# Transubstatiation supported by early church fathers?



## matthew11v25

I was listening to a message on the "Holy Eucharist" given by Tim Staples (Catholic apologist), inwhich he tries to use John 6 to support "real presence". One interesting comment he made at the end was that "real presence" IS SUPPORTED BY ALL the early church fathers, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, etc. He also gave qoutes.

Is this true? After studying the context of John 6, it seems impossible to me that John 6:53-54 has anything to do with communion... odd that the early church fathers may support it?

Any contrary qoutes would be helpful.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by matthew11v25]


----------



## The Lamb

Matthew:

I believe there is a difference between a Real Presence vs Transubstantiation. That is the root of the issue.


----------



## john_Mark

Matthew, 

Joseph is correct. The Roman Catholic apologists will take any language of the Real Presence and claim that it's Transubstatiation. I am sure DTK will answer with some great quotes if he sees this thread. If you want a great work on issues of this nature pick up the three volume set of Holy Scriptures by William Webster and David T. King.

Also, check out Jason Engwer's series http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> I was listening to a message on the "Holy Eucharist" given by Tim Staples (Catholic apologist), inwhich he tries to use John 6 to support "real presence". One interesting comment he made at the end was that "real presence" IS SUPPORTED BY ALL the early church fathers, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, etc. He also gave qoutes.
> 
> Is this true? After studying the context of John 6, it seems impossible to me that John 6:53-54 has anything to do with communion... odd that the early church fathers may support it?
> 
> Any contrary qoutes would be helpful.
> 
> [Edited on 3-31-2005 by matthew11v25]



Yes, there is definitely a difference between the two. You may want to look into Letham's "The Lords Supper", because argues for Christ's real presence from John 6. I just wish it was a longer book. It is very good.

openairboy


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> Yes, there is definitely a difference between the two. You may want to look into Letham's "The Lords Supper", because argues for Christ's real presence from John 6. I just wish it was a longer book. It is very good.
> 
> openairboy



I am wondering what John 6 actually has to do with the Lord's Supper? RCs try to use John 6 to support Transubstantiation but the chapter seems to have a whole other context. am I wrong on this?


----------



## The Lamb

Jesus affirmed the absolute necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood to have eternal life. He stressed that His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed. There is no question about the need of "œfeeding" on Him for eternal life; the only question is about the manner of doing so.

It is certainly not by eating Jesus´ body with the mouth and teeth as the Jews wrongly understood. Both Catholics and Protestants reject the revolting idea of cannibalism. Moreover, the Scriptures forbid drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:16,23; Acts 21:25), and certainly the Lord would not oppose the precepts of the Law.

How then may we eat and drink? Could Christ be referring to the Eucharist, and in particular to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? Is the body and blood of Christ received under the appearance of bread and wine? Though this explanation is almost natural to the Catholic mind, I simply want to point out that this idea is extraneous and foreign in this context. The discourse is not about the Eucharist as we shall prove; in fact the apostle John does not even include an account of the Lord´s Supper in his gospel record.

Moreover, "œreal food" and "œreal drink" do not refer to the Eucharistic elements. Jesus did not say, "œThe bread is real flesh and the wine is real blood" as many Catholics seem to misread His words. He speaks of Himself, His flesh and blood, as real food and drink.

Let us take a closer look at the context to discover the meaning of eating and drinking, and the sense in which Jesus is "œreal" food for our souls.

After Jesus had miraculously fed five thousand men, the Jews attempted to forcefully make Him king but He escaped to a solitary place. They continued seeking until they found Him the following day. Sadly, their motives were wrong. Knowing their heart, the Lord rebukes them: "œMost assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled" (6:26). They wanted to crown Him king to secure their physical well-being. They were ignorant of Jesus´ spiritual mission and that He came to give them something much better.

So Jesus told them to sort out their priorities: "œDo not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him" (6:27). They should have eagerly sought after eternal life rather than worry about their bodily needs. Moreover He presented Himself as the One who could give them that life. As evidence, Jesus appealed to God who had "œset His seal on Him" by the multitude of miracles He performed.

At this point the Jews asked Jesus what God wanted them to do. Jesus answered plainly that God wanted them to believe that He was the Messiah. "œThis is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (6:29). This is the key thought in John chapter six: Jesus is the Messiah sent by God from Heaven, and He came to give us eternal life.

Sadly, the Jews were unwilling to receive Him. They challenged Him, "œWhat sign will you perform then, that we may see and believe You?" (6:30). Their stomachs must have been still full of the miraculous bread He had fed them hours before, and yet they asked for a sign! Such is the hardness of the human heart. Their question makes two things clear: They understood that Jesus was demanding faith in Him; and secondly, they did not accept His claim to be the Messiah.

The Jews were still preoccupied about physical needs; they would not be persuaded unless Jesus provided them with food just as Moses gave their forefathers manna in the desert for a period of forty years. In His response, Jesus presents Himself as the fulfillment of the manna, "œMoses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father give you the true bread from heaven" (6:32). Jesus is the bread that is much better than manna or any physical food which can only sustain physical life for a short time. He gives eternal life. "œHe who comes to Me shall never hunger, and He who believes in Me shall never thirst...Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (6:35, 47). Jesus reminded them that those who ate manna eventually died; He promised that those who eat of the living bread of heaven would live forever. It is in this sense Jesus´ flesh is real food and His blood real drink. He is real food because He gives eternal life. "œThis is the bread which came down from heaven "“ not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will life forever" (6:58).

During the conversation, our Lord made it abundantly clear how a person could eat the heavenly bread and have eternal life. From the very beginning Jesus told the Jews that God required them to believe in Him as the God-sent Messiah (6:29). He repeatedly states that those who believe in Him have eternal life (6:35, 40, 47). Sadly, the Jews would not believe in Him. In the face of their obstinate unbelief, Jesus reaffirmed the same truths by graphic and emphatic language, speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood to have eternal life (6:53-58)

There is no reason why we should interpret eating and drinking in a different way from Jesus´ earlier explanation. We must participate in the merits of His bodily sacrifice and the blood shed on the cross by believing in Him. That is the only way we can feed and be satisfied with life eternal.

Finally, the Bible also tells us how the apostles understood Jesus´ words. When Jesus asked the apostles whether they wanted to leave Him too, the apostle Peter answered on behalf of the group: "œLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God" (6:68). They had no thought about the Eucharist, much less that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. They had understood well what Jesus meant all the way. He was claiming to be the Messiah; and they confessed their faith in Him. They ate and drank by believing, and Christ gave them eternal life.

Did you eat Jesus´ flesh? Did you drink His blood? Did you feed on Him? In other words, do you genuinely believe in Jesus, the Divine Messiah? If so, you possess eternal life; if not, you´re still dead in your sins and unbelief.


taken from Just for Catholics.


----------



## DTK

Of course, Augustine said many things in his _Tractates_ dealing with John 6. One of my favorites is the following...

*Augustine (354-430):* "œThey said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" For He had said to them, "œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life." "œWhat shall we do?" they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? "œJesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent." This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. *To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 25, Â§12.

DTK


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> Of course, Augustine said many things in his _Tractates_ dealing with John 6. One of my favorites is the following...
> 
> *Augustine (354-430):* "œThey said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" For He had said to them, "œLabor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life." "œWhat shall we do?" they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? "œJesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent." This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. *To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 25, Â§12.
> 
> DTK



Good ole Gus. An amazing man. Both teams claim him!!!!!!!!!


Once you get past his Platonic influence, he did well for the time...


----------



## DTK

Yes, both sides claim him. He goes on to make some more interesting comments in his _Tractates_...

*Augustine (354-430):* In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. "œHe that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." *This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.* Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doubtless neither eateth His flesh [spiritually] nor drinketh His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather doth he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man taketh worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, "œBlessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 26, John 6:41-59, Â§18.

*Augustine (354-430):* Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. *Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11, Â§4.

And elsewhere...

*Augustine (354-430):* It seemed unto them hard that He said, "œExcept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:" they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, "œThis is a hard saying." It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, "œIt is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." *Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.* _NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms_, Psalm 99 (98), Â§8.

But the most interesting quote to me as far as it concerns the contention of Roman Catholics is the denial of Pope Gelasius I of the concept of transubstantiation...

*Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496):* Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (_Tractatus de duabus naturis_ 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
*Latin text:* Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, _Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium_ 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

*Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.:* According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., "œThe Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View" in _Studia Patristica_, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

And speaking of Theodoret as Kilmartin did...

*Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):* Orth. "” You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. *For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form;* they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. _NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II."”The Unconfounded_. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.

DTK


----------



## openairboy

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> 
> I am wondering what John 6 actually has to do with the Lord's Supper? RCs try to use John 6 to support Transubstantiation but the chapter seems to have a whole other context. am I wrong on this?



Matthew,

I believe that much of John's Gospel makes sense after the fact (the death, buriel and resurrection of Jesus). So, we read things in John's Gospel in a certain light, because of our context (post-resurrection) and see how much of what Jesus was saying related to his death, buriel, resurrection, Pentecost, etc., that I think the original audience would've missed. But I believe we miss other things (eucharistic undertones in John 6) due to our context (namely a Catholic apologetic or anti-sacrmental approach) that an original post-resurrection audience would've heard.

I see things like v. 4 and 32 as having eucharistic and passover under/overtones, which I see more clearly in light of the Lord's Supper.

So, the immediate context may not seem to be about the Lord's Supper, but in light of John's Gospel and historical development I believe it fits well. This would include baptism in John 3, etc.

If that makes sense,

openairboy

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by openairboy]


----------

