question for evangelical Protestants..

Status
Not open for further replies.

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Hi :)

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks
 

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
From St Cyril of Jerusalem

On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body”. He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood”. Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?


Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ.
His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.


Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.


Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.


Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.


May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that be contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
here is what St Justin Martyr said. He lived very early on in Church history... approximately 150 AD.

This famous passage from the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr (Cap. 66-67: PG 6, 427-431) is used in the Roman Catholic Office of Readings for the third Sunday of Easter with the accompanying biblical reading of Revelation 6:1-17). Reflecting the way the Eucharist was celebrated in Rome about 150 AD, only about 55 years after the last New Testament books, it makes clear several important things:

1) the Eucharist was interpreted in a very realistic way in the early church

2) it was the principal, weekly worship celebration of the Christian Church

3) it took place on Sunday, not on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath

4) the meaning of the Eucharist and manner of its celebration was handed down by the apostles

"No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.


We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.


The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.


On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.


On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.


The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.


We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration."
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).


Ignatius of Antioch



"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr



"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus



"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"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?" (ibid., 5:2).
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Clement of Alexandria



"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


Tertullian



"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


Hippolytus



"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

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



"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


Council of Nicaea I



"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


Aphraahat the Persian Sage



"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cyril of Jerusalem



"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


Ambrose of Milan



"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia



"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


Augustine



"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

...

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


Council of Ephesus



"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
here is some commentary about what the Bible says about Communion, from a Catholic perspective :)

Christ in the Eucharist

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.


Again and Again


Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).


No Corrections


Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "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" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?


Merely Figurative?


They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.


Their Main Argument


For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).


Paul Confirms This


Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


What Did the First Christians Say?


Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).


Unanimous Testimony


Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
 
Upvote 0

PT Calvinist

Legend
Jun 19, 2009
1,376
115
Texas - Near the Coast
✟17,044.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Originally Posted by MoNiCa4316
because it is the original Church that Christ started, when He said, "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church". Peter means 'rock', and Peter was the first Pope.
...and then he turned right around and left his brother James in charge of the Church of Jerusalem and James ran the Church of Jerusalem for 30 plus years from the Temple.

Christ was speaking of Peters "statement of faith", upon which he would build his Church. He called him "Peter" because it was his statement. Peter and his statement are inseperable.

Forgive me...
Quote from OrthodoxyUSA

mind explaining?
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Maybe some people would come and post quotes by the ECFs that seemingly go against the Real Presence.

But when we look at the early Church, we need to look at what the majority of the ECFs said, not what a couple of them said.. because there were heresies back then too. It's through looking at the majority that we can see the Church teaching from back then.

And it's pretty clear that most did believe in the Real Presence... Christians were even called "cannibals" by those who persecuted them, because of their strong faith in the Eucharist. Many Christians died for the Eucharist. This has been the belief of the Church for 2000 years, and the belief of all Christians for 1500 years, even Martin Luther agreed with it. It was only Zwingli who did not. If your church does not believe in the Real Presence, that is why.

I'm interested, if you go to a church that teaches symbolic Communion, how do you feel about the evidence that the early Church and all Christians till the reformation (and even many reformers) believed in the Eucharist?

Christ did say, "this is My Body.."

:)
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Originally Posted by MoNiCa4316
because it is the original Church that Christ started, when He said, "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church". Peter means 'rock', and Peter was the first Pope.
Quote from OrthodoxyUSA

mind explaining?

well this is from another thread ;)

but - linguistics strongly suggests that "the rock" that Christ was talking about is indeed Peter. Pope little rock big rock. Was Peter the Rock?

Also, He gave to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is very significant when you look at the Old Testament:
Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy | Catholic-Pages.com
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Hi :)

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks


As a NON-evangelical Protestant, I just wonder if YOU find it important/significant that none in the early church believed in the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation of 1551? Or do you hold to the opinion that the early church was mistaken?


Just wondering. Thanks.





.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hi :)

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks
I was under the impression anything to do with RCs view of the RP should be posted on the Sacramental Board.
In case new members might not be aware of it, I can post a link......God bless

http://www.christianforums.com/t7313207/
Is denying the Real Presense also the denying of Jesus Christ?
 
Upvote 0

RND

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2006
7,807
145
Victorville, California, CorpUSA
Visit site
✟23,772.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist?

No.

or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks

Mistaken? I wouldn't say "mistaken." It seem to be an adopted practice from other, non-Christian, religions.

"The Latin church had been moving toward the view of the Real Presence for some time, the first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation (though not using that term) was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbey, France, in a book On the Body and Blood of the Lord."

Excursus: A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation -- Lord's Supper: Eucharist and Communion Meditations for Disciples
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

New_Wineskin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2004
11,145
652
Elizabethtown , PA , usa
✟13,854.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Hi :)

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks

There is no reason for me to believe that the early Church did believe in eucharistic presence .

I don't know what the early Church believed about it . However , it shouldn't be a surprise that the early Church would be mistaken about anything as the Scriptures record mistakes that were being corrected . And , the "Epistles" were written in part to correct mistaken beliefs of the early Church .

Given that the real presence was not a part of the Nicene Creed which we agree contains all essential beliefs for a Christian , I would say that neither of us consider it important or significant what the early Church believed regarding it .
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟34,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
As a NON-evangelical Protestant, I just wonder if YOU find it important/significant that none in the early church believed in the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation of 1551? Or do you hold to the opinion that the early church was mistaken?


Just wondering. Thanks.




.

nothing the early Church said contradicts Transubstantiation. :) The reason the dogma was formulated is because we come to a greater understanding of the "truth once given" over time.. as the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. But it never contradicts previous Church teaching :)

No.



Mistaken? I wouldn't say "mistaken." It seem to be an adopted practice from other, non-Christian, religions.

"The Latin church had been moving toward the view of the Real Presence for some time, the first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation (though not using that term) was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbey, France, in a book On the Body and Blood of the Lord."

Excursus: A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation -- Lord's Supper: Eucharist and Communion Meditations for Disciples

that's transubstantiation (which is not contradicted by anything the early Church said). but the real presence is in Scripture and was taught from day 1....

There is no reason for me to believe that the early Church did believe in eucharistic presence .

what about all the quotes?

I don't know what the early Church believed about it . However , it shouldn't be a surprise that the early Church would be mistaken about anything as the Scriptures record mistakes that were being corrected . And , the "Epistles" were written in part to correct mistaken beliefs of the early Church .

but do you think the WHOLE Church would be mistaken? cause if so, where is the Holy Spirit?

the whole Church always believed in the Eucharist. (as I tried to show)

also, the Bible clearly supports the Eucharist.

Given that the real presence was not a part of the Nicene Creed which we agree contains all essential beliefs for a Christian , I would say that neither of us consider it important or significant what the early Church believed regarding it .

so it's not significant if it's Christ physically present? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

New_Wineskin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2004
11,145
652
Elizabethtown , PA , usa
✟13,854.00
Faith
Non-Denom
what about all the quotes?

From what I saw , the dates were all past the death of the apostles . At least one date was in the 400's . I don't see that as the early Church . Also , you only quoted those that agreed with you . Should I even think that the Catholic heirarchy would save and publish those letters written that currently contradict their current teachings ?

but do you think the WHOLE Church would be mistaken? cause if so, where is the Holy Spirit?

I don't equate the Church with the Holy Spirit . Wouldn't that make at least a four-fold god ?

WHy are you asking about the "WHOLE Church" ? The "WHOLE Church" was originally mistaken by thinking only Jews would be saved until the Lord spoke to Peter and led him to think otherwise . And , even then it took quite a while longer for Paul to fight against forcing those Gentiles into observing the Law because the "WHOLE Church" thought they should have the Gentiles observe the Law . Those were *big* areas of being mistaken .

the whole Church always believed in the Eucharist. (as I tried to show)

There were only a handful of Christians in the first 400 years ?


also, the Bible clearly supports the Eucharist.

You are told that it does . You are not allowed to think otherwise .

so it's not significant if it's Christ physically present? :confused:
If you think it is , why did you agree with the forum's stance on the Nicene Creed containing all of the essential doctrines for a Christian ? It doesn't include real presence .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
nothing the early Church said contradicts Transubstantiation. :)

Nothing contradicts that Jesus would found His Church in the New World via Joseph Smith, either - but that doesn't mean that it's dogma OR that those in the Early Church AFFIRMED that view of that singular denomination.

As you seem to note, there is no Dogma of Transubstantiation in the early church. Thus, your entire treatise falls. You have the same "problem" that "Evangelicals" do - your unique, new view is not with ancient affirmation.




but the real presence is in Scripture and was taught from day 1....

Yes, affirming the Orthodox, Lutheran and sometime Anglican and Methodist view. But making for a bit of a problem, by your train of thought, for the CC and its dogma of Transubstantiation.




.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PT Calvinist

Legend
Jun 19, 2009
1,376
115
Texas - Near the Coast
✟17,044.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
This is obviously a bait and trap


Whatever name is given to that which Jesus instituted, it would seem that it has the following characteristics.
First, the ekklesia [ἐκκλησία] and its holy meal belong to the new covenant in much the same way that Israel and its Passover belong to the old covenant. Second, Christians are to rejoice in the living presence of the Lord Jesus in their midst as they remember his atoning, sacrificial death. Third, the early church encountered the vital presence of Jesus Christ not in the bread and wine as such but in his presence in their midst and in their hearts. The purpose of the elements (which are truly holy and indispensable for they replace the Passover lamb) is to symbolize and recall the once-for-all and unrepeatable death of Jesus Christ. Finally, the joy of knowing Christ in the holy meal is a foretaste of the fuller communion and friendship in the life of the future kingdom of God.
The key theological elements of the Lord's Supper as it was celebrated in the early church are: (1) the proclamation of the death of Jesus through "memorial" and "remembrance" and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; (2) the inauguration of the new covenant in the sacrificial blood of Jesus; (3) the participation and fellowship in Christ unto the Father, and with one another in Christ; (4) the experiencing the firstfruit of the joy of the eschatological kingdom of God; (5) the presence of the Spirit of the Father to vivify; and (6) the presence of faith, which is faithful and obedient, in the hearts of believers.
Immediately after the period of the apostles there was a speedy development of eucharistic practice and theology in the ante-Nicene and then post-Nicene church. The results of this often appear to have moved far away from the New Testament foundations, because of the emphasis on sacrifice in terms of the Eucharist itself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.