Comments for Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 43 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sun, 19 May 2013 23:28:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-14139 Hi Dr. Beckwith and other Catholic friends. Granting the truth of the Catholic interpretation of the Presence, what benefit does this presence give? That's always been my biggest question. I've often wondered if the constituent ontology vs. relational ontology style distinction discussed by Wolterstorff might do any work in helping me get clearer on what Thomas might mean. But at the end of the day I think that even if I resolve the "possibility" of transubstantiation, or even the likelihood of it, I'm still unclear about its transformative or spiritual impact. - Shaun Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:54:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-10750 The ongoing argument from a Protestant perspective that I am seeing is that of symbolism. To say that the concept of Transubstantiation is nothing more than a regression to a symbolic nature is, contrary to Lohjaw's belief, contradictory to scripture. A fundamental flaw in this reasoning is that the word "spirit" is never used in the Bible to mean symbolic. John 4:24 says "God is spirit …". Using this definition for the word "spirit" would force that same Protestant to conclude that God does not really exist, but rather is only symbolic of something else. In other words, a person’s criteria for determining what Sacred Scripture means is: "The Bible can only mean that which is valid according to my own understanding", that person is very easy prey for Satan. Consider 1 Peter 5:8, 2 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:16. According to the above Protestant argument, Jesus' words "the flesh is of no avail" means that we do not have to eat His Flesh, and again the meaning is of symbolic nature. This argument however would make nonsense out of Jesus’ words. 'You must eat my flesh to have eternal life, but it is just a waste of time ???'. He just said that we had to eat His Flesh in John 6:50-51. When the Jews ask how this can be, Jesus repeats his command to eat His Flesh not once or twice but three more times in verses 53, 54, and 56. And to further emphasize His point, He says in John 6:55 "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." This is where Jesus wants his words to be taken directly as truth, and NOT to interpret it in order to validate the limites of one's own understanding; i.e. stating that the 'bread' is food indeed and that it is only symbolic of His flesh. In verse 60, the Jews say that it is hard to accept. (The Greek word used here is "skleros" which means "hard to accept" not "hard to understand".) After this, Jesus says in John 6:63-64 "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe". Note that Jesus is referring to "the flesh" as opposed to "my flesh" that He had spoken of earlier. The words "the flesh" in this context means that which is of purely human origin without the aid of God’s grace. See Galatians 5: 16-22, Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 2:9 - 3:3. The Pharisees were trying to evaluate Jesus' words by their own fleshly and natural judgment. They were thinking without faith and by their own fallen human nature with all of its pride, selfish desires and tendencies toward sin. That is why Jesus says that we can only come to have faith in Him and accept His words by God’s grace, John 6:65. Further, the contention offered by some Protestants that Jesus was refuting the literal meaning of His words runs into serious theological contradictions. Jesus said: John 6:63-64 "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe". If Jesus had been intending that we understand Him to be referring to His own flesh in the phrase, "the flesh is of no avail" this would contradict several other Scriptural passages. John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth." Ephesians 2:13-16 "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have become near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, 15 abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it." Colossians 1:21-22 "And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him ..." Therefore, Jesus was not referring to His own flesh in John 6:63, but rather He was explaining why the worldly thinking of the Pharisee’s prevented them from believing in the truth that He had just said. John 6:60-65 "Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’ 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, ‘Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.’ Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.’" Only by God’s grace can we believe in what Jesus said because it goes beyond our common human understanding of things (which we now refer to as transubstantiation). Jesus’s words have spirit and life (John 6:63). What did He tell us to do? To eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. We thereby receive the Holy Spirit who has transformed the bread and wine into the Body, and Blood, the Soul and the Divinity of Jesus Christ and who gives us everlasting life. May the glory of God's grace, love and mystery find you all. Through thoughtful reflection and prayer, I hope you find the answers you are looking for and that you will find the Truth that is Jesus Christ our Lord in all His entirety. God Bless, Christian - Christian Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:20:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-6225 Dear Lojhaw, You are not different from many non-catholics, who hold tenaciously to their personal interpretations of the Bible. Your comments here expose you as having fallen into the same error as those who extend Biblical passages beyond their limits. I will refer you to Jn 6:53-62. Here Jesus was emphatic about eating the body of the Son of man and drinking his blood without which there is no eternal life. Even when Jesus's disciples complained that "this is very hard to understand. Who can tell what he means"(v.60), Jesus rhetorically asked them, "does this offend you?"(v.61). He did not offer any appologies neither did he tell them he was speaking in parables. Rather he went on to reinforce his acertion. Of course the meaning of what he meant here became obvious during the last super, when he said(Mtt 26:26-27) "take it and eat it for this is my body, ... each one drink from it, for this is my blood". The real presence is a reality. Believe it and have eternal life. - Uche Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:05:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-6212 it seems to me that the commentor called phantom menace from feb 23 has it right. just because your people in history had it wrong, doesnt now make it right. in fact what i really want to say is that someone has been aruguing this for 2000 years and there still is this divide. even if i state the truth now only those who are born of the spirit of God are going to believe it and the rest will go on as usual. so i will say it then. the roman catholic church takes everything as mystical and not literal until they come to the place that they need to see as figurative and reject it and that is john 6...no need to go over it again but to be clear if it aint faith alone in Christ you have believed another gospel. - rc shoun Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:56:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-6126 Beckwith, I find it interesting that you seem to indicate that you were able to embrace the doctrine of transubstantiation because it was taught "early" in church history (probably no earlier than the third century though). That amazes me when I consider the fact that serious error had encroached into the church at Galatia even while Paul was still alive. Sounds to me like you wanted to find justification for the view, rather than being convinced on its own merits. - Phantom Menace Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:01:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-6046 David, As St. Augustine said, though we are bound by the Sacraments, God isn't. God can does what He sovereignly chooses. St. Dismas of Calvary didn't have the opportunity to receive the Eucharist (in anything but a spiritual manner, which, for him, through the grace of Christ, was sufficient). But had he survived (somehow) his crucifixion, he, like the Apostles, would likely have devoted himself to the Apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42). thanks - herb Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:53:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5988 The thief on the cross was saved, therefore he must have, according to John 6, eaten "the flesh of the Son of Man" and drunk his blood. He accomplished this without ever taking communion, although I am certain that he was filled with "eucharist" (thanksgiving). - David Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:17:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5905 Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. - Caeli Francisco Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:15:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5860 One important point that must not be overworked: Jesus' glorified and deified human body and nature acquiers properties not common to our fallen human nature (especially within you uniqueness of the hypostatic union) - such as going through closed doors and ascending to heaven. Therefore his unmixed human nature is, as the liturgy of St Chrysostom says, "broken but not divided, forever eaten and never consumed." - Marc Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:41:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5852 John Mushenhouse's comments misapprehend Catholic doctrine regarding the teaching authority of the Church and Papal Infallibility. The Catholic Church has never held that its membership or leaders were or are immune from sin. That is a straw-man distortion of Catholic teaching that - although widely believed by the misinformed - has never been true. Indeed, Our Lord Himself stated in the Gospels that "scandals must indeed come, but woe to him by whom the scandal cometh," and He further stated that weeds would be sown among the wheat and would be tolerated by the Master until the harvest. He also made clear that not everyone who says, "Lord Lord" would be saved but only those who truly did the Father's will. Salvation History shows that the Jewish people were deeply flawed sinners and that God never in Salvation History had more than a "faithful remnant" to work with; at one point this remnant of the righteous was confined to Noah and his immediate family. Nevertheless, and through it all, Scripture makes clear that God's infallible teaching through the Spirit was conveyed, to and through this flawed people, to the world. Catholics believe that it is the Holy Spirit who speaks infallibly through the Church in certain circumstances and through certain means specified in, among other places, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For example, when the Pope pronounces ex cathedra or the bishops speak in union with the Pope, on matters of faith and morals, or the bishops and the Pope convene in ecumenical council to resolve an issue (as they first did at Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles), Christ's promise of the Paraclete's guidance into all truth protects His Church from error. This belief is highly scriptural, as it is a necessary corollary to Christ's explicit promises listed above. There were never three Popes at once. There were three persons who claimed to be Pope, but only one was the real Pope. If three people claim to have your wristwatch, does that fact make you have three wristwatches? In any event, those who were deceived about who the Pope really was at that particular time in history were not deceived by the real Pope, but by one of the false ones. Moreover, deception as to matters of faith and morals by the real Pope, is what you'd need to find in order to prove your point. Many have tried, but no one has ever been able to do so, in the long history of the Catholic Church. - Lee Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:52:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5851 Mr Baker, the doctrine of the Real Presence is not some "petty little theological oddity" but rather, as Dr Beckwith aptly calls it, a cornerstone. If the adverb "literally" offends you, perhaps we could agree on the Council of Trent's phrasing, i.e., the "whole Christ" being "truly," "really" and "substantially" contained in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. While unity among Christians should certainly be sought and prayed for -- as indeed Our Lord prayed for it at the Last Supper -- it should not be declared to exist when salient and unfortunate divisions remain. Without full participation in the Church that Jesus founded, one is deprived of its full benefits. While it's true, as the Catechism teaches, that salvation is POSSIBLE outside the Church - it's possible in the same sense that it's possible to move a ton of earth with a teaspoon; it's much more EFFICIENT, however, to use a backhoe; similarly, the most efficient way to salvation is that provided by Our Lord, Who, just as He promised, did NOT leave us orphans but in fact established a Church, a Church to which He gave authority to teach, to baptize, to forgive sins, and that He promised would endure to the end, a Church to which He promised to send the Paraclete to guide us into all Truth, a Church with which he pledged to remain always, "even to the end of the age," and a Church that has all seven Sacraments providing sanctifying grace of infinite value, chief among those Sacraments being the Holy Eucharist. The further unmoored one becomes from the True Church, the more one loses: one does become an "orphan," tossed about on the waves of an endless succession of splintering, from splintering, from splintering, with (today) well over 40,000 denominations all claiming to be Christian but teaching things so inconsistent that they could not all be true, and whose existence, continued proliferation and divisions would seem to make of Our Lord either a liar who broke, or a deluded braggart who proved powerless to keep, His promises. To be out of communion with the Catholic Church is to miss out on the Truth that Jesus promised it would be led to by the Paraclete; it's also to miss out on its diamond mine of Sacraments and their sanctifying grace. Peace. - Mary Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:20:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5850 About the question of how the accidents of Christ's humanity can be separated from the substance of His humanity -- according to Aquinas, they're not. The accidents of Christ's humanity are present in the Eucharist, but they are present according to the manner of substance (though what that means would be another question). I'm too lazy to look up the references, etc. - Brendan McGrath Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:54:23 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5849 Dear Mary, Thank you for your charitable response, unlike the ad hominem attack by Lee. Please know that I have studied not only Scripture, but also the church fathers and the CCC on this subject. The combined witness of all of these sources while sincerely seeking the Holy Spirit’s direction has persuaded me not to accept transubstantiation. Language about the nature of Christ’s presence can be problematic, as the Orthodox who do not teach transubstantiation attest. For Mark, the last words in an extended discourse typically carry great significance. The last words in Jesus' John 6 discourse are not found in verse 53, but in verse 63: "the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." Again, Jesus did not use the word “flesh” at the Last Supper, but “body.” On this subject Paul later wrote: “Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17). Paul here associates the bread of the Eucharist with the mystical body of Christ: “we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” So Christ presence, promised in Matthew 18, is linked with both the Eucharist and the assembled body of Christ. In the gathering of the members of the body of Christ around the memorial to His death, Christ is truly present. The ancient Didache, in teaching about the Eucharist, bears witness to Paul’s teaching: “We give thanks to You, our Father, for the life and knowledge that You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever. As this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was brought together becoming one, so gather Your Church from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom, for You have all power and glory forever through Jesus Christ.” (Didache, ch. 9). In my previous post I invited comparison and contrast between Christ's presence at the Eucharist and His promise in Matthew 18: "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Christ's promise to be present does not depend on whether the Eucharist is being celebrated; however, since He has promised to be present when the members of His body are gathered, it would be the supreme insult in that setting to dishonor the memorial to His death - knowing that He is present as He promised in Matthew 18! I affirm Christ’s real presence any time that two or more of His disciples have gathered together in His name; the question is why or how His presence might differ during the celebration of the Eucharist. Blessings, Lojahw - Lojahw Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:55:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5843 written by Louise, January 23, 2011 "I believe all that the holy Catholic Church teaches because She can neither deceive nor be deceived." Louise what about the pedophiles lying for years when higher ups knew about it. they just shifted it around. Plus show me Biblical proof that the RCC can't deceive or be deceived. There were 3 Popes at one time. Somebody was deceived and several fathers were followed as Popes by their hidden out of wedlock children. - john Mushenhouse Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:21:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5841 Being fundamentally an Aristotelian, I have no particular problem with the transubstantiatian idea, but I do not think it is a concept that is particularly helpful in thinking about the Eucharist in the current context. In the article above there is a sentence to the effect, Catholics believe that bread and wine become literally the body and blood of Christ. I think the word "literally" adds nothing to the basic concept, and obscures the fact that almost all Christians revere the Lord's Supper and believe that those who participate in it are united to the sacred body and blood of Jesus, our Lord. Some Calvinists make a similar silliness by saying things such as, Jesus is not literally present in the Eucharist. We ought to think and speak of the Lord's Supper in ways that emphasize our unity in this matter as Christians. The Catholic Church is not some little sect in which we differentiate ourselves from other Christians by bringing forward all these petty little theological oddities. Let us emphasize the main ideas, and get rid of the the sectarian language. - Peter Baker Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:54:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5840 Lojhaw, Yes, it is written: "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." (Jn 6:35) So what naturally follows is that I (and the Church continuous to) BELIEVE what Christ proclaimed: "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (Jn 6:55-56) - Mark V E Y Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:05:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5839 I think care should be taken not to suggest Lojahw has or would knowingly engage in disingenuous argumentation. My fervent prayer for Lojahw and all others similarly situated is that they will one day arrive by grace at the Eucharistic realism belief of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and all Christendom for 1500 years - and the belief of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to this very day, and that they may one day, and frequently thereafter, partake of this Heavenly Meal and receive all its boundless graces - so important to Our Lord to confer on His people in this way. Foreshadowed and foretold in so many ways - the Passover Meal (where partakers actually had to eat the lamb, and not just a symbol or memorial of the lamb, to receive its benefits; Abraham telling Isaac that "God will supply Himself the lamb"; John the Baptist's identifying Jesus as The "Lamb of God"; Jesus calling Himself the Living Bread come down from Heaven and saying this Bread was superior to the manna in the desert; and Jesus' very birthplace - Bethlehem - meaning "house of bread." So I would urge Lojahw and others similarly situated to seek with a sincere heart, not as a partisan or advocate for a particular point of view but rather as a judge or juror who must be persuaded. Do that, praying all the while for the Holy Spirit's inspiration, and you can't go wrong. This ground has been plowed by many; why not avail oneself of their writings and testimonies? I speak particularly of former Protestant and Evangelical clergy who, at great personal cost, "crossed the Tiber" since that is where their love for Our Lord and their sincere search for Truth led them. Peace. - Mary Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:57:53 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5836 Lojahw writes, "human flesh is incapable of being separated from it's 'accidents' and being 'multiplied' as Jesus multiplied the loaves of bread." Oh really? Where else in history or human experience - other than the Gospel accounts of Jesus' multiplication of loaves - are loaves 'capable of being multiplied' as Jesus multiplied them? So Lojahw posits that the latter miracle is a "capable" one but the former is not? Are not all things possible with God? Lojahw's method of argumentation may be persuasive to Lojahw but it is a form of sophistry. In fact there is no inconsistency between the statement at Chalcedon and the Church's belief and teaching on Eucharistic realism. In fact, the Church believes there IS no division in Christ, miraculously and undividedly present in the One Bread and the One Cup. This presence is miraculous, and is therefore immune from the limitations of 'capability' that Lojahw seeks to impose. Quoting Church Fathers out of context, and setting up false inconsistencies based on hidden premises grounded in no authority other than one's own ipse dixit, are unworthy, I respectfully suggest, of any true seeker after Christ and His Church. In 1837, denominational founder Alexander Campbelll challenged Bishop Purcell - the Catholic Bishop of Cincinnati - to a public debate "on the Roman Catholic Religion." Campbell used rhetorical methods reminiscent of Lojahw's, and ably dispatched by thelearned Bishop Purcell. Later, a man named Peter Burnett read the published debates. A lawyer, Burnett was greatly disappointed by the performance of his then-denomination's founder - particularly his persistent reliance on secondary sources and out-of-context citations, and he commenced a journey that ultimately led him "home to Rome." He later went onto become Governor of California and wrote of his conversion in his book: "True Church: The Journey that led this Protestant Lawyer into the Catholic Church". - Lee Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:29:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5823 Dear Francis, You and Aquinas approach the question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist from the perspective of the bread, but that does not address the conflict between the declaration of the bishops at Chalcedon and what you claim occurred with Jesus’ flesh and blood at the Last Supper. The statement of Chalcedon goes deeper than properties and accidents, but to human nature itself. Whatever one calls the “properties” are inherent in human nature, from embryo to adult, that is what the bishops affirmed: that Christ was fully human, and that his human nature was unmixed with his divine nature. You seem to be reading back into the bishops’ concept of human nature ideas which were foreign to them and to their culture in order to distinguish (anachronistically) between “accidents” and “properties.” As you know, the church fathers always considered unborn babies to have an identical human nature with mature humans. The DNA which determines the properties of embryonic cells is identical to that of adult cells. The appearance of adult features in no way changes the common properties of human flesh and blood from embryo to adult. (I think this should be common ground.) I do not deny that Aquinas believed in transubstantiation – his interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but to say that the “substance” of what was bread and wine is replaced by Christ’s flesh and blood, although all measurable properties of the bread and wine, i.e., the accidents, remain, requires that Christ’s flesh and blood differ substantially in nature from the flesh and blood of all other human beings. This, the bishops of Chalcedon denied. Therefore, as I said Aquinas begs the question: in what way is Christ present in the Eucharist? It might be helpful if you would compare and contrast Christ’s presence in the Eucharist with the following: Matt. 18:20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matt. 28:20 “Lo, I am with you always.” Your interpretation of Augustine is novel. Historically, Augustine has been understood to consider the crime to be cannibalism, of which pagans sometimes accused Christians. Nevertheless, Augustine explicitly declared that John 6:53 should be interpreted figuratively. With all due respect to Mary, I have listened to the Holy Spirit, particularly as He teaches in His Word, on this for many decades. I have yet to hear an explanation that would persuade me to accept transubstantiation. Blessings, Lojahw - Lojahw Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:43:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/transubstantiation-from-stumbling-block-to-cornerstone.html#comment-5820 Dear Lojhaw, If you seek the truth with a sincere heart, asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and with genuine openness to whatever the truth is, you cannot go wrong. In addition to Dr Beckwith's excellent points, I'd recommend Mark Shea's excellent book, "This IS My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence" and Dr Scott Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper." Also, keep in mind that Our Lord founded His Church with His Apostles, whom He commissioned To go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them ALL that I commanded you (emphasis added). He also told them, "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." Thus, what the Apostles taught about Eucharistic realism is vital to understanding Jesus's true teaching. The "Didache," the writings of those who learned at the feet of the Apostles (eg Ignatius of Antioch) can only be profitably consulted. Having a personal relationship with Jesus would seem to presume having that relationship on His terms. Peace. - Mary Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:48:13 +0100