Understanding Catholicism/ Dialogue with other

[James the Persian]

LOL. No, that's not quite how I envisioned it, James. I realize that they are merely praying for you, along with you. I suspect that if I understood the doctrine of Theosis, that might help. But the Roman Catholics don't believe in Theosis, do they? Would their doctrine concerning the Saints' intercession be different from yours?

RCs don't disbelieve in Theosis, they just don't emphasise it. As far as I'm aware it's still a perfectly valid doctrine for them, even if most RCs don't actually know about it. In any case, even if one is ignorant of the doctrine, this doesn't obviate it from being relevant to the communion of the saints. Unfortunately it's a big and complicated subject and I don't feel that I can do it justice here, but the belief is that we become, through God's grace, more godlike as we progress towards salvation and that slavation is about far more than simply eternal life. It's perfect communion in the presence of God. Now, if you envision God as corporeal this will not cause the same belief as it does for those of us who do not, so I'll explain a little. Here we have extremely imperfect communion with each other, being separate individuals who must speak to communicate. In heaven, however, all are in perfect communion with God. All partake in God's energies and become, to the degree it is possible for a created being to do so, godlike. This is what St. Athanasius' famous quote refers to. We can commune with God (you do not doubt this obviously) and so we can, through Him, commune with the saints. They, then, can pray for us. Clearly, there's no go between here and without God there would be no possibility of communion with the saints. Does that make it any clearer?

Sorry, but you lost me here. Please clarify if you think it's an important point.

The point is moot. It made sense when it appeared that you were viewing the saints almost as messengers. Now it does not. I still have a hard time understanding what is so difficult and/or wrong about the concept of the communion of the saints, though.

Thanks for your response. It was not my intention to be demeaning. Perhaps, as you suggested, it's more of a misunderstanding than anything. If you want to explain theosis, and think that would help me out, I'll watch for your answer.

I think that your comments do show that you misunderstand and I'll happily try to help you to understand better. I'm not sure about my qualifications to write much on Theosis, though. Understanding and explaining are two very different things and I'm worried I'll inadvertantly tell you something incorrect. Maybe one day I'll write an article, get it checked out by some others first and then post it. I'll tell you if I do.

James

 

[*Paul*]

You must have missed the part which said, "he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful." As I understand it, this is referring to a spiritual change in the elements, not a physical change in the physical makeup of the elements. Protestants tend to take these descriptions to the extreme and accuse Catholics of cannibalism, but they miss the point that the changes to the elements are spiritual, not physical.

Hang on there, so are you saying that God is present in the wafer sacramentally (mysterion??) in a spirtual way, so then is Christ Spiritually immolated?? This is even worse than i thought. I mean i can partly understand why you would think that it becomes the flesh and blood of Christ, aren't you upholding the Lutheran position here?

I must be misunderstanding you.
Does the wafer become literally the body of Christ?
Does the cup become the blood of Christ literally?
After the transubstatiation is this then immolated?

 

[*Paul*]

No Catholic (Orthodox or Roman) would argue otherwise, but isn't it better toitake advantage of the opportunities you have? Scripture is clear on the worth of prayers of a righteous man.

But we are righteous in Christ, we have His righteousness. Paul wanted to be found of Christ not having his own righteousness but the righteousness of Christ.
How do you know that a "saint" is in heaven? Because a pope said so?? Isn't it your position that no one can ever really now if they are assured of heaven. What if the said saint was really a secretly a fornicator and only gave the appearance of holiness?

In the end as i am a sola scripturalist, give me scriptural support for praying to saints to get them to pray for you as philosphical arguments hold no sway with me.

 

[*Paul*]

It's not a re-sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was eternal, not just a historical momenet in time thing. The Eucharist is participation in that eternal sacrifice . Surely you wouldn't seek to circumscribe God with time? This also, is not a peculiarly RC belief, both us and the Oriental Orthodox also believe identically on this. It's only the Protestants who differ, but then most Protestants also deny the Real Presence, so that's hardly surprising.

James

Being born again is a participation in that sacrifice, the Lords table or communion is a rememberance to be instituted only until the Lord comes.

 

[James the Persian]

But we are righteous in Christ, we have His righteousness. Paul wanted to be found of Christ not having his own righteousness but the righteousness of Christ.
How do you know that a "saint" is in heaven? Because a pope said so??

This may have escaped your notice, but I'm not an RC. What the Pope does or doesn't say is of no significance to me.

Isn't it your position that no one can ever really now if they are assured of heaven.

Yes, in this life. The saints are no longer in this life, though, so an assurance of salvation is an irrelevance.

What if the said saint was really a secretly a fornicator and only gave the appearance of holiness?

I have absolutely no doubt that such a person would never be considered a saint because I have no doubt that God will not reveal to the Church that someone is a saint if they are not. Nobody in our Church investigates someone to see if they're a saint like in the RCC. It either becomes apparent over time through miracles and the like or it does not, and it is very slow. My son's patron, for instance, was only finally glorified 500 years after his repose, as was my daughter's. My own patron's glorification was much quicker because of his obvious martyrdom. You wouldn't doubt the sanctity of martyrdom though, surely?

In the end as i am a sola scripturalist, give me scriptural support for praying to saints to get them to pray for you as philosphical arguments hold no sway with me.

No. I will not stoop to the level of basing my case on a heresy like sola scriptura. If you choose to believe that that is correct then fine but don't expect me to. Until you can give me Scriptural support for sola scriptura and for the cannon of scripture you don't have a leg to stand on.

James

 

[James the Persian]

Being born again is a participation in that sacrifice, the Lords table or communion is a rememberance to be instituted only until the Lord comes.

I suggest that you brush up on your Greek. Anamnesis means much, much more than a simple remembrance. Anyone who holds to a purely symbolic memorial view of the Eucharist is interpreting the text according to a tradition with which the plain text of the original language of the Gospels cannot be made to agree.

James

 

[writer]

45 The saints are no longer in this life
To the contrary: "Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy the brother, to the church of God which is in Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia," 2 Cor 1:1

assurance of salvation is an irrelevance
To the contrary: "In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit," 1 Jn 4:13. "I've written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God," 1 Jn 5:13

heresy like sola scriptura
To the contrary: "The Scripture cannot be broken," Jn 10:35

Scriptural support for sola scriptura
"All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable," 2 Tim 3:16

46 Greek. Anamnesis means much, much more than a simple remembrance.
To the contrary: "Anamnesis" (Lk 22:19) precisely means "remembrance."
Studylight.org Interlinear, click on "remembrance."
http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Lk+22%3A19&section=0&it=kjv&oq=mt%25202&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=mt&ng=2&ncc=2

Anyone who holds to a purely symbolic memorial view of the Eucharist is interpreting the text according to a tradition with which the plain text of the original language of the Gospels cannot be made to agree.
To the contrary: the Lord's Table's bread and wine symbolize Christ's body and Body, and blood. Lk 22:19-20; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:16-17; 11:23-29.
Jesus Christ (God) doesn't need nor want to turn bread into Himself. He Is "the living bread who came down out of heaven," Jn 6:51, who "became a life-giving Spirit," 1 Cor 15:45, in resurrection Who is present, Mt 28:20.
Thanx

 

[Katzpur]

In any case, even if one is ignorant of the doctrine, this doesn't obviate it from being relevant to the communion of the saints. Unfortunately it's a big and complicated subject and I don't feel that I can do it justice here, but the belief is that we become, through God's grace, more godlike as we progress towards salvation and that slavation is about far more than simply eternal life. It's perfect communion in the presence of God. Now, if you envision God as corporeal this will not cause the same belief as it does for those of us who do not, so I'll explain a little. Here we have extremely imperfect communion with each other, being separate individuals who must speak to communicate. In heaven, however, all are in perfect communion with God. All partake in God's energies and become, to the degree it is possible for a created being to do so, godlike. This is what St. Athanasius' famous quote refers to. We can commune with God (you do not doubt this obviously) and so we can, through Him, commune with the saints. They, then, can pray for us. Clearly, there's no go between here and without God there would be no possibility of communion with the saints. Does that make it any clearer?

Actually, that helped a lot, James, and makes more sense now. Thanks for taking the time.

The only thing that I would really take issue with at this point is the idea that this wouldn't work with a corporeal God. I can see no reason why the same process could not take place if God had a physical form. (This is probably not the best place to debate that, though. )

 

[athanasius]

The Greek word Anamnesis does mean much more than mere remembrance. The Jews would remember the passover meal but they would actually take part in the Passover itself by participating in it. This is something, a event that would cross the time barrier and be applied to them personally when they took part in it, They were actually taking part in the passover, much more than a mere remembrance. Remembrance meant far more to the Jewish people than it does to a 21st century english person.

a good Catholic book that describes this word Remembrance and puts in biblical context is "Catholic for the reason 3; Scripture and the mystery of the Mass". On page 60-61 Mr Thomas Nash describes the "memory" or anamesis of the gospels and what it meant. He describes it as begin far more than mere remberenace as fundamentalist take it.

Also Protestant Scholar JND Kelly in his book early Christian Doctrines also shows that amamnesis is far more than memory: Here is what Dr Kelly had to say:


“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies MUCH MORE than an act of purely spiritual RECOLLECTION J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).


MANY PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC BIBLICAL SCHOLARS ALIKE AGREE THAT ANAMNESIS MEANT FAR MORE THAN MERE REMEMBRANCE.


I would also suggest scripture scholar Dr Scott Hahns Book
the “Lambs Supper” and his other book “Understanding the Scriptures; a complete coarse for bible study”

Pax
Athanasius

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Hang on there, so are you saying that God is present in the wafer sacramentally (mysterion??) in a spirtual way, so then is Christ Spiritually immolated?? This is even worse than i thought.

Why?

I mean i can partly understand why you would think that it becomes the flesh and blood of Christ, aren't you upholding the Lutheran position here?

I think Lutherans believe that the Eucharist is something more than just symbolic, but I'm not sure how similar their belief is.

I must be misunderstanding you.
Does the wafer become literally the body of Christ?
Does the cup become the blood of Christ literally?
After the transubstatiation is this then immolated?

Yes, but literal does not necesarily mean physical. If you did an autopsy of someone who just partook of the Eucharist, you would find bread and wine in their stomach, not blood or human body parts. However, the fact that they outwardly or physically appear to be one thing does not negate the possibility of a internal, spiritual change of the elements.

Keep in mind what the Catechism says about this:
"...The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ..." para. 1333

The change of the elements in Transubstantiation is not something physically noticeable; it is a change that "surpasses understanding."

 

[James the Persian]

45 The saints are no longer in this life
To the contrary: "Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy the brother, to the church of God which is in Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia," 2 Cor 1:1

Did you just miss the fact that we were talking of the communion of the saints in the Church Triumphant or is this ignorance wilfull?

assurance of salvation is an irrelevance
To the contrary: "In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit," 1 Jn 4:13. "I've written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God," 1 Jn 5:13

I repeat the above comment. Those in the Church Triumphant are already saved and hence talk of an asurance of salvation with respect to them is an irrelevance.

heresy like sola scriptura
To the contrary: "The Scripture cannot be broken," Jn 10:35

Possibly one of the least relevant quotes I've ever seen anyone take from Scripture. Would you care to explain why, to you, this quote means that sola scriptura isn't the recent heresy I believe it to be?

Scriptural support for sola scriptura
"All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable," 2 Tim 3:16

That's support for Scripture, not sola scriptura. If it had said that Scripture alone is God-breathed and profitable you would have a point, but it doesn't and, if it did it would contradict other passges in the Pauline epistles.

46 Greek. Anamnesis means much, much more than a simple remembrance.
To the contrary: "Anamnesis" (Lk 22:19) precisely means "remembrance."
Studylight.org Interlinear, click on "remembrance."
http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Lk+22%3A19&section=0&it=kjv&oq=mt%25202&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=mt&ng=2&ncc=2

I couldn't care less what your selected 'scholars' say. If they think anamnesis simply means remembrance then they're wrong. A significant portion of my Church still uses Koine for worship and so it's quite possible to find out exactly what a word means. No academic speculation required. It means a great deal more than you believe it does, but I doubt you'd ever be willing to acknowledge that. After all, you have a vested interest not too.

Anyone who holds to a purely symbolic memorial view of the Eucharist is interpreting the text according to a tradition with which the plain text of the original language of the Gospels cannot be made to agree.
To the contrary: the Lord's Table's bread and wine symbolize Christ's body and Body, and blood. Lk 22:19-20; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:16-17; 11:23-29.
Jesus Christ (God) doesn't need nor want to turn bread into Himself. He Is "the living bread who came down out of heaven," Jn 6:51, who "became a life-giving Spirit," 1 Cor 15:45, in resurrection Who is present, Mt 28:20.
Thanx

On the contrary. Christ said 'This IS my body', not this symbolizes my body. It amazes me that sola scripturalists, usually being such Biblical literalists, take these statements in particular to be figurative. On what authority? Certainly not on that of Scripture alone. And who on earth has ever heard of people being made sick or dying from unworthily partaking of a symbol? And yet that is clearly what Scripture tells us happened. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you, but clearly the authors of the New Testament did not share your heretical views as to the Eucharist.

James

 

[*Paul*]

Sorry guys, i'm not ignoring you, I have made two posts now on this heresy but when i have submitted them it says i'm not logged in and i lose my post. Does anyone else have this problem??

 

[*Paul*]

Sorry guys, it's still logging me out all the time, i've sent a message to the administrator.

 

[sojourner]

Here is a quote about the Eucharist from Saint Francis, included in Murray Bodo's book, Landscape of Prayer. This book was required reading where I went to seminary (protestant). I wish all Christians could embrace this statement. It's a beautiful statement of the nature of the Eucharist.

"Let all humankind tremble
all the world shake
and the heavens exult
when Christ, the Son of the living God
is present on the altar
in the hands of a priest.
O admirable heights and sublime lowliness!
O sublime humility!
O humble sublimity!
That the Lord of the universe,
God and the Son of God
so humbles himself
that for our salvation
he hides himself under the little form of bread!
Look, brothers, at the humility of God
and pour out your hearts before him!
Humble yourselves, as well,
that you may be exalted by him.
Therefore,
hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves
so that
he who gives himself totally to you
may receive you totally."

 

[writer]

51 Did you just miss the fact that we were talking of the communion of the saints in the Church Triumphant or is this ignorance wilfull?
Dear James, Thanks for your concern. But to the contrary: it's Biblically ignorant, whether willful or unwillful, to suggest "saints" are either different from believers or "no longer in this life" only

Those in the Church Triumphant are already saved and hence talk of an asurance of salvation with respect to them is an irrelevance.
Biblically, and apostolically, God's church isn't different from His church triumphant. Since the apostle wrote to the saints (= church) in Ephesus: Christ Jesus is "Head over all things to the church, which is His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all" (1:22-23). Since, by definition, the church is those who are born again, they're assured of being God's children eternally

Would you care to explain why, to you, this quote means that sola scriptura isn't the recent heresy I believe it to be?
The Scripture can't be broken speaks for itself (and to all who might seek to alter or improve it), James

[All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable]'s support for Scripture, not sola scriptura.
Scripture is solely Scripture. What isn't Scripture isn't Scripture

If it had said that Scripture alone is God-breathed and profitable you would have a point, but it doesn't and, if it did it would contradict other passges in the Pauline epistles.
If dear James feels that something not Scripture is God-breathed, then perhaps he'd be willing to share exactly what it is, the exact quote. Then i or whoever's interested could compare it with Scripture, here or now, to see if indeed it at least doesn't contradict the apostles' teaching, Scripture, before we consider how God-breathed it is

I couldn't care less what your selected 'scholars' say. If they think anamnesis simply means remembrance then they're wrong.
One doesn't particularly need to be a scholar to know that "anamnesis" means "remembrance." But i din't really "select" Studylight.org in that way. Try any Greek dictionary or interlinear. On the Web or off

A significant portion of my Church still uses Koine for worship and so it's quite possible to find out exactly what a word means.
Then do, pleze tell exactly what u or your group thinks "anamnesis" means in Koine beside "remembrance"

No academic speculation required. It means a great deal more than you believe it does, but I doubt you'd ever be willing to acknowledge that. After all, you have a vested interest not too.
What's my "vested interest" James?
In any case, i'm unable to "acknowledge" anything 'til u actually write it
Unless you're waiting for your prayer, or unconcious communion of saints, to work on me

Christ said 'This IS my body', not this symbolizes my body.
Thanks James. But that's called symbolism. Or metaphor.
And's how metaphors work.
Similes are another kind of speech that utilize a comparison word like "like" or "as" or "symbolizes."
Christ our God also said "I'm the light," Jn 8:12; and "I'm the door," 10:7.
If He's not physical light and door in some; but physical bread in another;
then that's either a misrepresentation of Christ or some kind of limited pantheism

It amazes me that sola scripturalists, usually being such Biblical literalists, take these statements in particular to be figurative. On what authority? Certainly not on that of Scripture alone.
To the contrary: On the authority of His Scripture, and His Scripture alone if you like to include that.
Languages, such as English and Greek, employ both metaphors and similes, among many other species of speech and literature. I first learned about them in elementary school

And who on earth has ever heard of people being made sick or dying from unworthily partaking of a symbol?
Paul, for one (1 Cor 11:30). The Corinthians for two three four five six....
Me, among other Paul- and Christ-readers for another.

And yet that is clearly what Scripture tells us happened.
Amen. James. It did. Such believers were disciplined. Like Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, who passed away for lying to the Holy Spirit in lying to the apostles with church. They din't even have to eat anything. A more extreme example's in Acts 12 where simply "the populace cried out, The voice of a god and not of a man! And instantly an angel of the Lord struck Herod because he didn't give the glory to God; and he was eaten by worms and expired." Yechh

Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you, but clearly the authors of the New Testament did not share your heretical views as to the Eucharist.
To the contrary dear James: Whether to believe that bread and wine are created into God (though still deceitfully disguising as bread and wine); or whether to believe that bread and wine symbolize Christ's body (and Body) and blood: neither one is heretical. Neither's heresy. Heresy, originally deriving from "faction," has, by transferrance, come to mean (at least to me) a serious misrepresentation concerning God's, Christ's, person or work.
Of course to worship an idol, especially a sightless, speechless, responsiveless, senseless, motionless, dead, inanimate thing such as bread purportedly for the Lord's Supper, than that would morph into heresy. The heresy of idolatry. But i'm not accusing u of that. And i'm hoping you're not into that.
Thanks

54 when Christ, the Son of the living God
is present on the altar
in the hands of a priest.
To the contrary: Christ's altar of sacrifice in the NT is His cross. "We've an altar from which they who are serving the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies for sin by the high priest are burned up outside the camp. Therefore also Jesus, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Let's therefore go forth unto Him outside the camp [outside religion, the religious camp], bearing His reproach...Through Him then let's offer up a sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name." Lord Jesus, we love You!

God and the Son of God
so humbles himself
that for our salvation
he hides himself under the little form of bread!
"Form." I like this. And this's more approaching simile rather than metaphor. Both of which the Bible employs and i like. In any case, God's "hidden" in Christ (the mystery of God), and Christ's "hidden" in His Body, His saints. His Bride. The mystery of Christ. God and Christ do not have another body other than Christ and the church. God became man to make man God. Not to make bread God. Because He was already the bread of God. John 6:51; Matthew 15:26-28.
Yours in the Bread,
Writer

 

[writer]

the word of God i found it
Wonderful this word to me.
I need not man's natural teaching
The anointing lives in me

(tune: Gloria in excelsius Deo, verse)

 

[athanasius]

I am NOT debating anyone hear. I am only giving food for thought. But this is for anyone who cares to read what the ancient Christians(those who were taught by the apostles and successors themselves) taught about the Eucharist. The fathers seems to teach that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus just like Catholics and Orthodox do.

Also in we have had 2000 years of eucharist miracles in which Jesus shows us that he is really present body and blood soul and divinity under the mere appearences of bread and wine check these out
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
and especially this one for non believers in the real presence
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/sacred/eumi1.html

Here is the early christians(antiquity) on the eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch (taught by the apostle John himself)

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Jerusalem


"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


Augustine


"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


Aphraahat the Persian Sage


"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], 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" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Ambrose of Milan


"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).




*
Justin Martyr


"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

*
Irenaeus


"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He 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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

*

 

[sojourner]

To the contrary: Christ's altar of sacrifice in the NT is His cross. "We've an altar from which they who are serving the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies for sin by the high priest are burned up outside the camp. Therefore also Jesus, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Let's therefore go forth unto Him outside the camp [outside religion, the religious camp], bearing His reproach...Through Him then let's offer up a sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name."

Please cite the source of your quotation.

God became man to make man God. Not to make bread God.

It's ridiculous to assume that, in the act that is the culmination of our worship, that Christ is not truly present to us! Why in heaven's name would the faithful place upon the high altar the profane creatures of bread and wine, and pay homage to them, as if they were God, if god were not truly present therein???

If the bread and wine are "only symbols," then we engage in idolatry every time we celebrate the sacrament. It is only through the bread and wine being consecrated that they become a "holy thing" -- the creatures in which, for us, Christ truly makes himself present to us. The dynamic of anamnesis serves to bring that one sacrificial act of the cross forward, so that we, too, may experience it and be participants in it with Christ. Since we can't produce a corporeal human body to nail up on a cross each week, Christ has given us this gift, wherein the common things that sustain our bodies, through Christ's real presence, become the sacred things that also sustain our souls.

The issue here isn't whether God makes bread God -- the issue here is that God makes God's self and God's sacrifice available to us in the elements of the Eucharistic meal.

 

[sojourner]

I am NOT debating anyone hear. I am only giving food for thought. But this is for anyone who cares to read what the ancient Christians(those who were taught by the apostles and successors themselves) taught about the Eucharist. The fathers seems to teach that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus just like Catholics and Orthodox do.

Also in we have had 2000 years of eucharist miracles in which Jesus shows us that he is really present body and blood soul and divinity under the mere appearences of bread and wine check these out
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
and especially this one for non believers in the real presence
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/sacred/eumi1.html

Here is the early christians(antiquity) on the eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch (taught by the apostle John himself)

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Jerusalem


"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


Augustine


"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


Aphraahat the Persian Sage


"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], 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" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Ambrose of Milan


"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).




*
Justin Martyr


"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

*
Irenaeus


"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He 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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

*

These sources are very early and are certainly compelling that the early Church knew of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[writer]

58 It's ridiculous to assume that, in the act that is the culmination of our worship, that Christ is not truly present to us!
That's really up 2 u, them

Why in heaven's name would the faithful place upon the high altar the profane creatures of bread and wine, and pay homage to them, as if they were God, if god were not truly present therein?
What faithful?
To the contrary: Christ's altar of sacrifice in the NT is His cross. "We've an altar from which they who are serving the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies for sin by the high priest are burned up outside the camp. Therefore also Jesus, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Let's therefore go forth unto Him outside the camp [outside religion, the religious camp], bearing His reproach...Through Him then let's offer up a sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of lips confessing His name," Heb 13:10-15.
As to your question: religion duz alot of funny things

If the bread and wine are "only symbols," then we engage in idolatry every time we celebrate the sacrament.
Celebrate what sacrament?
U may. Pleze speak 4 yourself. The word "sacrament" is from the Latin "sacramentum." As in Jerome's Bible. It was Latin for "mystery." As in "great's the mystery of godliness/This mystery's great but I speak with regard to Christ and the church" etc in the NT. Paul writes of Christ the sacrament (mystery) of God. Of the church, the mystery (sacrament) of Christ. The Lord Jesus, His apostles: no one in the Bible calls any of Catholicism's sacraments "sacraments (mysteries)". Except courtship and marriage by Solomon in Proverbs. Baptism's not a mystery. It's a commandment. An obedience and act of faith. The Lord's Table's not a mystery. It's a sign. It's not a recreation of God. God is uncreated. God cannot be created. It's not a transubstantiation of Christ. Christ has only one physical body. And it's not a dead, lifeless, speechless, sightless, motionless, insensate, nonresponsive, idol on a table. Nor is Christ so lifeless as to become an idol

It is only through the bread and wine being consecrated that they become a "holy thing" -- the creatures in which, for us, Christ truly makes himself present to us.
Bread and wine in a proper Supper meeting are given to be used for His Supper ("consecrated?") the second they're set out. If u mean something more than this: there's no such thing in the NT or apostles' teaching. Christ Himself made Himself present the second He rose from His grave. And by faith the moment(s) His believers believe into Him. He's present in, and as, His Body. He has no other reincarnation nor "3rd" body. Nor is He limited to His Table or Table meeting

The dynamic of anamnesis serves to bring that one sacrificial act of the cross forward, so that we, too, may experience it and be participants in it with Christ.
If by "anamnesis (remembrance, Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)" u mean faith; then you're right, brother, that "faith's the substantiation of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," Heb 11:1

Since we can't produce a corporeal human body to nail up on a cross each week, Christ has given us this gift, wherein the common things that sustain our bodies, through Christ's real presence, become the sacred things that also sustain our souls.
Since "we [who believe]'ve been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all," Heb 10:10; and by faith experience Him with His sacrificial death; there's not now, nor ever could be, any need to "produce a corporeal human body to nail up on a cross each week."
As Paul (evidently) wrote: "Because He abides forever, He has His priesthood unalterable. Hence He's able to save to the uttermost those who come forward to God through Him, since He lives always to intercede for them. For such a High Priest was also fitting to us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and having become higher than the heavens, who doesn't have need, as the high priests do, to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people; for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself (Heb 7:24-27)...For Christ didn't enter into a holy place made by hands, a figure of the true, but into heaven itself, to appear now before the face of God for us; nor in order that He might offer Himself often, just as the high priest enters into the Holy of Holies year by year by the blood of other creatures; since then He'd have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the consummation of the ages He's been manifested for the putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it's reserved for men to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time to those who eagerly await Him, apart from sin, unto salvation. For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of the things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, perfect those who draw near. Otherwise would they not've ceased to be offered...? (9:24-10:2)...But this One, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever on the right hand of God, henceforth waiting until His enemies're made the footstool for His feet. For by one offering He's perfected forever those who are being sanctified (10:12-14)."
Christ, as the Spirit who gives life in resurrection (1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6, 17; Jn 20:22), is both present (Mt 28:20) and indwelling His believers (Col 1:27; Jn 20:22), and as such needs not be physically present until, as He spoke "I shall by no means drink of this product of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father," Mt 26:29; Lk 22:18.
He calls this His "new covenant," Jer 31:31-33; Lk 22:20; Heb 8:6-13; 10:15-22

The issue here isn't whether God makes bread God --
God doesn't make bread literally God. God is bread (Jn 6)

the issue here is that God makes God's self and God's sacrifice available to us in the elements of the Eucharistic meal.
God makes God's self and God's sacrifice available to whosoever wills and believes in God's Spirit. Anytime, everytime, everywhere. Which's what "Eucharistic meal" represents 'n portrays.
Thanks Sojourner