Was the doctrine of the
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which was eventually defined by the
Catholic Church as transubstantiation, always taught by the Church?
Greetings,
Moses.
I’m not sure what is accomplished by
quoting the opinions of protestant theologians, but I’ll attempt to address the
points raised.
Kelly
settles the issue from the start:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood
at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated
bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood. Among theologians, however, this
identity was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and
these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic,
were often allowed to overlap.”
He tells us Eucharistic
teaching was from the start unquestionably realist. He then says that later theologians(protestant) developed other interpretations. I agree.
He then goes on to quote Tertullian. Tertullian was a heretic who embraced Montanism, by the way, and is not necessarily
representative of the Church. The
Catholic interpretation of the quote in question would be that Christ
re-presents his own proper body in the sacrament. Tertullian, heretic though he may have been,
seems to acknowledge this interpretation here:
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all
procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it
that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the
soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is
the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed,
is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh
is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also
may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of
Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The
Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Philip Schaff claims that we find both the literal and spiritual
view of the Eucharist among the early fathers, but he uses Augustine as a
witness to the spiritual view. This is
just not accurate.
"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend his body and blood, which he poured out for us unto the forgiveness is sins." (Sermons 227)
"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." (Sermons 234:2)
"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[wine] the blood of Christ." (Sermons 272)
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands, when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body.’ For he carried that body in his own hands." (Psalms 33:1:10)
I will concede that the quote from Pope Gelasius does diverge from the doctrine of transubstantiation. However, he was not stating Church doctrine. More importantly, his quote is remarkable only for its uniqueness in the early Church. The Council of Trent was attempting to formalize and define the understanding of the Eucharist in order to combat the heretical teachings of the Reformation. They used all of the writings of the early fathers to clearly express this doctrine. The goal was not to create new doctrine, but to solidify the truth of the Church regarding the Eucharist.
Regarding John’s use of the phrase, ‘the Passover was near,’ I think the obvious question is: Why did he write this? What was the purpose of this inspiration if not to help clarify the following passage? You write that the nearing of the Passover did not take place in the year of the crucifixion. I don’t see this as relevant. John wrote the passage well after Jesus had died and risen, and the sacrament of the Eucharist was common and frequent.
The sacrificial
quality of John 6 is difficult to dispute.
“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world." And it is repeated here at the institution of
the Eucharist: ‘This is my body which is given for you; do this in
remembrance of me’.
I will concede that there is no way of
knowing whether the Jews understood this sacrifice in reference to the
Passover, but I think it is clear that John wanted his readers to make that
connection. We do know that the Jews
found the words of Jesus troublesome:
Here’s an analysis of the Greek words
used, which is crucial.(Hi-lights are irrelevant but I
couldn’t figure out how to remove them)
The Jews
wanted to understand Christ but it was proving difficult. After all, what
could eating flesh possibly refer to? Christ thus far in the
discussion was using the word “esthio” [to eat]. It is possible to
take this word metaphorically. No doubt those still hanging in there with
Christ were clinging to such a possibility. Thayers
New Testament Greek-English Lexicon (Protestant) lists the various senses of
the word esthio:
·
To eat
·
To consume (to take food, eat a meal)
·
Metaphor to devour or consume
At this
point the crowd has asked, “How can this man give us flesh to eat?”
In answering the question Christ escalates the crisis by switching the word for
eating, from “esthio” to the word “trogo”, leaving no room for metaphors. Thayers New Testament Greek-English Lexicon3
(Protestant) lists the various senses of the word trogo:
·
To gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits
·
To eat
John 6:54 “He who [trogo: gnaws] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
him up on the last day.”
John 6:56 “He who [trogo: gnaws] my flesh
and drinks my
blood abides in me, and I in him.”
John 6:57 “As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so he who [trogo: gnaws] me,
he also shall live because of me.”
John 6:58 “This is the bread which came down out of
heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who [trogo:
gnaws] this bread shall live forever.”
By
escalating the language, Christ made his point. The debate ended and a
consensus formed; leave. Either Christ gave the worst sermon in the
history of Christendom, nearly insisting the people misunderstand him (couldn’t
he read the crowd?) or Christ gave a sermon that demanded a radically altered
paradigm of how God would commune with Man in the Gospel Age. Protestants
claim the crowds missed the symbolism. Catholics claim the people
rejected the radicalness4 of
Christ, wanting him only on their terms.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:XZP5ep7ou14J:www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/EucharistNscriptureIIb.doc+Eucharist+john+6+gnaw+eat+my+flesh&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
Finally, as to your belief that Jesus did not want to be understood, I think that’s just Calvinistic bias tainting your thinking. Why bother with the incarnation at all? Why bother teaching if God had already done the choosing? We learn that disbelief is based in sin, including pride and a love for the things of the world. Jesus is merely pointing out that there is an impediment to their belief, not that this is what he desires. We know that God wants all men to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Jesus makes this point clearly here:
Matt 19
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be
perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22When the young man heard this, he
went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Then Jesus said to his disciples,
"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven. 24Again I
tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter the
If it is up to
God to choose us, regardless of our desires and lifestyle, why would it be more
difficult for a rich man to get to heaven?
It is important to realize that Jesus is sometimes speaking exclusively of disciples, not all believers. I agree that the disciples were chosen by God.
I apologize for the diversion, but you started it!
Closing for now.
Best Regards,
Kyle