The new age movement blended into Christianity “IS” the protestant reformation.
There was new age thought that was fought against by Saint Irenaues and others,but “new age” is a movement was brought about by people like John Calvin who was guided by evil that denied the full Bodily presence of Christ in Eucharist.
You have no pre reformation history or any denial by any holy person to support the denial of the Eucharist being the literal Body and Blood of Christ.
The FACT is that every single early Church father without even one single exception believed this and All of the Church Fathers who gave you Bible canon believed this.
I would be willing to suffer for others to become Catholic and have Faith in His Eucharistic Presence.
That is how confident and strong my faith is.
stfassi,
Of course, any reasonable person knows one cannot prove a negative. History does record, however, several church fathers claimed by the RCC that have denied the heresy known as transubstantiation. This one notion is, perhaps, the most egregious assault on the person of the Lord Jesus.
Of the Eucharist, he (Claudius) writes in his commentary on Matthew (A.D. 815) in a way which shows that he stood at the greatest distance from the opinions which Paschasius Radbertus broached eighteen years afterwards. Paschasius Radbertus, a monk, afterwards Abbot of Corbei, pretended to explain with precision the manner in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist. He published (831) a treatise, “Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.” His doctrine amounted to the two following propositions:—1. Of the bread and wine nothing remains after consecration but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ are really and locally present. 2. This body present in the Eucharist is the same body that was born of the Virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and was raised from the grave. This new doctrine excited the astonishment of not a few, and called forth several powerful opponents—amongst others, Johannes Scotus. [11] Claudius, however, thought that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial of Christ’s death, and not a repetition of it, and that the elements of bread and wine were only symbols of the flesh and blood of the Saviour. [12] It is clear from this that transubstantiation was unknown in the ninth century to the Churches at the foot of the Alps. Nor was it the Bishop of Turin only who held this doctrine of the Eucharist; we are entitled to infer that the bishops of neighbouring dioceses, both north and south of the Alps, shared the opinion of Claude. For though they differed from him on some other points, and did not conceal their difference, they expressed no dissent from his views respecting the Sacrament, and in proof of their concurrence in his general policy, strongly urged him to continue his expositions of the Sacred Scriptures. Specially was this the case as regards two leading ecclesiastics of that day, Jonas, Bishop of Orleans, and the Abbot Theodemirus. Even in the century following, we find certain bishops of the north of Italy saying that “wicked men eat the goat and not the lamb,” language wholly incomprehensible from the lips of men who believe in transubstantiation. [13]
Notes:
[11] See Mosheim, Eccles. Hist., cent. 9. [12] “Hic [panis] ad corpus Christi mystice, illud [vinum] refertur ad sanguinem.” (MS. of Com. on Matthew.) [13] Allix, chap. 10
The new age movement, on the other hand, is a type of Eastern mysticism. The enlightenment it seeks does not recognize Jesus Christ as God or value the words of God. Rather, it sees man as a "god" like co-creator of the universe and participant in the cosmic consciousness.