question for evangelical Protestants..

[PT Calvinist]

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

Hi SDA

The two sayings, "This is my body" and "This is my blood, " were interpolations into the Passover ritual at two important points—before and after the main meal. The central content of the meal is the flesh of the slain lamb.

Jesus transcends the original meaning of this feast, for he is the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb/Victim. The unleavened bread now stands as a symbol of his body and the wine of "the cup of blessing" as a symbol of his blood.

The disciples did not eat the flesh of Christ by taking the bread and they did not drink his blood in taking the wine. In the Passover the slain lamb represented the efficacious death of the lambs in Egypt. In the Lord's Supper, which emerges from the Passover, the bread and wine represent the atoning sacrifice of Christ Jesus as the true paschal lamb. Neither the slain lamb nor the bread and wine contain in and of themselves any efficacy. So both at the Passover and at the Lord's Supper the sacrificial death is presupposed and is no part of the actual meal. So the Lord's Supper is both a proclamation and a remembrance (memorial) of what God the Father has done in his Son, Jesus Christ, just as the Passover is a proclamation and a remembrance of what Yahweh did for Israel through the slaughter of the lambs in Egypt.

Further, since the bread and wine symbolize the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, to be invited to partake of them is a great privilege. It is the grace of being one with him in his sacrifice and also of sharing by anticipation in the fruit of his atonement—partaking of the messianic banquet in the kingdom of God. After his resurrection from the dead and before his ascension into heaven, the disciples ate with Jesus on various occasions (e.g., Luke 24:30-31; John 21). After Pentecost (Acts 2) they celebrated the Lord's Supper on each Lord's Day. In their breaking of bread they knew the presence of the same Lord who had dined with them during the forty days. However, the slaughtered lamb no longer had any part in the meal for its central position had now been taken by the bread and the wine. So the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and an expection of the joy of being with him in his kingdom. It is also the fellowship of and in the new covenant, that is, of a relation with the Father through the Son and by the Spirit.



The apostle's teaching on the Lord's Supper is found not only in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, but also in other parts of the epistle. We need, therefore, to examine 5:6-8, 10:1-22, and 11:18-34.
In 5:6-8 Paul refers to Christ, "our Passover lamb" who has been sacrificed, and writes: "Therefore let us keep the Festival … with the bread of sincerity and truth." It is probable that here we have an allusion to the Lord's Supper.

In 10:1-22 Paul presents the important analogy for the Lord's Supper from the Old Testament (Exod 16:4, 14-18; 17:6). The supernatural food was the manna that came down from heaven and the supernatural drink was the water that gushed from the rock. However, despite their reception of supernatural sustenance, most Israelites perished because of their idolatry. Let this be a warning to believers, says Paul. To eat at the table of pagan gods is to fellowship with demons and to make a mockery of the Lord's Supper, for in the Eucharist there is fellowship with God in Christ and with fellow believers in the body of Christ. Also evident in this passage is a particular emphasis on the actual bread and wine: they are the actual means of sharing in the body and blood of Christ, but they are not equated with that body and blood.

In 11:18-34 we find that the Lord's Supper is the whole of the common meal that concluded with the Eucharist. Paul writes to admonish the church for its abuse of the common meal and in so doing he probably contributed toward the separation of the Eucharist from the common meal. His words in verses 27-30 are very strong. He says that "anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." Paul could mean that to treat the sacramental bread and wine like any other food is sinful; or he could mean that the abuses at the common meal by the Corinthians reveals that they do not appreciate the true nature of the body of Christ (as the communion and fellowship of believers in Christ).

H_B

http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?number=T446

 

[wayseer]

No wonder people run away terrified of words like 'Eucharist' when given the opening broadside. The Eucharist has nothing to do with voodoo magic.

First - the Eucharist is more than the wine and bread. You enter into the Eucharist as you leave home and make your way to the church.

Second - the Eucharist does not stop as you leave church. We should remember that throughout the Eucharist we have not been worshiping a God who has a church with a mission in the world, but a God of mission who has a church in the world.

'We are the body of Christ - His spirit is with us' echoes throughout the Eucharist and follows us down the aisle out into the street.

Third - the Eucharist is more than a symbolic act - it has substance - but not in some voodoo magical way.

The Eucharist is essential a pilgrimage - a pilgrimage back to the time of Jesus and the last supper. 'Do this in remembrance of me' but in doing 'this' we come together as the body of Christ - 'this' is the church - those who enter into a 'marriage supper of the 'Lamb' as we drink the cup we can enter into this sacred space of heaven here on earth. It is a space which we can enter because we are in the presence of the One 'to whom all hearts are open, all desires are known and from whom no secrets are hidden'.

In all this nothing has really changed. The wine is still cheap port, the bread some compressed wafer and I am still the bumbling pilgrim trying to make sense of that with which I am engaged. It is apparent the Eucharist is not a meal any more than baptism is having a bath. Yet we are encouraged by Jesus to do as much because, I suspect, that we really cannot be 'at home' anywhere else for, in the end, we are all people of the exile - we struggle to 'sing a new song in a strange land'.

The Eucharist is that act that demonstrates that we are not so much alone at all because we 'embody the holiness of the God who makes all things new by claiming whatever is despised, considered impure, as God's own'.

I have not attended the Anglican communion all my life and it was not until I took a pilgrimage to Canterbury Cathedral earlier this year during Lent I began to gain a greater understanding of 'mystery' of God. Much of that understanding was the result of reading the material set down for Lenten study by ++ Rowan - 'Why Go To Church' by Timothy Radcliffe, a Catholic theologian who is apparently tipped for the new next Archbishop of Westminister Cathedral. Many of the above quotes come from this book.

For those who wonder what the Eucharist is all about I could do not better than recommend this little book.

 

[boswd]

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.







.

I like this from a Protestant Church

A Note about the term Transubstantiation ​

Many people equate the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the theory of Transubstantiation. They are, in fact, not exactly the same thing. The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts what the Church has believed, taught, and experienced since earliest times, i.e. that Christ is really and truly present to his people in the Sacrament of the Altar. Transubstantiation is one theory among the many which seek to explain how Christ is present; to articulate the mechanics, so to speak, of His presence. It was developed in the thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas in order to combat rather crude theories of the Eucharist that gave rise to superstition. St. Thomas’ explanation depended, as did his theology, on the philosophy and metaphysics of Aristotle
By the time of the Reformation an intellectual reaction had taken place against St. Thomas’ thought, which had become the official teaching of the Roman Church, and also against Aristotelianism. Luther and the English Reformers protested that Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation per se can nowhere be found in Scripture or the early teaching of the Church. They were right; it can’t. It was, in their view, an illegitimate development which was a departure. They never, however, denied the doctrine of the Real Presence; indeed, they defended it. It was not until the second generation of the Reformation came along that this fundamental and scripturally-based doctrine was questioned and by some denied.
Even if we regard the doctrine of Transubstantiation as simply one way of explaining the gift of Christ’s Real Presence in the Mass, there is still some value in continuing to use the word. All accounts of how Christ is present - even those which the Continental and English Reformers came up with - attempt to make it clear and undoubted that a miracle is taking place in the bread and the wine. For some in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, Transubstantiation- in a metaphorical rather than metaphysical sense - remains the best term to point to this miracle - the mystery of Jesus’ Real Presence with his people, veiled in bread and wine.

The Church of the Advent - An Instructed Eucharist

 

[Trento]

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 .

The earliest writing we have on the Eucharist is that of St Paul. This is fortuitous, as he writes little on liturgical matters. What he does say is very significant:

"I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 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? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" [1Cor 10:15-18]
​

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me'. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me'. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy [anaxios] manner will be guilty [enochos] of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks [anaxios - omitted in RSV] without discerning [diakrinon] the body eats and drinks judgement [krima] upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - if any one is hungry, let him eat at home - lest you come together to be condemned." [1Cor 11:23-34]
​

St Paul uses recognizably Platonic language ["participation", "partake", "the one bread" = the form of the Body of Christ] to make a strong theoretical statement about the relationship between the Eucharistic Elements and the Body and Blood of Jesus. He then backs this up with a discussion of the practical consequences of a form of Eucharistic abuse. This two-pronged approach to the topic makes it pretty clear that St Paul did not think that the Eucharist was "just a symbolic action", but rather participated in an uncompromising objective reality.

The phrase "Do this in remembrance of Me" corresponds to the Greek "Touto poieite eis ton emen anamnesin". It has hidden depths. The word "poiein" (translated here as "Do") has sacrificial overtones. In the Greek Septuagint Bible, there are numerous sacrificial uses of this word, for example: "Now this is what you shall "poieseis" upon the altar; two lambs a year old, day by day, continually" [Exodus 29:38].

Similarly, the word "anamnesis" (literally "remembrance") also has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight times in the Greek Bible. All but once [Wis 16:6] it is in a sacrificial context. Three examples are:

"There is in these sacrifices an anamnesis of sin year after year."[Heb 10:3]



"And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as an anamnesis to be offered by fire to the Lord."[Lev 24:7]


"On the day of your gladness .... you shall blow over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for anamnesis before your God."[Num 10:10]


​

St Paul uses legalistic language in discussing the reception of Holy Communion. His sequence of thought is:

if you participate in the Eucharist anaxios [unworthily],


you will be enochos [liable of the death-penalty, guilty of a crime or violation]


of a krima [crime, judgement, sentence, condemnation] because you do not


diakrinon [not discerning] that this is the Body and Blood of Jesus.


St. Ignatius a deciple of the Apostle John tells us-

"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,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89





FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 AD THE PROFESSION OF FAITH OF THE 318 FATHERS


CANON 18
It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate

 

[RND]

Hi SDA

Hey!

The two sayings, "This is my body" and "This is my blood, " were interpolations into the Passover ritual at two important points—before and after the main meal.

Pure symbolism. Jesus was still very much alive when He said these things. Unfortunately, I can say no more.

 

[Anoetos]

For all my struggle with some Catholic doctrine I am grateful that this has never been an issue.

Josiah, your question is not analogous. It's an excellent question but Monica was asking about the Real "corporeal" Presence, not about its mode.

 

[Anoetos]

I think so far, RND has pretty much committed to the view that the ECF's were mistaken about the Eucharist. I realize he says he isn't but either they were mistaken or they weren't and as soon as he says he "doesn't know about "mistaken"" he attributes the doctrine to pagan influence; i.e. they were mistaken.

 

[RND]

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....

Really? Where? I mean if I'm not mistaken Jesus was alive when He said, "This is my body, this is my blood."

Did Jesus become the "very, real presence" in the bread/wine at that feast of unleavened bread?

 

[christianmomof3]

I do not think that we can know with any certainty what all of the believers in Christ believed at any one time. We can only know those beliefs which were recorded and which records still remain in existence. That does not cover the beliefs of all Christians throughout the centuries nor is it the belief of the entire church.

Even having read some of the things posted here, I still really do not understand the difference in transubstitution and "real presence".

Either way, both seem to depend upon a priest, pastor or some other gifted person who is not just a regular member of the church to "bless" the bread and wine to make it become the "real presence" whatever that may be. Is that correct?

Therefore, it seems that in order to have "real presence", one must rely on clergy.

I don't think Jesus ever said that clergy were necessary for the saints to partake of the bread and wine.

I believe that the bread and wine are symbolic and that it is the Lord's Spirit and His words which are life to us as Jesus Himself said in

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Why would Jesus say that flesh profits nothing if He meant that the bread literally would turn into His flesh?

I don't think the physical bread and wine miraculously turn into anything or have any miraculous meaning at all. I think that the Holy Spirit who dwells in our human spirits is our life and life supply. We partake of Him when we call upon His name and when we pray to Him and when we sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. We partake of Him when we read His word in prayer in spirit. We partake of Him when we turn to Him in our spirit. We partake of Him when we fellowship with other Christians and share our enjoyment of Christ with them. This is how we grow in Christ and how He grows in us.

When we partake of the bread and wine, we remember Him and all that He is and has done for us and we appreciate Him. If we are in spirit, which hopefully we are, then He is present with us. But, that is not the only time He is present with us. Whenever two or three are gathered in His name which means in Him, He is with us.

 

[RND]

I think so far, RND has pretty much committed to the view that the ECF's were mistaken about the Eucharist.

Mistaken? No, not by a long shot.

I realize he says he isn't but either they were mistaken or they weren't and as soon as he says he "doesn't know about "mistaken"" he attributes the doctrine to pagan influence; i.e. they were mistaken.

There is no evidence of transubstantiation in the Bible.

 

[BreadAlone]

This is worded perfectly, thanks for sharing.

I like this from a Protestant Church

A Note about the term Transubstantiation ​

Many people equate the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the theory of Transubstantiation. They are, in fact, not exactly the same thing. The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts what the Church has believed, taught, and experienced since earliest times, i.e. that Christ is really and truly present to his people in the Sacrament of the Altar. Transubstantiation is one theory among the many which seek to explain how Christ is present; to articulate the mechanics, so to speak, of His presence. It was developed in the thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas in order to combat rather crude theories of the Eucharist that gave rise to superstition. St. Thomas’ explanation depended, as did his theology, on the philosophy and metaphysics of Aristotle
By the time of the Reformation an intellectual reaction had taken place against St. Thomas’ thought, which had become the official teaching of the Roman Church, and also against Aristotelianism. Luther and the English Reformers protested that Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation per se can nowhere be found in Scripture or the early teaching of the Church. They were right; it can’t. It was, in their view, an illegitimate development which was a departure. They never, however, denied the doctrine of the Real Presence; indeed, they defended it. It was not until the second generation of the Reformation came along that this fundamental and scripturally-based doctrine was questioned and by some denied.
Even if we regard the doctrine of Transubstantiation as simply one way of explaining the gift of Christ’s Real Presence in the Mass, there is still some value in continuing to use the word. All accounts of how Christ is present - even those which the Continental and English Reformers came up with - attempt to make it clear and undoubted that a miracle is taking place in the bread and the wine. For some in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, Transubstantiation- in a metaphorical rather than metaphysical sense - remains the best term to point to this miracle - the mystery of Jesus’ Real Presence with his people, veiled in bread and wine.

The Church of the Advent - An Instructed Eucharist

 

[RND]

I like this from a Protestant Church

A Note about the term Transubstantiation ​

Many people equate the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the theory of Transubstantiation. They are, in fact, not exactly the same thing. The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts what the Church has believed, taught, and experienced since earliest times, i.e. that Christ is really and truly present to his people in the Sacrament of the Altar. Transubstantiation is one theory among the many which seek to explain how Christ is present; to articulate the mechanics, so to speak, of His presence. It was developed in the thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas in order to combat rather crude theories of the Eucharist that gave rise to superstition. St. Thomas’ explanation depended, as did his theology, on the philosophy and metaphysics of Aristotle
By the time of the Reformation an intellectual reaction had taken place against St. Thomas’ thought, which had become the official teaching of the Roman Church, and also against Aristotelianism. Luther and the English Reformers protested that Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation per se can nowhere be found in Scripture or the early teaching of the Church. They were right; it can’t. It was, in their view, an illegitimate development which was a departure. They never, however, denied the doctrine of the Real Presence; indeed, they defended it. It was not until the second generation of the Reformation came along that this fundamental and scripturally-based doctrine was questioned and by some denied.
Even if we regard the doctrine of Transubstantiation as simply one way of explaining the gift of Christ’s Real Presence in the Mass, there is still some value in continuing to use the word. All accounts of how Christ is present - even those which the Continental and English Reformers came up with - attempt to make it clear and undoubted that a miracle is taking place in the bread and the wine. For some in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, Transubstantiation- in a metaphorical rather than metaphysical sense - remains the best term to point to this miracle - the mystery of Jesus’ Real Presence with his people, veiled in bread and wine.

The Church of the Advent - An Instructed Eucharist

I think that would be called splitting hairs.

 

[BreadAlone]

Not really. Transubstantiation is that the Bread and Wine BECOME Christ's Body and Blood. Believing in the Real Presence is something different. We acknowledge that you cannot put the wafer and wine under a microscope and see Christ's DNA. However, St. Paul tells us that those who sin against the Supper sin against Christ's Body. Christ is spiritually and actually present in the supper.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some, given that Christ is with us and in us always. We are living Temple's of the Spirit.

I think that would be called splitting hairs.

 

[RND]

Not really. Transubstantiation is that the Bread and Wine BECOME Christ's Body and Blood. Believing in the Real Presence is something different. We acknowledge that you cannot put the wafer and wine under a microscope and see Christ's DNA. However, St. Paul tells us that those who sin against the Supper sin against Christ's Body. Christ is spiritually and actually present in the supper.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for some, given that Christ is with us and in us always. We are living Temple's of the Spirit.

Christ does not indwell the bread and wine. The origin of such a belief did not derive from Christianity. Christ does not literally become the bread and wine but He is symbolically represented by them.

Many people equate the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the theory of Transubstantiation. They are, in fact, not exactly the same thing.

That would be the equivalent of saying brain cancer and lung cancer aren't exactly the same thing.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Christ does not indwell the bread and wine. The origin of such a belief did not derive from Christianity. Christ does not literally become the bread and wine but He is symbolically represented by them.



That would be the equivalent of saying brain cancer and lung cancer aren't exactly the same thing.

Real Presence is the conviction of the Early Church (and I believe the teaching of Scripture) that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist, so that in the Eucharistic texts, the meaning of is is is. This the Catholic Church teaches, as does the Orthodox Church and Lutherans. Many Anglicans and Methodist do, as well. Which makes it the conviction of all the historic churches and perhaps 75% of Christians.

Transubstantiation is the conviction that the bread and wine are Aristotelian Accidents that underwent an alchemic transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is a teaching of one denomination (the Catholic Church) insisting as dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that we have an Aristolelian ACCIDENT here resulting from an alchemic transubstantiation. That is their dogma. It is the dogma of no other of the 35,000 denominations many Catholics around here insist exist.

Now, MY point was NOT whether Real Presence and/or Transubstantiation is true. MY point was the opening poster's assumption that if the early church didn't teach it (Symbolic presence), there's no basis for accepting it. Well, the early church didn't teach Transubstantiation. Anymore than it taught Zwingli's "symbolic presense." The early church was pretty united in teaching the Orthodox and Lutheran positions, yes, but it knows nothing of Aristotle or alchemy - and thus of Transubstantiation. IMHO, the opening poster has the same "problem" as the "Evangelical Protestant" does vis-a-vis his assumption and rubric. IMHO, he's rebuked himself.

Now, you may be of a DIFFERENT assumption. You may NOT agree that a teaching cannot be correct if it wasn't taught by the Catholic Church Fathers - and I probably wouldn't argue with you on that. I suspect you and I would look primary to Scripture. I would look to Tradition under that to help with hermeneutics - maybe you would not. But MY discussion was to the opening poster and the assumption of the opening post. IF we assume that the RCC "Fathers" were correct as he does, and that a teaching is problematic if "missing" from the early church - then he has just as big of a problem with the RCC's dogma as he has with any "Evangelical Protestant" view (I'd disagree with BOTH, btw.... lol.... but that's not the subject of this thread).



.

 

[RND]

Real Presence is the conviction of the Early Church (and I believe the teaching of Scripture) that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist, so that in the Eucharistic texts, the meaning of is is is. This the Catholic Church teaches, as does the Orthodox Church and Lutherans. Many Anglicans and Methodist do, as well. Which makes it the conviction of all the historic churches and perhaps 75% of Christians.

Sure, I understand that. But just because 75% of any one believes something to be true does not in fact make it true.

Transubstantiation is the conviction that the bread and wine are Aristotelian Accidents that underwent an alchemic transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is a teaching of one denomination (the Catholic Church) insisting as dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that we have an Aristolelian ACCIDENT here resulting from an alchemic transubstantiation. That is their dogma. It is the dogma of no other of the 35,000 denominations many Catholics around here insist exist.

This is certainly true.

Now, MY point was NOT whether Real Presence and/or Transubstantiation is true. MY point was the opening poster's assumption that if the early church didn't teach it (Symbolic presence), there's no basis for accepting it. Well, the early church didn't teach Transubstantiation. Anymore than it taught Zwingli's "symbolic presense." The early church was pretty united in teaching the Orthodox and Lutheran positions, yes, but it knows nothing of Aristotle or alchemy - and thus of Transubstantiation. IMHO, the opening poster has the same "problem" as the "Evangelical Protestant" does vis-a-vis his assumption and rubric. IMHO, he's rebuked himself.

This is where we part company. Consubstantiation has no more proof that does transubstantiation.

Now, you may be of a DIFFERENT assumption. You may NOT agree that a teaching cannot be correct if it wasn't taught by the Catholic Church Fathers - and I probably wouldn't argue with you on that. I suspect you and I would look primary to Scripture. I would look to Tradition under that to help with hermeneutics - maybe you would not. But MY discussion was to the opening poster and the assumption of the opening post. IF we assume that the RCC "Fathers" were correct as he does, and that a teaching is problematic if "missing" from the early church - then he has just as big of a problem with the RCC's dogma as he has with any "Evangelical Protestant" view (I'd disagree with BOTH, btw.... lol.... but that's not the subject of this thread).

I see what your saying.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Hi

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

I suppose I disbelieve, at least in the notion that the "Presence" is in the elements themselves, rather than in the celebrants and the event.

I am also not particularly impressed with the idea that it is a "sacrament," or that it must be administered by some special "priestly class."

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist?

By "believed in the Eucharist," I take it from later in the thread that you mean, "believed in the 'Real Presence' in the Eucharist."

*Assuming* that the "early Church" did believe that, no, I don't consider it particularly important. For me, Scripture is primary. Reason, experience, and tradition, usually in about that order, are helpful in interpreting and applying Scripture.

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

As others have noted, I am quite sure that the early Church was mistaken about many things. Much of the NT comprises corrections to such errors. It would not at all surprise me if numerous other errors occurred after the last Scriptures were recorded, but that we don't have "inspired" records of them and their refutations.

 

[sunlover1]

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

Some men from that era believed some things, others, other things, much
the same as now. I don't believe that "the church" believed
in transubstantiation. I do believe that 'some' men may have believed
something similar early on. So imo there is no answer.

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.

Sounds good enough.

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.

Yes, there were heresies back then, which is why I stick with what God says. Not what other men say that they think God meant.

For me, Scripture is primary. Reason, experience, and tradition, usually in about that order, are helpful in interpreting and applying Scripture.

As others have noted, I am quite sure that the early Church was mistaken about many things. Much of the NT comprises corrections to such errors. It would not at all surprise me if numerous other errors occurred after the last Scriptures were recorded, but that we don't have "inspired" records of them and their refutations.

A given.

 

[2 King]

As H_B said earlier:

Further, since the bread and wine symbolize the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, to be invited to partake of them is a great privilege. It is the grace of being one with him in his sacrifice and also of sharing by anticipation in the fruit of his atonement—partaking of the messianic banquet in the kingdom of God. After his resurrection from the dead and before his ascension into heaven, the disciples ate with Jesus on various occasions (e.g., Luke 24:30-31; John 21).

Which supports RND's claim to symbolism

 

[Uphill Battle]

one of the dramatic inconsistancies of the RP position, is the neccessary reconsumption of the flesh and blood of Christ.

logically speaking, IF you MUST eat his flesh, and drink his blood, literally, to have life, then once should do it. Since Christ is all sufficient.... eating and drinking him repeatedly would be nothing more than redundancy.

IF however, it is a memorial, a symbol, repeation (at no fixed interval in my mind, but based on however often each group does it) makes far more sense.