    Remember, he was asking them to do something “NOW”, on the spot, without bread and wine, so how were they to comply if Transubstantiation were the point? Answer? They could not comply in any literal, “eucharistic sense” at all because “my flesh which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51) is future tense, referring to the giving of his flesh at Calvary, not that they should actually it. Thus, it is impossible to believe they should be expected to observe that ordinance ”NOW”, which would be reserved only for committed believers, in the future! We look yonder to chapter 7 so as to better understand chapter 6. The Last Supper was still yet to come when he said, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink”. How could anyone answer this call on the spot without bread and wine? The answer is given in the next sentence: “He that believeth on me, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive”.

    Therefore, because the Holy Spirit decided not to sprinkle the salt and pepper of the Last Supper account into the gospel of John, the doctrine of Transubstantiation simply cannot be true. We are told it is a book that is sufficient in and of itself when it comes to seeking salvation. But without the Last Supper account, the tie which Catholics think binds chapter 6 to the upper room event, is broken, and thus, finding salvation by means of the Eucharist by using this gospel alone, becomes impossible. That being so, the only way to understand the vivid imagery of Jesus in chapter 6 is metaphorically. From that point of view, salvation becomes instantly attainable when someone simply comes to believe in the Messiah, which just so happens to be the very essence of John’s gospel from beginning to end.

    RZ: But before we look at Johns Gospel we need to look at several scenes from Matthew’s Gospel to supplement our understanding of what John reveals to us in his account of the Last Supper. “And the tempter came and said to Him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” (Matt 4:3-4).

    MJ: This supposed “proof” is nullified by Matt 3:9, where God is also able to turn stones into HUMAN BEINGS should he so desire
    “I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham”.
    Since there is no “bread change” in M-3-9 which you would like to connect to the Last Supper, your apologetic for “bread-change” in M-4-3 is cancelled out by virtue of this second example of God’s ability to change things, but which has nothing to do with what you’re trying to prove! This is called, “comparing Scripture with Scripture” (1 Cor 2:13). Try it sometime.

    RZ: His Flesh is True Food and His Blood is True Drink indeed.

    MJ: Again, when we compare S with S, per 1 Cor 2:13, your supposition fails. You suppose that an emphasis on “true” qualifies for the flesh being literal. It does not. Recall however, that Jesus is also the “true light” (John 1:9), the “true vine” (15:1) and the “true bread” (6:32), all of which are “truly” emphasized, and all of which Catholicism admits are metaphorical. That said, “true food” and “true drink” are in harmonious, metaphorical unity with the others. Thus, when comparing S with S, the Catholic argument disappears into nothingness.

    RZ: He lets them walk away. No explanation, no calling them back to explain that He was talking metaphorically, or symbolically or even sacramentally. He doesn’t stop them and explain to them…

    MJ: This complaint ignores the biblical data which clearly shows that God is under no obligation to spell out everything to the satisfaction of all mankind! Any apologetic that supposes God could have, would have and SHOULD have done something to clarify the issue to the entire satisfaction of the world, ignores the right of Divine Providence to “take away the sight of those who claim they can see” (John 9:39-41). That he has intentionally ordained many to remain clueless is a premise that cannot be denied, and all for his own good reasons, “for even so Father, so it seemed right in thy sight” (Matt 11:25-6; cf. Isa 6:9-10; 13:35; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8).

    RZ: When Jesus gives the blessed bread to the disciples from the Road to Emmaus, they immediately recognize him and he disappears

    MJ: The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread (CCC 1329). They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well. But this is pure eisegesis!

    Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? If it wasn’t the nail scars in his hands, may we not suppose their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration? These two possibilities do away with them recognizing him as a result of Transubstantiation having occurred.
    At the table with these men on the road to Emmaus, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. During the miracle of the loaves, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply a common element of Hebrew hospitality; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is unwarranted to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus, or where we read of the same in Acts 2:46.

    We contend every singe Catholic doctrine, no matter WHAT it is, can be over-ruled with a more sober, reasonable and biblical explanation then what THEY would have us to believe.

    Like

  2. Mo: John’s gospel is significant, yes, but it militates against your position. By understanding Jesus metaphorically, it all makes sense.
    ME: The problem is that understanding the entire Bread of Life Discourse is not understanding the Bread of Life Discourse. The Catholic Church takes the entire Gospel. I show links from the Discourse leading straight to the Last Supper (and to the Ascension) and the revelation of everything Jesus speaks of at the Discourse.

    The Early Church understood Jesus was speaking literally and sacramentally at the Last Supper. You stand with the Gnostics on this one.

    As for John not having the Institution of the Eucharist also proves my point that Judas and therefore Satan are not witnesses to the Institution. And not being witnesses also points to Protestants not being witnesses to it as we see Protestants deny this by eating a symbolic piece of bread. Jesus blessed bread at the Last Supper. Judas received unblessed bread at the Last supper. So John not mentioning it, as he doesn’t mention other accounts which the synoptics do mention is meaningless to this argument.

    Mo: The Protestant view allows his audience in chapter 6 to obey Christ right there on the spot, while the Catholic scheme has Jesus commanding them to do the impossible; namely, to consume him in “sacramental form” which they could not possibly do right there on the spot.

    ME: The Protestant view denies the very words of Christ at the Last Supper. Jesus says: This is my Body. and protestants say “This is not his body.” The exact opposite. The Nicolaitans had a view, the Arians had a view, the Nestorian had a view and so has every heretical schismatic group that broke away from the One Church He did establish. Your’s is no different.

    MO JO: Even if Transubstantiation were true, it would not be taught until a year later at the Last Supper; and would not be “officially” defined until 1,500 years later at the Council of Trent.
    ME: The words of Christ: “This is my Body” were never denied after the Gnostics were confronted. Also you can’t deny that there is growth and development of doctrine can you? The Trinity isn’t defined until almost 300 years after Christ.

    Mo JO: Essentially, the Evangelical/Protestant position allows the Text to breathe on its own, giving the audience in chapter 6 the opportunity to do as Christ commanded; namely, to believe on him (aka, eating his flesh and drinking his blood).

    ME: You problem is that the Evangelical/Protestant position is in direct conflict with the Fathers of the Church who received from the Apostles what they learned from Christ Jesus Himself. The audience in Chapter 6 were the Protestors who denied Christ’s very words at the Discourse. You are standing with them.

    Mo JO: But O.K., let us suppose Jesus was commanding them to actually eat him. How, pray tell, would his audience comply with this command? Catholics can give us nothing but a blank stare.
    ME: What if you were to see Jesus Ascending to heaven? (John 6:62) Would you believe it? Mo Jo, I’m afraid you would have walked away for the Protestors of John 6:66.

    MoJO: You say: However, the Text clearly says he was speaking to unbelievers (6:36), so to equate these people with the disciples is out of order.

    ME: He was speaking to them after the multiplication of the Loaves. They were looking for a military messiah.

    MoJO: The ability of John’s gospel to stand alone is detrimental to the Catholic position because Rome claims that the episode in John 6 was a promise for eternal life via the Eucharist which would later be instituted the following year at the Last Supper.

    ME: Honestly, I see more proof-texting from Protestant on everything. Again, the Catholic Church takes the entire bible into consideration. They is why there are 4 Gospels. Why don’t the Apostles walk away? They waited a year? None of the 4 Gospels stands alone. Another one of your mistakes. If we had only 1 gospel, we would not have a complete picture or the complete deposit of faith. You fall here Mo Jo.

    MO JO: You say: Remember, he was asking them to do something “NOW”, on the spot, without bread and wine, so how were they to comply if Transubstantiation were the point? Answer?

    ME: They ask Jesus in 6:34 ~ “Lord, aways give us this bread.” Now the Discourse starts in verse 35. He is teaching them. Your NOW assertion is lacking. You are so off.

    MoJo: You say: If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have accentuated the Last Supper account to ensure the promise was fulfilled and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established. Yet this did not happen.

    ME: Actually it did happen and that is why the Church Fathers had a liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. And Paul 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 bare this out. Nobody gets sick and dies from eating a symbol. Except Judas who is given the symbolic bread of denial from the very hand of Christ Himself.

    MoJo: Therefore, because the Holy Spirit decided not to sprinkle the salt and pepper of the Last Supper account into the gospel of John, the doctrine of Transubstantiation simply cannot be true. We are told it is a book that is sufficient in and of itself when it comes to seeking salvation.

    ME: Except that the Apostles, the disciples, those that came after them and up to 1517, the Holy Spirit guided the Church and the Holy Eucharist is always believed to be the Flesh of Christ, just like he said. Only the Heretical Gnostics believed otherwise and then along comes the Reformation.

    MoJo: We look yonder to chapter 7 so as to better understand chapter 6. The Last Supper was still yet to come when he said, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink”. How could anyone answer this call on the spot without bread and wine? The answer is given in the next sentence: “He that believeth on me, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive”.

    ME: Fully compatible with what the Catholic Church believes. The problem is “This is my Body” is being denied by Judas and the Gnostics straight to the Reformation and those that come after them.

    MoJo: This supposed “proof” is nullified by Matt 3:9,…….
    ME: Sorry, but the context isn’t the same. Nice try though.

    MoJO; MJ: Again, when we compare S with S, per 1 Cor 2:13, your supposition fails. You suppose that an emphasis on “true” qualifies for the flesh being literal. It does not. Recall however, that Jesus is also the “true light” (John 1:9), the “true vine” (15:1) and the “true bread” (6:32), all of which are “truly” emphasized, and all of which Catholicism admits are metaphorical. That said, “true food” and “true drink” are in harmonious, metaphorical unity with the others. Thus, when comparing S with S, the Catholic argument disappears into nothingness.

    ME: Sorry MoJo, your problem here is that Jesus is actually holding up bread at the Last Supper. Jesus isn’t holding up a flashlight, a vine, but Bread. The discourse is linked to the Last Supper as I showed in John 6:4, 70 and 71.

    MoJo: MJ: This complaint ignores the biblical data which clearly shows that God is under no obligation to spell out everything to the satisfaction of all mankind!

    ME: Agreed. And this is why Jesus Christ left us a Church guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. This is why the Gnostics were defeated and we encounter them 1500 years later, again denying that the Holy Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ.

    MoJo: That he has intentionally ordained many to remain clueless is a premise that cannot be denied, and all for his own good reasons, “for even so Father, so it seemed right in thy sight” (Matt 11:25-6; cf. Isa 6:9-10; 13:35; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8).
    ME: You just described the CHAOS in Protestantism today. You are absolutely correct here. This is why I am Catholic and not Protestants.

    MoJo: MJ: The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread (CCC 1329). They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well. But this is pure eisegesis!

    ME: This is how this scene has been interpreted since antiquity. You must deny the Discourse linked to the Last Supper and linked to the Road to Emmaus. The same formula is used at the Last Supper as it is when they sat to eat. But Luke 24:35 confirms it and there are no accidents or coincidences in scripture.

    MoJo. Did you ever stop to consider that while Jesus was breaking bread, they could have noticed the nail prints in his hands and THAT’S how they knew him? If it wasn’t the nail scars in his hands, may we not suppose their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration? These two possibilities do away with them recognizing him as a result of Transubstantiation having occurred.

    ME: The disciples on the Road were prevented from recognizing Him. Just as you and Protestants are prevented from recognizing “This is my Body.” But what you are saying is just conjecture as well.

    MoJo: Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply a common element of Hebrew hospitality; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is unwarranted to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus, or where we read of the same in Acts 2:46.

    ME: It’s called Typology and the Loaves are a prefigurement of the Holy Eucharist. That is why it occurs along with the Bread of Life Discourse. Also, we don’t know if those disciples were even ai the Discourse for one this. You assume much here.

    Again: This is why the Zell Challenge is so significant. We have the earliest witnesses to Christianity defending the Holy Eucharist against the first heretics, the Gnostics, who hold a similar view that the Eucharist wasn’t His Body.

    I’ll go with Jesus on this one. You can go with the very first Protestants we meet at the Discourse and the protestants which come in the 16th century.

    Like

  3. There are zero holes in this article.

    You refuse to believe that Jesus Himself links the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper. Here is the passages that link them:

    John 6:64,70-71 RSV
    But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [70] Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” [71] He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

    John not mentioning the details of the Last Supper as the Synoptics do, is of no consequence.

    There is also a linking of the Road to Emmaus as well.

    In verse 16 it says they were prevented from recognizing Jesus.  Several things here.  Without true faith we will not recognize Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.   Those 2 disciples   were walking with Jesus in a state of ignorance about His whole ministry.  Look at verse:  Luke 24:19 NASB

    And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was *A PROPHET* mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,

    They did not recognize that Jesus was the Son of God, just like the disciples of John 6:66 didn’t  (they are the very first Protestants).   They said He was a “prophet, mighty in word and deed.” 

    Think about this: Jesus comes to them (this is Grace), they hear the Word of God (Liturgy of the Word), as they walk with Him (our personal journey), and then they receive the breaking of the Bread (the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist) where they recognize what those in John 6 :66 failed to recognize: They recognize Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.   See John 6:62-63 – John 6:62-63 NASB

    What then IF YOU SEE the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? [63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

    John 6:62 is talking about a future event where the Bread of Life Discourse will be revealed.  At the breaking of the Bread, Jesus is recognized.  Those disciples go to the Apostles, and the Apostles go and tell us thru their living witness, etc, etc,.

    On another level the Bread of Life Discourse is revealed at the Last Supper and confirmed on the Road to Emmaus.  Full circle. 

    Again, Mo Jo, you will find zero holes in this paper. What you should find is that a symbolic piece is the same bread Judas eat and Satan enters him. Eat the Holy Eucharist in an unworthy manner, which is not to discern the Body and Blood, brings with it spiritual sickness and even spiritual death. Only the Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic and Catholic Churches can bless and consecrated ordinary bread into: “Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY.”

    Like

  4. Again: “TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY metaphorical BODY.”

    No Mo Jo, the only metaphorical bread given at the Last Supper is given to Judas by the very hand of Christ Jesus Himself.

    Jesus is telling you there is 2 types of bread, not me. One bread is blessed and leads to eternal life. The other bread is unblessed and leads to a union with Satan.

    In the Middle East Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians, Coptics risk their lives to go to Church. They are martyred in the way to Church. They are martyred on the way home from Church. And they are even martyred while in Church. Protestants can stay home and watch a sermon on the TV. Yet, true Christians go to their Church to receive the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of their Savior, unto eternal life.

    Like

  5. RZ: Jesus is telling you there is 2 types of bread, not me.

    MJ: Oh really? And where do we read of the Catholic tradition which supports THAT double whammy?
    Answer?
    NOWHERE.
    Naturally you remind me of the Council of Trent when they put a word in Jesus’ mouth which not one Bible on Earth records. I told you of this elsewhere, to which you had no reply except that I did not deserve a cigar. On the contrary, I think I deserve a bouquet of roses if I do say so myself.
    Quoting Trent, the catechism states, “Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread” (#1376).

    The student of the Bible knows the above is pure nonsense, as Jesus did not say any such thing. Trent was on a mission to counter-atteack the Reformers, as are you, and in their pompous zeal, overstated their case, which proves instantly, they were not infallible, let alone being guided by the Spirit as they claimed TWICE in their decree on the Eucharist.
    Jesus did not “SAY” that he was “OFFERING” anything, let alone that the bread was “TRULY” his body.
    Trent tells us, like you, what they THINK he meant…. and then quote him as if he had said so! This is dishonest to say the least. Such behavior would not be tolerated in any school of journalism, let alone are we to tolerate it coming from a self-proclaimed “infallible” church council. Neither should we tolerate your ridiculous “two bread” fairy tale.

    RZ: One bread is blessed and leads to eternal life. The other bread is unblessed and leads to a union with Satan.

    MJ: Baloney. The reason Catholics have to come up with these dumb theories is because the Bible simply does not contain, nor does it explain, Eucharistic theology that coincides with papal protocol. It does, however, give abundant evidence that Protestants are correct in understaning the “cannibal” verses as metaphorical. With no place to go, Catholics are then forced to come up with grievous nonsense such as Jesus “offering” himself up in sacrifice at the Last Supper BEFORE he goes to the cross (so they can justify the L.S. being the “first mass”).
    So get a clue: Jesus did not break through the curtain of this world to play hide and seek in a piece of bread, so that we may swallow it for eternal life. THAT IS NOT THE GOSPEL. That is idolatry.
    Besides, since no one can really ever reconcile the supposed “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist with any sort of natural philosophy, why even try? –especially in light of the fact that God is thoroughly against doctrines which promote controversial speculation (1 Tim 3). And Transubstantiation is as controversial as it gets!

    Like

  6. RZ: John not mentioning the details of the Last Supper as the Synoptics do, is of no consequence.

    MJ: It is of GREAT consequence — and I believe I made my case VERY clear in my previous comments. You MUST have the Last Supper account in the gospel of John ***IF*** what Catholicism says is true about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation. John says that salvation may be found in his gospel alone, and so, since the RCC teaches that swallowing the wafer is mandatory for eternal life, the casual observer is left up a creek without a paddle. Without the “words of institution” made at the L.S. to tie in with Christ (allegedly) speaking literally in chapter 6, the reader is unable to find “the fullness of salvation” in John’s gospel alone! Non-catholics have no problem with the L.S. account being absent from John’s gospel.
    All you do is deny it and say it doesn’t matter. I’m afraid that is not good enough. Desperate for a way out, you try this trick:

    RZ: You refuse to believe that Jesus Himself links the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper. Here is the passages that link them:
    John 6:64,70-71 RSV
    “But there are some of you that do not believe. For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [70] Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” [71] He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

    MJ: Nice try, but you lose. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re trying to convince us that because Jesus made a reference to Judas’ betrayal at the Last Supper after the Bread of Life discourse, all problems are solved.
    Ummm…no they aren’t. Your entire “two bread” thesis fails because you assume that the words “was to betray him”…were to officially occur at the Last Supper. That way, Judas can serve as an example of a rat fink, like all Protestants, who dropped Jesus like a hot potato in the midst of where Transubstantiation had supposedly occurred.
    NO. That we’re told from the other gospels that Judas abandoned ship during the distribution of bread is certainly not the “9/11” event to make your case. You forget that Judas had already betrayed Jesus BEFORE the Last Supper (Matt 26:14-16), and that the L.S. merely gave him the opportunity… (not motive) he was looking for in order to officially betray his Master. Hence, your Bread of Life strategy which hopes to find a connection with Judas being served another type of bread at the Last Supper due to his betrayal ***AT*** the Last Supper, is a weak link because Judas was ALREADY in a state of denial which had nothing to do with any issue involving Eucharistic bread at all.

    RZ: There is also a linking of the Road to Emmaus as well. In verse 16 it says they were prevented from recognizing Jesus.

    MJ: I already made my case about the E-Road episode in the previous comments above and you just ignore it. Methinks my explanation is far more persuasive. Yourssimply reeks of desperation.

    RZ: Without true faith we will not recognize Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

    MJ: You are defining “true faith” as that which requires Transubstantiation occurs after a priest (an office unknown in the N.T.) says the magic words. We emphatically deny this. “True faith” is believing in the life and death merits of what Christ has done FOR us, period, end of story. The gospel does not have anything whatsoever to do with our carnal appetites. The E-Road episode is clear enough without importing foreign concepts into the mix, as is your habit.
    Going back to the L.S. for a moment, if Transubstantiation had occurred and “I will no longer drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God”, that leaves us with the horrific thought that he will drink his own blood throughout eternity! Since that can’t be true, neither is Transubstantiation true. That said, I repeat from before: The recognition of who Christ was after he vanished out of their sight does not necessarily mean the Tranz had occurred. They could have noticed the nail prints in his hands …OR…. their eyes were opened to a brief glimpse at his resurrected body, which was akin to his appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration. The fact is, the “tranz” is simply not needed to make sense out of the passages. You wish to foist a foreign meaning into the Text instead of letting the Holy Spirit breathe on his own. My explanation, coupled with the silence of the Text as to the EXACT reason for the “recognition”, makes much more sense than obeying the magisterium which has the pernicious habit of always reading things BACK INTO the Bible and frankly, we’re sick of it.

    RZ: Those 2 disciples were walking with Jesus in a state of ignorance about His whole ministry… they did not recognize that he was the Son of God…

    MJ: So what? ***I*** believe Jesus is the Son of God and I utterly reject the RC Eucharist for what it is. “Houston”, as they say, “I think we’ve got a problem with Zell’s theology”. The Text reads, , “Then opened he their eyes to understand the Scriptures”, and they began to understand bit by bit, just as when he healed the blind man bit by bit (to show we get spiritual light bit by bit as we progress towards maturity). Then as they progressed towards the dinner table, their heart burned within them as he spoke and at the end of the day, they recognized them.

    RZ: just like the disciples of John 6:66 didn’t [recognize him] (they are the very first Protestants).

    MJ: It is beyond ridiculous to compare the unbelievers in chapter 6 to BELIEVING non-Catholics world-wide. The analogy is instantly faulty because persons such as myself have done exactly what he commanded in response to their question: “This is the work of God: to believe on him whom he has sent”. The Eucharist has nothing whatsoever to do with our coming to that realization, since we know the Holy Spirit goes about like the wind, tapping on the shoulder those ordained for salvation (John 3:8), via the means of the “foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor 1:21) and consequently, “born again by the word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).

    RZ: John 6:62-63… What then IF YOU SEE the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? [He] is talking about a future event where the Bread of Life Discourse will be revealed.

    MJ: Technically, the ascension of Jesus into heaven has nothing at all to do with Transubstantiation (even if it were true). When they watched him be taken away by a cloud, any talk of his being the Bread of Life in conjunction with the Eucharist is nowhere in sight.

    RZ: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

    MJ: Yeah, so what? Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that he JUST might be intimating that eating his flesh might profit nothing and you, sir, are barking up the wrong tree. In any case, he confirms his words are “spirit and life”, meaning they are the product of the life-giving Spirit, which when rightly understood, generates life when the Spirit himself decides to turn on the light (John 3:8). The precise mechanism by which the Spirit opens up our eyes to truth (Luke 24:45) is unknown to us, but we CAN say that his methods, like the Spirit himself, are non-physical, invisible and beyond the reach of the five senses. However, a method of salvation based on the Eucharist is the polar opposite and therefore outside of God’s intentions. It is a tangible object that is well within reach of the senses. Therefore, since faith and truth are immaterial acts of the intellect which brings one to accepting the gospel, then eating His flesh must also be an immaterial act of the intellect, as they all produce the same result: eternal life (i.e., “believing” results in being raised up on the last day, as does “eating his flesh” (metaphorically!) result in being raised up on the last day. Jesus had only one thought in mind here and he expressed “belief” in two ways through the use of metaphor for the sake of stylistic variance. Recall that Lazarus slept, “but I go to awake him”. Actually, Laz was dead.

    To summarize: Their first error of seeking him only for a meal, was compounded by their second error of thinking in terms of making a meal out of Christ, as Catholics do today. However, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life” convey that His spirit-filled WORDS carry the potential of producing new and eternal life (6:68), which opposes the idea that eating his flesh carries a similar potential. When we ***digest*** his words in this manner, the flesh that he said would be given for the life of the world (6:51) cannot refer to any cannibalistic connotations (as Catholics so frequently assume) but rather, to the flesh he would give on Calvary’s cross!

    RZ: Again, Mo Jo, you will find zero holes in this paper.

    MJ: On the contrary, methinks you have a VERY unholy paper!

    Like

  7. RZ: John not mentioning the details of the Last Supper as the Synoptics do, is of no consequence.

    MJ: It is of GREAT consequence — and I believe I made my case VERY clear in my previous comments. You MUST have the Last Supper account in the gospel of John ***IF*** what Catholicism says is true about the Eucharist being necessary for salvation. John says that salvation may be found in his gospel alone, and so, since the RCC teaches that swallowing the wafer is mandatory for eternal life, the casual observer is left up a creek without a paddle. Without the “words of institution” made at the L.S. to tie in with Christ (allegedly) speaking literally in chapter 6, the reader is unable to find “the fullness of salvation” in John’s gospel alone! Non-catholics have no problem with the L.S. account being absent from John’s gospel.
    All you do is deny it and say it doesn’t matter. I’m afraid that is not good enough. Desperate for a way out, you try this trick:

    R. Zell response: Is it of no consequence. Why? Because we have the Synoptics where we can see the parallel account of the Last Supper. LOL. You are refuted here. You have not made your case except to twist and shield the truth. Those outside of the Body of Christ are not the Church. They are denominations, cults and sects unto themselves and not of Christ.

    Matthew: 26.23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 26.24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. 26.25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

    Mark: 14.20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

    John: 13.26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 13.27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

    MoJo, I suggest you don’t eat of your protestant or un-Protestant protestant unholy communion. Satan entered Judas when given unblessed and unconsecrated bread right from the very hand of Christ.

    Do you see the parallel passages in the other gospel writers?

    MJ: Nice try, but you lose. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re trying to convince us that because Jesus made a reference to Judas’ betrayal at the Last Supper after the Bread of Life discourse, all problems are solved.
    Ummm…no they aren’t. Your entire “two bread” thesis fails because you assume that the words “was to betray him”…were to officially occur at the Last Supper. That way, Judas can serve as an example of a rat fink, like all Protestants, who dropped Jesus like a hot potato in the midst of where Transubstantiation had supposedly occurred.
    NO. That we’re told from the other gospels that Judas abandoned ship during the distribution of bread is certainly not the “9/11” event to make your case. You forget that Judas had already betrayed Jesus BEFORE the Last Supper (Matt 26:14-16), and that the L.S. merely gave him the opportunity… (not motive) he was looking for in order to officially betray his Master. Hence, your Bread of Life strategy which hopes to find a connection with Judas being served another type of bread at the Last Supper due to his betrayal ***AT*** the Last Supper, is a weak link because Judas was ALREADY in a state of denial which had nothing to do with any issue involving Eucharistic bread at all.

    R. Zell Response: I am not trying to convince you. All I’m doing is connecting the dots just like I connected the dots of when “the Hour has come.” If you can’t see that the Bread of Life Discourse is linked to the Last Supper, then you are again blinded by your protestant paradigm. Bread of Life vs. the Bread of Spiritual Death. Both opposites. Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY.” Here is ordinary bread given to Judas without discerning the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and Satan enters Judas. Bread of Life = The Holy Eucharist. The Bread of Spiritual Death = unblessed, unconsecrated bread denying the very words of Christ as the Bread of Life Discourse.

    MJ says: MJ: Yeah, so what? Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that he JUST might be intimating that eating his flesh might profit nothing and you, sir, are barking up the wrong tree. In any case, he confirms his words are “spirit and life”, meaning they are the product of the life-giving Spirit, which when rightly understood, generates life when the Spirit himself decides to turn on the ……………

    R. Zell Response: Oh, I get it now, you are claiming that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing. The word that became flesh for our salvation. The product of the life-giving Spirit are the very words Jesus spoke at the Bread of Life Discourse and revealed at the Last Supper. The 2 types of Bread Jesus hands out is right out of scripture. The Bread of Life is given to the Apostles who believed and the other bread of spiritual death is given to the one who doesn’t believe those words “Take, eat, this is My Body.”

    MoJo Says: To summarize: Their first error of seeking him only for a meal, was compounded by their second error of thinking in terms of making a meal out of Christ, as Catholics do today. However, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life” convey that His spirit-filled WORDS carry the potential of producing new and eternal life (6:68), which opposes the idea that eating his flesh carries a similar potential. When we ***digest*** his words in this manner, the flesh that he said would be given for the life of the world (6:51) cannot refer to any cannibalistic connotations (as Catholics so frequently assume) but rather, to the flesh he would give on Calvary’s cross!

    R. Zell Response: His Spirit-filled WORDS do carry the potential of producing new and eternal life which when He has “Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY” I believe exactly what he said at the Bread of Life Discourse and revealed to the Apostles at the Last Supper. The very fact that there are 2 TYPES OF BREAD given out by the very hand of Christ, also highlights the truth of what he said at both the Bread of Life Discourse and the Last Supper. Those who eat of the unholy, unconsecrated AND ORDINARY bread SYMBOLIC OF DENIAL OF THE SPIRIT FILLED WORDS JESUS SPOKE AT THE BREAD OF LIFE DISCOURSE and REVEALED AT THE LAST SUPPER, eat and drink judgment unto themselves.

    Do yourself a favor MoJo, do not partake of the unholy communion in any protestant denomination, cult or sect. That bread is the bread of spiritual death that -our- MY Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ reveals when he gives the 2nd type of bread to Judas and satan enters him.

    Eating that unholy bread served at protestant denominations leads to abiding in Satan and is the exact opposite of abiding in Christ. Please MoJo promise me you will not eat again of that satanic bread of denial.

    Like

  8. Probably one of the most fascinating but sad facts in debating exCatholics who have devoted so much time to attacking the Catholic Church is their unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence that is so obviously against their positions. I personally think they have devoted so much time attacking the Church that they truly become blinded. Brian Culliton on the One Fold website claims that all the quotes from the Church Fathers on Catholic sites supporting the belief in the real presence are taken out of context. Note you never see a Protestant Website with quotes from the Church Father’s denying the real presence!
    When I asked Brian to give me a list of Church Father’s quotes taken “in context” denying the real presence I found myself permanently banned from his site.

    My last exchange with Timothy Kauffman from his Whitehorse blog is another perfect example. Note my rebuttal was never allowed.

    Timothy F. Kauffman

    January 8, 2018 at 2:28 pm

    Timothy P,

    There is little that can be done for you, as you are unable to ingest, process or understand historical data. The answers to your ridiculous questions, and your ridiculous claims about the “real presence” in the early church have already been answered repeatedly here, yet you cannot see or understand because you are unable to think about facts and process them, perchance to grasp them and factor them into your world view.

    If you had provided just one early church reference to “the real presence”, there would be something to talk about, but you have been asked to provide such a reference in the past, and you have been unable to do so.

    In any case, if you wish to respond to One Fold for banning you, I am not clear on why you are sending your “response” here, since (as you may perhaps realize, but it is not clear to me that you are able to understand) this is not One Fold.

    Have a good week.

    Tim

    Reply

    Timothy P

    January 8, 2018 at 9:38 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Timothy K, seriously? You write

    “If you had provided just one early church reference to “the real presence”, there would be something to talk about, but you have been asked to provide such a reference in the past, and you have been unable to do so.” Besides the 6 quotes of Irenaeus that I provided you, you seem to have forgotten the quotes Bob provided you. I am not sure you are going to allow me to post this but let’s see. Sleep well

    THE BIBLE
    “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

    -1 Cor. 10:16-17

    “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ 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 Cor. 11:23-27

    THE DIDACHE

    The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

    “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’”.

    -Ch. 9:5

    “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

    -Ch 14

    ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (Alt)

    St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

    “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

    Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

    “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

    Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

    ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)

    St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

    “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. 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.”

    “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

    “Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

    -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

    “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

    -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

    “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

    -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

    ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)

    St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

    “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.”

    “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

    “God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

    “Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

    Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”

    -“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

    ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (Alt)

    St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

    [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”

    Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

    “So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

    -“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

    Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”

    -“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

    ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)

    St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,

    “The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. 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.”,

    -“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

    “The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

    -“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,

    ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (Alt)

    St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,

    “So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb – slain as a type of Christ – should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,

    -“The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,

    Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.

    “Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord’s blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!”,

    -“The Lapsed” Ch. 25, circa 249-258 A.D.,

    “The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”,

    Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,

    “There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord’s holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord’s sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.”,

    -“The Lapsed” Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,

    As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.”,

    Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,

    APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE

    Not much biographical information has been left about Aphraates. It is known that he was one of the Fathers of the Syrian Church. It is speculated that he was made bishop late in his life.,

    He is thought to have been born ca. 280 A.D. and to have died ca. 345 A.D.,

    “But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before he was crucified He gave His blood as drink; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.”,

    – “Treatises” [12,6] inter 336-345 A.D.,

    SERAPION (Alt)

    “‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.,

    To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.’ On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church.,

    We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.’ For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!,

    For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: – after the mentioning of their names: – Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.”,

    -“The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” [13],

    ST. EPHRAIM (Alt)

    St. Ephraim was one of the great authors of the Syrian Church. Because of his beautiful writings, he is sometimes referred to as the ‘lyre of the Holy Spirit’. He studied under James, Bishop of Nisbis. In 338 A.D. he aspired to the diaconate and remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.,

    “Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.,

    And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.”,

    -“Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,

    “After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.”,

    -“Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,

    “‘And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.’ … This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.”,

    -“On Joel 2:24”, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 252 of the Assemani edition.

    ST. ATHANASIUS (Alt)

    St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,

    “‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.”,

    -“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,

    ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (Alt)

    St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.,

    “`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] 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?

    -“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

    “Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]

    -“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]

    “Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

    -“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”

    “9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”

    Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:

    “Then upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over the propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need.”

    “Mystagogic Catechesis [23: 5-7]

    “Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out.”

    -Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 10]

    “After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good.’ Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate – no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

    -“Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D

    “Keep these traditions inviolate, and preserve yourselves from offenses. Do not cut yourselves off from Communion, do not deprive yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.”

    -“Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 23]”

    ST. HILARY OF POITERS (Alt)

    St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.

    “When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously – had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”

    -“The Trinity” [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.

    ST. BASIL THE GREAT (Alt)

    St. Basil is recognized as the founder of Eastern monasticism. He was ordained Bishop of Caesarea in 370 A.D. He defended the Catholic Church against two waves of Arian attacks. The first movement denied the divinity of Christ. The second denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is considered one of the greatest saints of the Oriental Church.

    “What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.”

    -“The Morals” Ch. 22

    “He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

    -“Concerning Baptism” Book I, Ch. 3.

    “To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’ Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”

    -“Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.

    ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (Alt)

    “We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”

    -“The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.

    ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (Alt)

    St. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Sasima in the year 371 A.D and was a friend of St. Basil for most of his life.

    “Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.”

    -“Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium” [171] ca. 383 A.D.

    ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (Alt)

    “Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh.”

    -“The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]”

    “He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”

    -“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.

    “The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”

    -“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

    ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (Alt)

    From 386-397 A.D. St. John Chrysostom served as a priest in the main church of Antioch. He soon became renown for his preaching and writing skills. In 397 A.D. he succeeded St. Gregory of Nazianz as Bishop of Constantinople.

    “When the word says, ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!”

    -“Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew” [82,4] 370 A.D.

    “I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.”

    Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.

    “It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”

    Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:

    “‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: ‘What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.’ He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us.”

    -“Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians” [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.

    ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (Alt)

    “You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.”

    -“The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

    “Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.”

    -“On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

    “His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And ‘rich’ is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.”

    -“The Patriarchs” Ch. 9:38

    “Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.”

    -“Letter to Horontianus” circa 387 A.D.

    EGERIA

    “Following the dismissal from the Martyrium, everyone proceeds behind the Cross, where, after a hymn is sung and a prayer is said, the bishop offers the sacrifice and everyone receives Communion. Except on this one day, throughout the year the sacrifice is never offered behind the Cross save on this day alone.”

    -“Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 35.

    Describes a Mass held in front of Mt. Sinai.

    “All of the proper passage from the Book of Moses was read, the sacrifice was offered in the prescribed manner, and we received Communion.”

    -“Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 3.

    AURELIUS PRUDENTIUS CLEMENS (Alt)

    “Such is the hidden retreat where Hippolytus’ body is buried. Next to an altar nearby, built for the worship of God. Table from which the sacrament all holy is given, close to the martyr it stands, set as a faithful guard.”

    -“Hymns for Every Day” Hymn 170.

    ST. JEROME (Alt)

    “After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”

    -“Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew” [4,26,26] 398 A.D.

    APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS

    “A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he offers the Sacrifice”

    “Apostolic Constitutions [8, 28, 2:9]”

    ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)

    “Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”

    Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:

    “We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”

    Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:

    ST. AUGUSTINE (Alt)

    “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

    -“Sermons”, [227, 21]

    “He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

    -“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

    “For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

    Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

    “The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

    Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

    MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN

    “[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”

    -“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.

    ST. LEO I (Alt)

    “When the Lord says: ‘Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,’ you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, ‘Amen,’ who argue against that which is received.”

    -“Sermons” [91,3] ante 461 A.D.

    ST. CAESAR OF ARLES (Alt)

    “As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

    -“Sermons [13 (265), 3]

    Like

  9. Cyril of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm)

    Catechetical Lecture 23:

    7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.

    15. Give us this day our substantial bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. For this Bread goes not into the belly and is cast out into the draught Matthew 15:17, but is distributed into your whole system for the benefit of body and soul. But by this day, he means, each day, as also Paul said, While it is called today Hebrews 3:15 .

    20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.

    Like

  10. RZ: APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE says…”He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood”

    MJ: The horrified reader will notice the sickness of religious minds when it comes to their believing that Jesus Christ ATE HIMSELF AT THE LAST SUPPER! It is a vain, idiotic and wholly ludicrous thought, the rotten fruit of a doctrine that has deceived millions, just like any Ponzi scheme has ripped off the gullible.
    The Lord does not condone doctrine which produces controversial speculation, and since Transubstantiation is at controversial as it gets, he MUST be opposed to it (1Tim 3-4).

    Like

  11. MoJo, where did I every use APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE before? I never even heard of Him. You are making up lies. You are a liar.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s