Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

Where I go to Mass, reception of Our Lord's Body and Blood under both species of consecrated Bread and Wine is the norm. It may not be the norm in every parish, but receiving one or the other is the same as receiving both. You don't get "more Jesus" if you just receive the bread or the wine.

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.

By the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

The Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, "Communion under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States" (HLS 21).

The only exceptions are in those cases where the size or circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent reception of the precious blood or when the congregation is so diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds.
When should Communion be distributed under both forms? | Catholic Answers
​

This should put a stop to the same LIE that has been repeated on this thread and others about the alleged with-holding Wine. I doubt it will. This same explanation has already been given to the same person(s) who continue repeating the same lie. And the same lie will be repeated again someplace else.

Yes, thanks for the informative reply. I would not call it a lie, though. A more accurate word might be misunderstanding. A lie brings to mind the idea that the one saying it knows it isn't true. I do not find any such deception in the case of KatieMyGirl. She appears to be nothing but honest with me.

 

[kepha31]

It's not a matter of getting "more Jesus." It's a matter of what Jesus commanded. You can choose to obey Jesus or the Vatican. Up to you.

This is just a baseless insult and not worth replying to.

How is my saying the cup was witheld prior to 1970 a lie?

A half truth is still a lie. You are misrepresenting what I posted. It is a form of bearing false witness IMO, mainly because you cannot be taught. Receiving BOTH consecrated Bread and Wine has always been the norm from the beginning but you cannot accept this because it goes against your invincible preconceived notions. You disregard the first paragraph:

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.​

In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays...
You refuse to be corrected.

You just posted the evidence that it was witheld.

In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

Taking one line out of a single post with no context while ignoring the background context of 2000 years is a lie. Anti-Catholics do the same thing with encyclopedias and catechisms because they think they can prove something. Bible cults less than 20 years old never had distribution problems in an ancient civilization, so issues of practicality is incomprehensible to them as well as it is to you.

Withholding the Wine was necessary when daily Mass was impossible. This led to the heretics claiming what you claim, that receiving only one of both is not receiving the whole of Christ. (which you don't believe to begin with). But this was an exception, not the norm, as you erroneously insist. The above statement, which you choose to ignore, is a lifting of a previous (limited) restriction, permission for Communion under both kinds is not not something new.

Where is a fourth cup at Passover mentioned in Scriptures? Is this just a Jewish tradition established after Jesus?

Long before.
1. How Christ in the Last Supper and in the Eucharist offers himself up as the new covenant Passover, and how the Eucharist and the Old Testament Passover are in a sense two sides of the same coin.

Christ and His disciples were in the upper room celebrating the Passover – arguably the most important feast signifying the Israelites exodus out of Egypt, commenced by the slaughter of a lamb, shared in a meal, with the blood of the lamb sprinkled on the doorposts to prevent the first-born son being killed from the angel of death. God led the Israelites to Mount Sinai where He established His covenant (a sacred family bond) with them. The Passover became a celebrated event throughout the centuries – the unblemished lamb, through the shedding of blood, became the voluntary sacrifice, as the sign of the Mosaic covenant.

The Jews still celebrate the Passover with the well-known ancient liturgy structure. There are four cups of wine that represent the structure of the Passover:

1st cup – the kiddush cup – represents the blessing of the festival day.

2nd cup – occurs at the beginning on the Passover liturgy and involves the singing of psalm 113.

3rd cup – the cup of blessing – involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread, and so on.

Before the 4th cup, you sing the great hil-el psalms: 114 to 118. After,

4th cup – the climax of the Passover.

Now in the Gospel accounts, Jesus says, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” And it says, “Then they sang the psalms.” And then they went out into the night. No 4th cup. They side-stepped the most important part of the Passover. It would be like saying the Mass and skipping the Eucharist, forgetting the words of consecration.

So why did Jesus do it?

Well. Lets look at what happened next. Jesus led His disciples to the garden of Gethsemane. Crying aloud, “Abba, Father! … “All things are possible to Thee. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” Remove this cup. What is this cup? Must be the 4th cup!

Our Lord’s sacrifice became the culmination, the fulfillment of the Old Testament Passover. Here is the true priest (offering the sacrifice), the true victim (the lamb of God, the unblemished sacrifice – none of his bones were broken).

Then, in order to fulfill the Scriptures, “I thirst” – “They put a sponge full of the sour wine on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the words that are spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, “It is finished.” Interestingly the sour wine on hyssop was used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the door posts.

The sacrifice of Christ did not begin with the first spike, or when the cross was sunk into the ground. It began in the upper room. That’s where the sacrifice began. Also, the Passover meal did not end in the upper room, but at calvary. It’s all of one piece. Calvary begins with the Eucharist. The Eucharist ends at Calvary.

But, it’s not over yet. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, “Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, therefore“—what?—we don’t need to have any more sacrifice? Therefore we don’t need to have any more ritual, therefore all we have to do is have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and invite him into our hearts and everything else is taken care of? No, he’s too knowledgeable about the Old Testament to say any of that. He says, “Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed; let us therefore celebrate the feast.” What feast? The whole Passover feast. It’s not complete yet. What do you mean?

In the book of Exodus, the family had to eat the sacrificed lamb. It wasn’t enough to kill it. The goal was to restore communion with God. It wasn’t enough to say, ‘Well we don’t like lamb do we, kids? Why don’t we make lamb cookies? Little lamb wafers that symbolize the lamb? We’ll eat those and those’ll be enough, right? Symbolic presence of the lamb, and all that?’ No, you’d wake up and you’d be dead.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.” – John 6:50

What did Jesus say? Come on, guys, I was only speaking in symbols, huh? I was only using an image. I don’t mean to offend you. Come on back. I’m about to lose a few thousand here; come on, Twelve, help me. No, he turned to the Twelve and he said to them, “Do you also wish to go away?” He’s not going to water down the truth. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life.”
The Fourth Cup by Scott Hahn – The Prodigal Catholic Blog

 

[katiemygirl]

KatieMyGirl:

My apologies is this is turning into some kind of debate. You've given me something substantial to think about--especially the possibility that Jesus' words in John 6:55 could be interpreted to mean food is a symbol for something else.

I mean, if the statement, "Christ is the real lamb of God," means Christ is like a lamb but is not really a lamb, then the statement, "My flesh is real food," can mean Christ's body is like food, but is not literally food.

I find it fascinating that I discovered it on my own. Still, it would not have occurred to me had I not thought it through with you. Socrates would say I knew it before I was born and only now just remembered. Paul might say the Holy Spirit told me. A Catholic might caution me that the devil is trying to deceive me. Me? I'll consider it possibly true till something proves it otherwise.

Thanks again for all your patient help! May God continue to bless you with wisdom and more.

Today is the Lord's Day. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!

I have given our conversation a lot of deep thought, and I have truly enjoyed it. You are an honest and sincere person who is seeking the truth. I believe God will lead you to it.

I don't think anyone would dispute the "real" presence of Jesus when we assemble and especially when we take the Lord's Supper.

How Jesus is present with us becomes the question. I believe Jesus taught us that He would be communing with us spiritually. He said, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Well, the kingdom/church is here, and Jesus communes with us everytime we partake. He is right there with us. "Real presence!" I don't see Him, but I know He is sitting right beside me sharing His supper.

Do we literally swallow Jesus' flesh and blood when we commune? Are the benefits of taking communion any different for those who believe they are eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood of Jesus from those who believe the bread and fruit of the vine "represent" the body and blood of Jesus. I don't think so. Does it really matter?

I have no problem with catholic people believing that they are eating the actual flesh of Jesus or them believing they are drinking His blood. I don't see that it matters what they believe, or what I believe, for that matter. What really counts is that they and I are taking it and taking it for the for the reasons Jesus stated. He told us to take the bread AND the fruit of the vine to remember Him and that each time we do, we show His death until He comes again. We proclaim His sacrifice to the world. It is a time to reflect and to examine ourselves.

I take issue with the fact that both the bread and fruit of the vine are not served to everyone everytime communion is celebrated. It contradicts a direct command of Jesus Christ.

My argument is not about their reasoning for not serving it over the centuries. I take issue with the Roman Catholic church undermining a command of God.

My biggest concern is this. I take issue with a priest claiming that Jesus performs some mystical changing of the bread and fruit of the vine into His actual body and blood THROUGH him, the priest. I don't question anything Jesus may or may not do. There is absolutely no Scriptural support for such a ritual as one sees a priest perform. I don't believe the Bible teaches that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, a "mass" to be repeated over and over. It is a memorial, a time to remember what Jesus did for us, and a time to proclaim to the world His death until He comes again. . Nothing more. The word "mass" is not found in Scripture.

The EWTN website defines "mass" as such.
"357. The Mass is the Sacrifice of the New Law in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine."

There is no reference to this in Scripture. We see no example or command for a priest performing such a ritual.

For me, everything always comes down to Scriptural authority. When we put men's word above the Lord's, where church is concerned, it is no longer the Lord's church, but the church of men. This is the sole reason I left the organization. They have elevated tradition above the word of God in so many instances.

 

[katiemygirl]

="kepha31, post: 4263610, member: 30332"]

I am saying precisely what you quoted. "There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form..."

How is what I said a lie? Was it or was it not witheld at times throughout history? I have not questioned the reasoning, only the fact that the Roman Catholic church, for whatever reason, stopped serving the fruit of the vine to its members. They contradicted a clear command of Jesus Christ.

And what is meant by the early church in your quote below? Is the early church supposed to be 33 A.D.? 50 A.D.? 100 A.D? 400 A.D.? 1200 A.D.? Where is the Biblical or historical record of the "early" church NOT serving both elements? Please provide either. If this is true of the Lord's church in the first 200-300 years, I'd be interested in reading the evidence. I would like to know exactly when it was witheld or "limited" the first time.

By the way, there is no "Mass"in the New Testament church.

Look at the bold red in your quote below. Did they or did they not serve the bread only at times? As I stated, the reasoning hasn't been discussed by me. Frankly, I don't care what their reasons were. They contradicted Jesus' words.

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.​

The Jews still celebrate the Passover with the well-known ancient liturgy structure. There are four cups of wine that represent the structure of the Passover:

Where in the Scriptures are the "four cups?"

Nowhere!

I am not interested in reading Roman Catholic interpretation/assumptions of something that isn't Biblical in the first place. If there are not "four cups" in the Scriptures, then there are not four cups! Period. This is just another invented tradition of men.

 

[kepha31]

Where in the Scriptures are the "four cups?"

Nowhere!

Then you are an anti-Semite.

 

[katiemygirl]

Then you are an anti-Semite.

That made me LOL.

 

[katiemygirl]

Been reading lots of early church history over the weekend about "transubstantiation."

Prior to 200 A.D., the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. The earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century, and the doctrine wasn't taught universally until the fifth century. It didn't become the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church until 1200 A.D.

It's interesting that the RC church will quote from the early church Fathers, but will use only partial quotes, which are taken out of context. An honest person, when reading the quotes in their full context will know, without a doubt, that these early christians believed the bread and fruit of the vine to be symbolic.

If anyone has a desire to read what the early church Fathers have to say on this topic, I will be happy to post the quotes along with their sources.

 

[Spockrates]

Today is the Lord's Day. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!

I have given our conversation a lot of deep thought, and I have truly enjoyed it. You are an honest and sincere person who is seeking the truth. I believe God will lead you to it.

I don't think anyone would dispute the "real" presence of Jesus when we assemble and especially when we take the Lord's Supper.

How Jesus is present with us becomes the question. I believe Jesus taught us that He would be communing with us spiritually. He said, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Well, the kingdom/church is here, and Jesus communes with us everytime we partake. He is right there with us. "Real presence!" I don't see Him, but I know He is sitting right beside me sharing His supper.

Do we literally swallow Jesus' flesh and blood when we commune? Are the benefits of taking communion any different for those who believe they are eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood of Jesus from those who believe the bread and fruit of the vine "represent" the body and blood of Jesus. I don't think so. Does it really matter?

I have no problem with catholic people believing that they are eating the actual flesh of Jesus or them believing they are drinking His blood. I don't see that it matters what they believe, or what I believe, for that matter. What really counts is that they and I are taking it and taking it for the for the reasons Jesus stated. He told us to take the bread AND the fruit of the vine to remember Him and that each time we do, we show His death until He comes again. We proclaim His sacrifice to the world. It is a time to reflect and to examine ourselves.

I take issue with the fact that both the bread and fruit of the vine are not served to everyone everytime communion is celebrated. It contradicts a direct command of Jesus Christ.

My argument is not about their reasoning for not serving it over the centuries. I take issue with the Roman Catholic church undermining a command of God.

My biggest concern is this. I take issue with a priest claiming that Jesus performs some mystical changing of the bread and fruit of the vine into His actual body and blood THROUGH him, the priest. I don't question anything Jesus may or may not do. There is absolutely no Scriptural support for such a ritual as one sees a priest perform. I don't believe the Bible teaches that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, a "mass" to be repeated over and over. It is a memorial, a time to remember what Jesus did for us, and a time to proclaim to the world His death until He comes again. . Nothing more. The word "mass" is not found in Scripture.

The EWTN website defines "mass" as such.
"357. The Mass is the Sacrifice of the New Law in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine."

There is no reference to this in Scripture. We see no example or command for a priest performing such a ritual.

For me, everything always comes down to Scriptural authority. When we put men's word above the Lord's, where church is concerned, it is no longer the Lord's church, but the church of men. This is the sole reason I left the organization. They have elevated tradition above the word of God in so many instances.

Yes, I see now how it is possible Christ was using a figure of speech when he said the bread was his body in Matthew 26:26 and he said his flesh was real food in John 6:55. Yet it is not certain.

So since scripture itself is not enough to remove all doubt, where else should I look for the proof I need? Do you think it would be helpful to consider what the early Christians had to say? Would it be helpful to read what they wrote after the closing of the canon of scripture?

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, I see now how it is possible Christ was using a figure of speech when he said the bread was his body in Matthew 26:26 and he said his flesh was real food in John 6:55. Yet it is not certain.

So since scripture itself is not enough to remove all doubt, where else should I look for the proof I need? Do you think it would be helpful to consider what the early Christians had to say? Would it be helpful to read what they wrote after the closing of the canon of scripture?

We must have cross posted. I think it would help you to read the early church Fathers up to 200 AD. I spent a lot of time reading their writings, trying to keep an open mind. The consensus among them was that the language is figurative. Jesus' body and blood are symbols. I can send you quotes and give you links to all of the writings if you feel up to wading through it. I found it facinating.

Something else I've been giving a lot of thought to is how communion today is so far removed from the last supper. With Jesus, and the early church, the Lord's Supper was an informal part of a common meal, a time to think about Jesus, His teachings, His sacrifice and most of all His resurrection. Somehow, it evolved into a separate, formal ritual, and not just in the Roman Catholic church. Most protestant churches have separated the Lord's Supper away from the common meal.

 

[Spockrates]

We must have cross posted. I think it would help you to read the early church Fathers up to 200 AD. I spent a lot of time reading their writings, trying to keep an open mind. The consensus among them was that the language is figurative. Jesus' body and blood are symbols. I can send you quotes and give you links to all of the writings if you feel up to wading through it. I found it facinating.

Something else I've been giving a lot of thought to is how communion today is so far removed from the last supper. With Jesus, and the early church, the Lord's Supper was an informal part of a common meal, a time to think about Jesus, His teachings, His sacrifice and most of all His resurrection. Somehow, it evolved into a separate, formal ritual, and not just in the Roman Catholic church. Most protestant churches have separated the Lord's Supper away from the common meal.

Yes, that is interesting. Please do send me a lonk or copy and paste a quote or two.

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, that is interesting. Please do send me a lonk or copy and paste a quote or two.

Clement of Alexandria (200 AD)

Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). The following is from Book 1, Chapter 6. You can google this and read it in its entirety. It's very interesting.

The RC church uses the following quote from Clement to support their doctrine of transubstantiation.

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Few catholics will ever read this quote in its context. If they took the time to read what Clement wrote a few lines later, they may give the doctrine a second thought, if they are honest with themselves, that is.

Here is what else Clement says a little further into the chapter.

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)

I will send you more quotes as time permits throughout the day from the early church Fathers.

 

[Spockrates]

Clement of Alexandria (200 AD)

Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). The following is from Book 1, Chapter 6. You can google this and read it in its entirety. It's very interesting.

The RC church uses the following quote from Clement to support their doctrine of transubstantiation.

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Few catholics will ever read this quote in its context. If they took the time to read what Clement wrote a few lines later, they may give the doctrine a second thought, if they are honest with themselves, that is.

Here is what else Clement says a little further into the chapter.

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)

I will send you more quotes as time permits throughout the day from the early church Fathers.

Yes, Clement certainly does say the bread and wine are symbols. I suppose a Catholic might try to argue he believed they are both literally the body and blood and also have a symbolic significance. But he does not say, here that Jesus was speaking literally.

One of the early Christians I enjoy reading is Augustine--perhaps because he started out as a blatant sinner, as I did. In his Confessions, Augustine writes, "Our souls, O Lord are restless till they find their rest in thee," which I myself find to be true. I think we might contrast Clement's words with the sermons of Augustine, written about 200 years after Clement:

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16, 30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body."
(Ser. 232)

and

"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." (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)

St Augustine & the Eucharist
​

And as you already said, other Christians after AD 200 made similar statements appearing to concur with the current Catholic concept of the bread and wine.

What then should we say about the history of the true church? Should we consider the possibility that it died and was later resurrected around the time of the Protestant Revolution about 1,300 years later? Or should we say it has always existed since the time Jesus walked the earth, although no writings of these early Christian have survived, apart from those penned by Clement?

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, Clement certainly does say the bread and wine are symbols. I suppose a Catholic might try to argue he believed they are both literally the body and blood and also have a symbolic significance. But he does not say, here that Jesus was speaking literally.

One of the early Christians I enjoy reading is Augustine--perhaps because he started out as a blatant sinner, as I did. In his Confessions, he writes, "Our souls, O Lord are restless till they find their rest in thee," which I myself find to be true. I think we might contrast this with the sermons of Augustine about 200 years after Clement:

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16, 30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body."
(Ser. 232)

and

"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." (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)
​

And as you already said, other Christians after AD 200 made similar statements appearing to concur with the current Catholic concept of the bread and wine.

What then should we say about the history of the true church? Should we consider the possibility that it died and was later resurrected around the time of the Protestant Revolution about 1,300 years later? Or should we say it has always existed since the time Jesus walked the earth, although not writings of these early Christian have survived, apart from those penned by Clement?

I have also read Augustine, and I've read some of his quotes which have lead me to believe he also saw the bread and fruit of the vine as symbolic. I'll try to locate them.

From all I have read of the church Fathers, everyone, both catholics, protestants and non denominational folks like me, seem to agree that Jesus is present during communion. What I'm not seeing is "transubstantiation," a change from bread and fruit of the vine to the body and blood of Jesus by a Roman Catholic priest. I do see leaders of churches praying over the elements, giving thanks for Jesus' sacrifice.

As for the true church, it has never ceased to exist as promised by Jesus.

Just because the Roman Catholic church had the power and control does not mean it was the true church.

There is but one standard of measure for the true church, and that is the word of God. The Roman Catholic church is far removed from the New Testament church we read about in the Bible.

 

[Spockrates]

I have also read Augustine, and I've read some of his quotes which have lead me to believe he also saw the bread and fruit of the vine as symbolic. I'll try to locate them.

From all I have read of the church Fathers, everyone, both catholics, protestants and non denominational folks like me, seem to agree that Jesus is present in the elements. What I'm not seeing is "transubstantiation," a change from bread and fruit of the vine to the body and blood of Jesus by a Roman Catholic priest. I do see leaders of churches praying over the elements, giving thanks for Jesus' sacrifice.

Yes, thanks. So you believe something like what Lutherans believe, which I think is called Consubstantiation? The bread and fruit if the vine does not become Jesus, but Jesus inhabits or indwells or is in the bread and fruit of the vine? Or do you have a different belief? Some beliefs compared:

Five views of the Eucharist

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, thanks. So you believe something like what Lutherans believe, which I think is called Consubstantiation? The bread and fruit if the vine does not become Jesus, but Jesus inhabits or indwells or is in the bread and fruit of the vine? Or do you have a different belief? Some beliefs compared:

Five views of the Eucharist

The link didn't work, but I read a similar one so it doesn't matter.

I tend to believe Jesus is present spiritually when we gather in His name. Whether He is in the elements or not, I honestly do not know. Nor do I think it matters how He is with us. I just know He is there communing with us as He promised.

I don't think I did a good job expressing myself in my last post. I edited it. I don't believe Jesus was saying the bread and fruit of the vine were literally His flesh and blood, but I do believe in His presence when we are communing.

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, thanks. So you believe something like what Lutherans believe, which I think is called Consubstantiation? The bread and fruit if the vine does not become Jesus, but Jesus inhabits or indwells or is in the bread and fruit of the vine? Or do you have a different belief? Some beliefs compared:

Five views of the Eucharist

Augustine:

“Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall put forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Augustine,Expositions on the Psalms, 99.8).

 

[Spockrates]

The link didn't work, but I read a similar one so it doesn't matter.

Hmm. The link if you want to type it into your web browser is:

Christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

I tend to believe Jesus is present spiritually when we gather in His name. Whether He is in the elements or not, I honestly do not know. Nor do I think it matters how He is with us. I just know He is there communing with us as He promised.

I don't think I did a good job expressing myself in my last post. I don't believe Jesus was saying the bread and fruit of the vine were literally His flesh and blood, but I do believe in His presence when we are communing.

I think you are doing just fine.

I also think what you are describing is different from what Augustine described. He said Jesus held his own body in his hands when he blessed it and gave it to his disciples to eat. As Clement's words clearly describe the bread as only a symbol, so Augustine's words clearly describe the bread as only the literal body of Christ. I think there is a difference between saying Christ is invisibly present in the same room with the bread (e.g., Calvin) and Christ is present inside the bread so that when we eat the bread we receive his grace (e.g., Luther) and the bread actually is Christ so that when we eat the bread we eat him (e.g., Augustine). Don't you agree?

But I'm confused. I thought you originally said the Christians writing after AD 200 did not agree with Clement. Now you seem to be saying they did agree with him. Did I misunderstand?

 

[Spockrates]

Augustine:

“Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall put forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Augustine,Expositions on the Psalms, 99.8).

"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." (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)​

Was Augustine contradicting himself in his exposition of the two Psalms? At first glance it seems so, but maybe after considering the context we might see he was not making such an error in logic.

 

[katiemygirl]

Hmm. The link if you want to type it into your web browser is:

Christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

I think you are doing just fine.

I also think what you are describing is different from what Augustine described. He said Jesus held his own body in his hands when he blessed it and gave it to his disciples to eat. As Clement's words clearly describe the bread as only a symbol, so Augustine's words clearly describe the bread as only the literal body of Christ. I think there is a difference between saying Christ is invisibly present in the same room with the bread (e.g., Calvin) and Christ is present inside the bread so that when we eat the bread we receive his grace (e.g., Luther) and the bread actually is Christ so that when we eat the bread we eat him (e.g., Augustine). Don't you agree?

But I'm confused. I thought you originally said the Christians writing after AD 200 did not agree with Clement. Now you seem to be saying they did agree with him. Did I misunderstand?

What I am saying is that I think the closer in time we are to the apostles , the better. The further we get, then we get more mens' teachings. You will probably find some after 200 AD who agree with the earlier views and some with the RC view. But prior to 200, they all seem to agree that it is symbolic.

I think we've beat this topic to death. Sorry but my head is swimming with this stuff. I'm ready to move to something else.

 

[Spockrates]

What I am saying is that I think the closer in time we are to the apostles , the better. The further we get, then we get more mens' teachings. You will probably find some after 200 AD who agree with the earlier views and some with the RC view. But prior to 200, they all seem to agree that it is symbolic.

I think we've beat this topic to death. Sorry but my head is swimming with this stuff. I'm ready to move to something else.

Oh, no problem! Thanks for thinking it through as long as you did. You're a real virtual friend! (Is that literal or figurative?)

May God richly bless.