For my flesh is food indeed

[Robert]

[Kolbitar]

Hey Robert. Good to hear from you as well...

::I just can not see how the apostles would have assumed that the bread 'was' His Body anymore than they could have assumed that John the Baptist 'was' Elijah or that Jesus Himself 'was a' well of water from which the thirsty would always be satisfied.

Well, Jesus said "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," so they probably understood him the same way the early Church Fathers did:


ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
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... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
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 [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has 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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...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)

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
...He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...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 to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup 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...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

::I certainly did not mean to imply that Jesus had two separate bodies, but rather, two modes of His body, that could be referred to as 'this' body or 'that' body without meaning body a.) and body b). Since His body changed in function I simply adopted the most appropriate and coherent definitional structure of language that would reflect the fact that His body 'now' is not as it was 2000 years ago. However, since i am a four dimensionalist as concerns ontology (the fact that everything has temporal parts and these parts are expressed in time, not merely existing in time or in the present) I would say that Jesus' body in terms of its fleshliness is not of the nature that it can be ingested by those whose bodies are not present at the time of His life. This is not to say that His body is not present to all, but rather, that the features of His body that can be manipulated by its environment are not conditions that we have access to in our current state of existence.

But this just seems arbitrary to me. If Christ is going to bodily return at the Second Coming, which we all believe, then why can't he bodily return in the sacrament of the Eucharist?

Perhaps I'm overlooking some subtle point you've made. I'm going to link a good article (if you have time to read it, it's not real long) which will hopefully answer anything I've missed...

http://www.cts.org.au/2001/universitas1 ... ndwine.htm

Thanks,

Jesse

[hana]

[Inariae]

[Pizza Man]

[Pizza Man]

Here is a like to a transcript of the "Fourth Cup" talk by Scott Hahn. It is very good.

[Tony]

[JRosemary]

[Kolbitar]

Hello.

::That idea might have some merit--Paul was rather more Hellenized than the Galilean boys who followed Jesus. Maybe Paul was better prepared to receive a vision of Communion and work with it. But even that answer doesn't satisfy me. When you come right down to it, Paul was a nice Jewish boy too--however Hellenized he may have been. He was even a Pharisee. This whole body and blood thing must have been hard on him as well.

Well, remember it was Jesus who said it. Now if Christ says I must eat his flesh and drink his blood, then later on hands me what appears to be bread and wine, then I'm going to think he has something else in mind other than what my revulsion naturally expects. That, indeed, is what happened, but only at a later point. Until that "later point", all of the apostles--with the exception of Judas, which I've read can be gleaned from the Scripture accounts--responded to Jesus in simple faith, "to whom else will we turn, for you have the words of life". The desperation for a savior together with an intimate knowledge of the person of Jesus produced a simple faith which led to a validated trust...

Jesse

[Pizza Man]

[Pete]

[JRosemary]

[robsia]

[Kolbitar]

::The Catholic position is, that it IS meat and blood, while retaining all the physical appearance and attributes of grain and grape-based substances.
Heck, how can you argue with such blind faith?

It's not blind faith, it's personal faith: Christ said it, I believe him -- if you want to call him a liar, well, that's your loss.

Perhaps by blind faith you mean it's not logical faith, or perhaps you mean it's not rational faith (which would explain why you write something so irrelevant as "[s]eriously, can you take the communion wine and make black pudding out of it? If not, it ain't blood"): you can be right on neither account.

I've heard that Einstein was fascinated by the idea of transubstantiation and I understand why. Do you? Judging from our past conversations no, you don't, for how would that be possible when you've consistently insulated yourself from any real understanding of similar concepts by simply dismissing philosophy out of hand. Yet you persist in making statements that require a (rather basic) philosophical understanding not to make. But really, what good would it do for me to point out why your statement is philosophically irrelevant when I'd be appealing to subject matter to which you'll conveniently close your ears and shrink from -- without retracting your irrelevant statement as you go?

[robsia]