Knife

Below is a reply from a Roman Catholic friend. I asked her about the eucharist and this is what she replied:

1)It is biblical: in John 6:30-67, Jesus tells his followers four times that they will not have eternal life unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood. Many of the listeners are disgusted, ask how it is possible to eat his flesh and blood, and end up leaving Jesus since they are unable to accept what Jesus is saying. Is there any doubt as to what they think Jesus means? Instead of calling after them, telling them he was only speaking symbolically and not literally - Jesus lets them leave, then turns to his apostles and asks quite bluntly if they are going to leave him too. But they choose to stay, despite the challenge of this new teaching. A year later, imagine understanding dawning upon them at the Last Supper, when Jesus says 'This is my Body; this is my Blood'(Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20)

2)The earliest Christians also understood Jesus' teaching on this point to be literal: Paul writes in 1Cor 11:26-30 that anyone who eats the bread or drinks from the cup, without discerning the Lord's body and blood, eat and drink unworthily, even to damnation. This was written around 56 AD. In 110 AD, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of the apostle John) wrote concerning heretics, that "They abstain from the Eucharist (communion)...because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...". In 150 AD Justin Martyr wrote to the emperor of Rome, defending Christians, "We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true...the food which has been made into the Eucharist...is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." In 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem said in a lecture, "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 thought the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm."

This is just a small sample showing that the earliest Christians believed and taught the same as the Catholic Church regarding the interpretation of Jesus' words about his body and blood. There are many more, and it shows that, among those who wrote or spoke on the subject, they were all unanimous in this interpretation. It wasn't until a thousand years after Christ came that someone disputed the interpretation that had been held for so long, and his name is Berengarius of Tours, who died in 1088 AD.

I already replied to her that it is nice that she can refer to people who believe that the bread and wine turn into Jesus' flesh and blood due to priestly incantation, but it doesnt and we all can see that it doesnt.

I would like to critique her historical assumption that it was unanimous to early christians that they were actually eating his flesh and blood. Are there any early christian writings that contradict this assumption? Any help through links or books would be greatly appreciated.

Fudokan

Hi,

You might want to try John Scotus Eriugena from around 847AD. I know his thoughts were condemned (his doctrines of predestination and of the Eucharist) at the Councils of Valencia (855 AD).

From the fragment of his which is extant from his commentary on St. John it is infered that he held the Eucharist to be merely a type or figure (?). He insists on the spiritual, to the exclusion, of the physical, "eating of the Flesh of the Son of Man".

Not sure you'll get much more unless you read up on Gnostics, Nestorus, and I think Marcus the Egyptian.

RUmike

It still amazes me that any thinking person can read the synoptics, read GJohn, and then actually believe that Jesus said all the things in the latter. In the synoptics, Jesus teaches that there can be no mediator between God and his children -- not even Jesus himself. That's enough evidence for me that the earliest Christians did not believe eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus (either symbollicaly or literally) was necessary to gain eternal life.

judge

You could also point out that even in Jesus lifetime on many occaisions even his own disciples misunderstood him.
So why would we think that men 100 years later would necessarily get it right?

NOGO

Why do you assume that the synoptics have it right?

Can you show me where Jesus teaches this?

Knife

Well I guess I have some reading to do. Thanks for the replies. If anybody thinks of anything else, please let me know.

Julian

Christians do seem to have had some sort of communal meal. The earliest reference in Paul is almost certainly an interpolation, IMHO. We see from the Didache that the eucharist does not conform to the later interpretation. Also, part of the eucharist in Luke is a later interpolation.

I suspect that an early ritual communal meal was eventually changed into the more modern eucharist since an evolution of the practice can be discerned.

Julian

Knife

Julian,

Do you happen to know where in the didache?

Amaleq13

Kirby provides several translation at his website, Early Christian Writings.

From the Roberts-Donaldson translation:

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

NOGO

Why is this different than Paul and the gospels?

Why is the Eucharist holy?
I would think ... because it is the body and blood of Christ.

What may have changed is the interpretation of how the body and blood of Christ is manifested in the community.

I would be very interested in various opinions on this subject.