Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist


Certainly the Aristotelian description formed by Aquinas I think would differ. It also differs significantly from the Eastern Church, which was never contaminated by Aristotelian philosophy. That being said, they did all believe in the Real Presence, under different terms and descriptions.

This is a reference to the Apostolic Succession. The valid Eucharist was considered that which was united with the Bishop. The celebration of the Holy Mysteries by those who were not in unity with the Bishop was considered to be invalid.

No, but I do not use those as theological sources who do not share the One Faith.

The risk is, if you use their writings to defend a position, and they depart from the One Faith, then eventually you will get caught up in their departures. Tertullian is a good example. He wafts in and out of orthodoxy!


Yes! Augustine saw the two realities of Christ’s body and blood. The figurative, and the literal.

I believe Catholic Teaching recognizes that we can eat the Sacrament, and deny the figurative “bread of God”. This is eating unworthy. This is sacrilegious. This is profaning Jesus. This is enraging the Grace of God.


jcrichton, thank you.

Maran atha!


To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? This is asking why is it that we must eat and digest this Bread? The next statement " Believe, and you have eaten already." isn’t to say that one can gain eternal life through the sacrament by believing without eating but before one can gain eternal life by eating one must believe that Jesus is the bread and it is what He say’s it is. A little further down he say’s this.

Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. Galatians 5:6 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent; so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because **He invited them to faith, they, on the other hand, were still asking for signs by which they might believe


I hope everyone takes the time to read and consider what is presented in your link above.


I think “all” is the important word here. I appreciated this a lot. There is so much variety of thought among the orthodox Christians of the early centuries on this issue. Whenever somebody presents the fact that EVERYBODY has always believed one precise way on such an issue like this (and others), it is just so frustrating. Clearly the evidence does not point that way. Why would the fact that some early Christians believed and taught differently be such a big deal? Why is there so much effort to explain away the obvious and take things out of context in order to make claims that these early Christians taught something that they didn’t? It is baffling to me.


It is for me an argument based on false premise. For example he writes;

Isn’t this evidence for the Transubstantiation view? Remember that Ignatius is talking about the attractions of heaven. He is longing for something he does not have in this life, which clearly doesn’t apply to the Eucharist.

The false premise is that St Ignatius is longing for something he doesn’t have in this life. That Ignatius doesn’t understand that the Sacrament on earth is one and the same Jesus who is in heaven. It’s this kind of ‘either or’ thinking instead of ‘both and’ kind of thinking that distinguishes most false premises of theological sources that are not of the One Faith.


I didn’t see him mention apostolic succession. Is this really what you think he was writing about!?
So you think that Augustine believed that all Christians receiving Communion at a church with “apostolic succession” have Christ dwelling in them - and all Christians receiving Communion at a church without “apostolic succession” don’t have Christ dwelling in them? Is that what you believe? Or do you disagree with Augustine?


To St Augustine there were no ‘Church’s’ without Apostolic Succession. That’s what ‘all Christians’ means in St Augustine’s mind. After all his authority to teach came from the Apostolic Tradition. He believed that Baptism was the only means to guarantee that Christ was dwelling in anyone. When he say’s 'all Christians do you believe he meant people of some other faith that he didn’t believe was of Christ?


I believe there is figurative meaning and metaphor in Holy Communion. I dont think Catholic Teaching opposes this. Transubstantiation means that the symbols become what they signify, and do not merely remain bread and wine.

The “symbolism” practice falls short of explaining what Communion means, and its depth.

I hear, for the most part, that symbolism has a general meaning of the unity of all who give thanks for Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary.

But even the symbolism of eating means receiving something, which symbolists then claim is receiving the Word of God.

So there seems to be a double standard. That Jesus meant Communion to symbolize receiving His Word, but also ONLY the simple thanks for His physical sacrifice. If it means receiving the Word of God, then its more than the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and His whole Teaching. So if its the latter, then why are there oppositional teachings received and taught to the faithful.

Catholic Teaching (transubstantiation) recognizes that the Word became flesh and that very incarnation is present in synchronicity to be received by both an act of physically eating, and spiritually eating everything we believe to be the Teaching of God through His Son.


Thanks for responding…am encouraged…I recall one historian i admire, and he point blank states that yes, some fathers did seem to believe in literal understanding of eating , even of His flesh, but also states that others did not, and that there were 3 or 4 views expressed…so though not all conforming they still were all in unity in communion…and to your point , “unanimous consent of the fathers” on scriptural interpretations, I think a Trent term, is questionable, even lacking (though the defense to this is that unanimous does not necessarily mean “all”…?)


Possible, yet his other points remain…he clearly lists Ignatius in the transubstantiation column.

yet , not sure he has a false premise in said text. Clearly , Ignatius is yearning for that which he has tasted here on earth, has experience in, but certainly alludes to even a deeper or more permanent satisfaction of being one with the Lord in heaven…and it can be said that what we have here , in communion terms, certainly signify something we can have in heaven (Christ, without need for doing it thru symbols)…lol yet I see your point , he is using eucharistic/communion language, but disagree with you that you think Ignatius is saying Christ in Eucharist here , is equal to Christ ,face to face in heaven , forever.


First, thank you for your thoughts.

The word simple is problematic, but understand you to mean ''singular" or at least not as layered as trans. But I would disagree that we are thankful for the physical , which we are , but it was Jesus, God and man , that suffered on Calvary, much more than bodily suffering. i mean spiritually can you imagine a soul mate not just turning away from your face, but from what your very essence, your soul has taken on (sin)?..The Father “turned away” from His Son!

Not sure we separate His Word, His action from “Him” in the communion, yet do not see the need to go further than the spiritual and believe in eating His flesh and drinking His literal blood.

Have not heard this, though Martyr mentions it (that we do not do it), but pagans have believed in eating the flesh and drinking the blood offered to gods, or of animals, or of humans , to gain their essence (whether it be their bravery or other aspired quality), or apsire to a oneness etc…

So yes it could be a natural human (carnal) inclination, or indeed, anything true can be copycatted by Satan…so my point proves nothing, just food for thought.


I’m interpreting Ignatius’ words in the light of a Catholic experience of spiritual growth the end of which is complete detachment from the world. With that in view what Ignatius is saying that the only thing left in the world for him is the Eucharist. Please oblige me the analysis of the text below.

For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father.

As observed, this is Ignatius expressing his sense that his life on earth is complete and that earthly life has no more to offer. That being his condition, his longing for heaven is a response to a call from heaven, Come to the Father.

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely his blood, which is the incorruptible love and eternal life.

He takes no delight in corruptible food, nor the pleasures of this life. He returns to the subject of earthly attachments to contrast them with incorruptible food which is the Bread of life the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of God. He contrasts the things on earth that he no longer has delight in with the precise theological language that defines the Eucharist.

The author’s false premise is in thinking that Ignatius is longing for a physical presence that only exists in heaven. He has no basis for that since what Ignatius describes is the incorruptible food that The Church offers on earth. If he only meant union with Christ in heaven which he describes as " the incorruptible love and eternal life" there is no reason for him to include the language that defines the Eucharist to express his longing. Ignatius is on his way to Martyrdom. With the Catholic view of the Eucharist in in mind, what Ignatius is longing for is not just eating the bread with his mouth, but by sacrificing his own body( drinking the blood of God) he is uniting to Christ as a Eucharistic offering with Christ for the Church.


mcq72, I hope to be able to dialogue in the mature Christian way you do. Being that you are, to me as a Catholic representing a protestant view makes your example that much more powerful. Thank you for exemplifying that for me.

As for the Divine Nature taking precedence over the human nature of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross I disagree. Jesus was never turned away from by the Father. His essence being consubstantial with the Father couldn’t experience a division that turning away from sin implies. Catholics don’t believe that the Son ever became sin to the Father. That is a protestant view. The Catholic view is that Christ suffered the consequences of sin at the hands of men and was never looked upon as sin by the Father. The abandonment was a reaction to the human experience of loss that comes with death . This is an entirely human experience of separation from God. Which is the condition of a disembodied soul before Jesus entered that state.

My point is that the entire mission of Christ depends on His physicality. The suffering of Christ was experienced in His human nature and it is that reason He became man. To suffer physically. I think if one subordinates the physical reality to the Spiritual reality in regards of Christ’s work is to reduce everything about Jesus as a Person.


I have heard this concept that somehow the Father abandoned the Son on the cross. I think it is rooted in a lack of understanding of the divine perichoresis, and contamination from the heresies of Calvin with regard to “substitutionary atonement”.


Would you expand on these thoughts for me?


The first communion happened at the Last Supper which Jesus calls us all to participate in so yes God is calling us to commune (dine) with Him. But people have free will to accept that offer or not and that doesn’t mean they aren’t being called. Read about the Kings banquet.


The Word became flesh!

This is the essense of Transubstantiation.

It acknowledges the fact that the Word of God, which is figuratively called the Bread of God, became a human and shared our human nature, taking on our flesh and blood.

The bread we bring forth to be used for Communion is not only figuratively the Word of God, but the work of men in creation, and the Gifts of God for our nutrition and joyful celebration.

At the words of the consecration, the Holy Spirit manifests the Son of God in these offerings.

Just as today’s readings about Thomas, we learn how Jesus showed His physical body to Thomas for evidence of His true resurrection. Jesus entered the room, physically THROUGH locked doors!!!

All of you demanding evidence for Jesus’ flesh and blood truly in our Eucharist should try to tell us how Jesus manifested Himself in a locked room!

Its this very same mystical manner in which Jesus manifests Himself, undetected by our senses, in the Eucharist.

But in this case, it is not revealed to our senses, because Jesus is not returning to usher the end of time, but to sustain our faith and relationship with Him as individuals united to both Himself, and one another!

And so, just as the nature of God in Jesus was unseen by the senses, so the nature of Jesus is unseen in the Eucharist by our senses.


In the early church Paul addressed those in Corinth as some were using the communion as feasting ( I guess they had a full meal ) and some were getting drunk on the wine. Sounds like the poor were let into the banquet hall after most of the food was consumed. If a priest was there to make a valid Eucharist by saying the Words of Consecration one wonders why there was so much mayhem. Jesus instituted a simple act of Remembrance. Man sure has complicated it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit