Good blog Ali. I thought about this here verse when I read it. On a side note, I think the coolest Catholic belief is the one about Tobit and the bird poo. I got a friend who is Catholic and he told me about that a while back. I hain't got over it yet.

Hey, you're supposed to be getting ready for a trip and you're talking about theology! Actually, I know the feeling quite well. :-)

If I might add just a little bit: this page collects a number of church fathers' quotes on the issue, including the Justin Martyr quote, if people want more info from that angle.

Jesus doesn't have a physical body anymore?? Consider Luke 24:36-43. I know that in 1 Corinthians 15 there is a contrast between "natural" and "spiritual" (v. 44). But, "spiritual" here does not imply "not physical."

This is probably not the place to get into much of a debate, though (especially if ali won't be around). But, I think it's worth noting that debates about the Lord's Supper often come down to Christology---as is clear from Mike's question/objection.

Oh and yeah, Tobit and the bird poop...and don't forget the fish's guts...(the girly side in me is going eeeewww) and then the coolest one (this is not an "only catholic" thing) ...

talking donkeys!!

Numbers 22:28 "But now the LORD opened the mouth of the ass"

I'm not sure that there is a single thing that could be called "Protestant theology." There are many points of agreement among Protestants who hold to the "classic" confessions of faith (e.g., the Westminster Confession for Presbyterians, the 39 Articles for Anglicans, the Book of Concord for Lutherans, etc.), and all of these groups would agree (on paper, anyway) with the Romans Catholics' affirmation that Jesus has a "glorified, risen physical body." But, especially nowadays, there are a lot of different theologies (and groups) that tend to be grouped into the category "Protestant." Are non-denominational churches Protestant? Are "Emergent" churches Protestant? I don't know exactly what criteria people use to make these assessments. But, I think that I'm starting to get beyond what should be the scope of this particular discussion.

As for physical things not being tied to space/time (at least in the way we tend to think of it), the miracle of the loaves and fishes that is at the beginning of John 6 demonstrates this property as well, I think. How can just a few loaves and fishes feed a large crowd with plenty of leftovers left over? I take this sign as yet further proof that Jesus indeed gives His true body and blood for us to eat and to drink.

so...why did Jesus institute this "sacrament" before He died?

If I may try...

The Lord's Supper was established by Jesus during His celebration of the Passover with His disciples, and it's clear from both this meal and the crucifixion that occurs later on that same day (remember that they counted their days from sundown to sundown) that Jesus is being declared "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)---the one who perfectly fulfills the Old Testament's laws and promises. If Jesus instituted communion after His resurrection, there would not be the same connection with the Passover.

If there is a lesson to be learned from how He gave His body and blood during the Supper a few hours before He gave His body and blood on the Cross, perhaps it is that His death is "once for all people, once for all time." From Adam and Eve to the last baby born on the Last Day, salvation is through Jesus' death.

I like Ali's point about "the breaking of the bread." This certainly does have Eucharistic overtones. Note how it says that from the Day of Pentecost the Church was devoted to "the breaking of bread." (Acts 2:42)

Thanks Jam! that's a great answer!! :)

Thanks for the question Zach! surely it was in a council, just like the decision that circumcision was not necessary to be a Christian was decided upon on the council of Jerusalem. I'll look it up and let you know :)

I couldn’t find any writing from a Church Father that explicitly denied the Real Prescence... I say “explicitly” because it is really hard to know what someone who wrote something thousands of years ago implied without the proper study. So I just take what they “explicitly” said.

So I cannot find any explicit denials, but I found plently of quotes of explicit belief in the Real Prescence, from St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, etc, etc. So, as far as I am aware the dogma of the Real Presence remained unmolested for a long long time. So there was no need for a council until there were controversies on the ninth century.

There arose in general two great Eucharistic controversies before the Reformation. The first of which, begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself solely with the philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He had in Palestine and now has in heaven.

The second controversy was headed by Berengarius of Tours who rejected Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod.

Now, the Church doesn’t declare a dogma to be a dogma until someone opposes it. So after a bunch of study, in the Fourth Lateran Council IN 1215 the Church clearly explained the doctrine of the Transubstantiation…. This does not mean the Church hadn’t said anything about it previously. This was just the final “ok, enough of theological wondering” decree.

Obviously the word Transubstantiation is not found in the Bible or in the writing of the Church Fathers, just as the word “Trinity” or “hypostatic unity” ain’t there either… The belief existed, the term was developed later…

So yep…

Gasp! That was kind of dry Church History! Gotta go get a glass of water.

Thanks for the question Zach!

Origen:

"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

 

Cyprian of Carthage:
"There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she   was keeping Our Lord's holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to   touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in   receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord's   sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this   one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him,   and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled   and the saving grace is turned to ashes.",   -"The Lapsed" Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,  

yeah...mmm...I'll look it up in more depth...

sorry I can't give a more indepth answer. I ain't no theologian, just a catholic kid :)

Some might wonder why some of the early Christians called the bread and wine "symbols" or "figures" of Christ's body and blood. Some modern readers have used this in support of their view that communion is simply a memorial meal, a mental recalling of Jesus' death. However, context is important here. In the ancient world (thanks in part to Platonism) a symbol was seen as deeply and intricately connected to the reality that it symbolized. The Greek word for symbol literally means "thrown together," signifying the overlapping of a symbol with the universal reality it symbolized. Thus, in calling the bread and wine symbols (or in Latin, "figures"), the Church Fathers believed in the true sacramental presence of Christ in the bread and wine, as opposed to a simple mental recalling. In our society, thanks to Nominalism and the Enlightenment, we say, "that's just a symbol" implying a disconnectedness between symbol and reality. Such was not the ancient mindset.