Holy Eucharist is a memorial, we Catholics believe that.  It is not a re-crucifying of our Lord, it is not simply symbolic, however.  If that were so why did St. Paul tell the Corinthians that to take Communion unworthily could result in illness or death?  He instructed them, (and us), specifically that to eat this bread is a participation in Christ Body and Blood.  1 Cor. 10:16  "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" 

It would be no mystery to early Christians what the Holy Eucharist was and was not.  Justin Martyr was a first century Christian apologist who wrote a series of explanations to Emperor Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate, concerning Christian belief.  Regarding the Eucharist he wrote,

"There is then brought to the president of the brethren  bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion."

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία  [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, (Baptism), and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Is this for me?  Because, yes, that would be the Catholic belief as well.

http://www.miraclerosarymission.org/ga00oct11.htm

Again, (see link above.), no argument from us Catholics in that Christ's sacrifice was 'once offered' and that Holy Eucharist is a memorial, but clearly, and not only is Just Martyr's thoughts still preserved, but other Early Church Fathers as well, the early Church, taught by the Apostles, considered the Eucharist to be more than just "symbolic", in fact in passage after passage of Scripture, as the one I quoted from Paul in Cor., it is stated as truly being Christ's Body.

In answer to the Docitist,  St. Ignatius of Antioch, another Christian martyr wrote,

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch,(A.D. 110).

So did St. Paul and the earliest of Church leaders just get it all wrong then?   You have made no direct comment on what I have quoted from them.

1 Cor. 11:27  "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."  

I apologize if I did that.  I was just trying to get clarification on your posts.  I would like to point out, however, that there was clarity in the belief of the early Church and her leaders on this matter.  

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?".

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, (AD 189).

I wouldn't regard them as authoritative in the same way that Holy Scripture is either, but I do think they cannot be dismissed either, after all, we are taught by Scripture that the Church is the, "pillar and foundation of truth."

I would be more amenable to an alternative belief if there was any evidence in the first 1500 years of Church teaching in anything other than a real presence.  I know of none.  Even Lutherans, Anglican, and Presbyterians would argue that there is.    

  

Form of government is prolly' for another thread.  Nice new avatar pic, BTW.  Funny.

God Bless,

Greg.

So, Bill Clinton was right... it depends on the meaning of the word "is"...

(I understand the point though.)


Never thought you would have a discussion about the meaning of Communion with a cartoon caricature of Dolly Parton, huh?