Posted on 01/21/2011 12:26:40 PM PST by marshmallow
The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a real stumbling block to some Protestants who are seriously considering Catholicism. It was for me too, until I explored the subject, historically and scripturally. What follows is a summary of my deliberations.
Catholicism holds that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest celebrating the Mass. Oftentimes non-Catholics get hung up on the term transubstantiation, the name for the philosophical theory that the Church maintains best accounts for the change at consecration. The Church’s explanation of transubstantiation was influenced by Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accident.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), like most philosophers of his time, wanted to account for how things change and yet remain the same. So, for example, a “substance” like an oak tree remains the same while undergoing “accidental” changes. It begins as an acorn and eventually develops roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves. During all these changes, the oak tree remains identical to itself. Its leaves change from green to red and brown, and eventually fall off. But these accidental changes occur while the substance of the tree remains.
On the other hand, if we chopped down the tree and turned into a desk, that would be a substantial change, since the tree would literally cease to be and its parts would be turned into something else, a desk. According to the Church, when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of each changes. So, it looks, tastes, feels, and smells like bread and wine, but it literally has been changed into the body and blood of Christ. That’s transubstantiation.
There are several reasons why it would be a mistake to dismiss transubstantiation simply because of the influence of Aristotle on its formulation. First, Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church rarely employ this Aristotelian language, and yet the Church considers their celebration of the Eucharist perfectly valid. Second, the Catholic Church maintains that the divine liturgies celebrated in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy”) are perfectly valid as well, even though the Eastern Orthodox rarely employ the term transubstantiation. Third, the belief that the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood predates Aristotle’s influence on the Church’s theology by over 1000 years. For it was not until the thirteenth century, and the ascendancy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, that Aristotle’s categories were employed by the Church in its account of the Eucharist. In fact, when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) employed the language of substantial change, St. Thomas had not even been born!
It was that third point that I found so compelling and convinced me that the Catholic view of the Eucharist was correct. It did not take long for me to see that Eucharistic realism (as I like to call it) had been uncontroversially embraced deep in Christian history. This is why Protestant historian, 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.” I found it in many of the works of the Early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151), St. Cyprian of Carthage, (A. D. 251), First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), and St. Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 411) . These are, of course, not the only Early Church writings that address the nature of the Eucharist. But they are representative.
This should, however, not surprise us, given what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-25; Lk. 22:7-23), which we commemorate at Holy Communion, he referred to it as a Passover meal. He called the bread and wine his body and blood. In several places, Jesus is called the Lamb of God (John 1: 29, 36; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:12). Remember, when the lamb is killed for Passover, the meal participants ingest the lamb. Consequently, St. Paul’s severe warnings about partaking in Holy Communion unworthily only make sense in light of Eucharistic realism (I Cor. 10:14-22; I Cor. 11:17-34). He writes: “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? . . . Whoever, therefore eats and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. 10:16; 11:27)
In light of all these passages and the fact that Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:41-51) and that he said that his followers must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), the Eucharistic realism of the Early Church, the Eastern Churches (both in and out of communion with Rome), and the pre-Reformation medieval Church (fifth to sixteenth centuries) seems almost unremarkable. So, what first appeared to be a stumbling block was transformed into a cornerstone.
Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University. He tells the story of his journey from Catholicism to Protestantism and back again in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic. He blogs at Return to Rome.
Christ never pointed to a door and “This is My Body”
How can St Ignatius, personally taught by St John himself, not have a proper understanding of the Eucharist?
The OT contained types and shadows, not the NT!
Malachi 1:10-11 “ Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you says the Lord of hosts and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”
Was this OT prophecy fulfilled?
the word of God says “This is My Body”
you are trusting the tradition of 16th century men. Ignatius believed Jesus and John, and so do I.
Good point! But it's really that Roman Catholics don't understand God.
Jesus said, “I am the door” (John 10:9.)
Do you believe Jesus was made of wood and nails?
Do you know what “discernment” means?
umm, that is from Wiki. i posted it to show historians generally agree Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic while He walked the earth.
still no answer to my six questions!
>> “Interestingly, this one short excerpt debunks more than a couple Papist heresies” <<
.
There is hardly a passage in any of Paul’s epistles that fails to debunk papist heresies.
.
Correct.
No mention of the eucharist or sacrifices on altars. Simply, the breaking of bread.
AMEN!
It's totally irrelevant whether Ignatius learned at John's knee or not. It is no indicator of the veracity and reliability of Ignatius' teachings.
Error crept into the church from the very beginning. Paul had to confront Peter and straighten HIM out about a few things.
Galatians 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
So the argument that the early church fathers (allegedly) learned directly from the apostles so therefore what they (allegedly) wrote must be true is a bogus argument. It is based on a false premise.
Nor is there any indication that their writings are considered infallible. So we can toss them on that basis as well.
Opinion pieces are opinion pieces no matter how old they are.
>> “ Ignatius believed Jesus and John, and so do I.” <<
.
The trouble is that what you believe, and what they believed are polar opposites.
You have to remove your papist glasses to understand God’s word.
LOL!!!
Seems not.
Your questions are obviously yours to answer...it is your churches doctrine of which I have already posted Trent, Vatican ll, that makes clear what your are to believe...your opposition to what Romae makes clear is not with me but with your church leadership...so ask them.
Discernment is exactly the point! The Apostles no where taught Jesus is a door, because He is not. But they did teach that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:16 “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?”
The Catholic answers yes and yes to these questions, as everyone did for the first 1,500 years of the Chursh.
The Protestant answers no and no to these questions and follows the 16th century tradition of men that the Eucharist is “symbolic”
OT = TYPES AND SHADOWS
NT = Jesus fulfills the types and shadows!!!
LOL! you made a charge and can’t back it up. nothing new under the sun.
I see many Catholics here put allot of weight in what former authors have written or stated as “gospel”, which is another reason for all the confusion amongst themselves about what they determine they will or not believe. Though Rome has clearly stated what they are to believe, in order to be catholic, even for them it’s difficult to accept. We see them squirm over their own church leaderships requirements...rightfully so.
But what is astounding is even when they are presented with their own dogma and various teachings there’s a quick-change of placing the “proof” back on the poster rather than their churches teachings. Can’t say I blame them for wanting that monkey off their back....puts them more than behind a rock and hard place.
Ummm...yeah, I know you did and you made no comment at all that they said Jesus may have known Hebrew and Greek. This seemed odd to me since I thought you would have. Since you did not, I asked for you to clarify your leanings on the subject. Which in your response you continued to imply Jesus - by emptying himself - was not still God and knew all languages. Glad to hear you are orthodox on your view of the deity of Christ.
FYI...those six questions.....why are asking for answers when you already did. Have you forgotten that too?
For crying out loud...read your churches teachings..it's right there...are you truly so blinded or is it just seeing the truth is far too painful to look at? 'Denial' is a comfort zone used to 'avoid' what the obvious evidence shows. Answer your doctrines yourself....for I do see them clearly.
Funny how Catholics demand that non-Catholics explain their (Roman Catholic) own church teachings to them and then turn around and tell the non-Catholics that they’re wrong.
Well, if the Catholics know that the non-Catholics are wrong, that means they really DID know their own church teachings so there was no reason to ask to have it explained by a non-Catholic, now was there?
Unless it was a set up.
"While some of the early Church Fathers (Origen, Basil, Gregory of Nazianze) retained the symbolic or spiritual conception of the sacrament, others (Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom) held that the flesh and blood of Christ were in some way combined with the bread and wine in the sacrament. Augustine retarded the realistic development of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper for a long time. While he did speak of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, he (Augustine) distinguished between the sign and the thing signified, and did not believe in a change of substance. He denied that the wicked, though receiving the elements, also received the body, and stressed the commemorative aspect of the Lord’s Supper. During the Middle Ages the Augustinian view was gradually transplanted by the doctrine of transubstantiation.As early as 818 A.D. Paschasius Radbertus already formally proposed this doctrine, but met with strong opposition on the part of Rabanus Maurus and Ratramnus. In the eleventh century a furious controversy again broke out on the subject between Berenger of Tours and Lafranc. The latter made the crass statement that “the very body of Christ was truly held in the priest’s hands, broken and chewed by the teeth of the faithful.” This view was finally defined by Hildebert of Tours (1134), and designated as the doctrine of transubstantiation. It was formally adopted by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Many questions connected with this doctrine were debated by the Scholastics, such as those respecting the duration of the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the manner of Christ’s presence in both elements, the relation of substance and accidents, the adoration of the host, and so on. The final formulation of the doctrine was given by the Council of Trent, and is recorded in Session XIII of its Decrees and Canons. Eight Chapters and eleven Canons are devoted to it.[23]" - Louis Berkhof
As is so often true about so much of Rome, its doctrines were concocted in the middle ages and officially proclaimed at the Council of Trent which was specifically called to counter the Reformation which was sweeping across Europe.
The above quote by Berkhof was from THIS LINK which continued here...
(a) When Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper and said to the disciples “This is My body,” He was still standing right there in front of them. How (we ask) could His human body which was a real, finite, flesh, blood and bones body be in two separate places at the same time? Keep in mind that Romanists are not saying that the host is part of the Savior but that “Christ is whole and entire under each species.”[24] Obviously, our Lord’s reference to His body and blood was symbolic. Examples of Christ using figurative and symbolic speech are numerous: He referred to Himself as a door (Jn. 10:4), a temple (Jn. 2:19), a vine (Jn. 15:5), a shepherd (Jn. 10:4), and bread (Jn. 6:35). He referred to the Holy Spirit as water (Jn. 4:14). When He instituted the Lord’s supper he called the cup the new covenant (1 Cor. 11:25). (b) The doctrine of transubstantiation is dependent upon a repudiation of the teaching of Scripture regarding the true humanity of Jesus. Every week the Roman Catholic Mass is conducted in hundreds of thousands of different locations all over the earth. Is the human body of our Lord at the right hand of God in one location as Scripture teaches, or is it in hundreds of thousands of different church services at the same time? Further, the hosts consumed all over the earth would fill a cargo ship. With relation to space and expanse this is beyond the limits of a real human body. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ was (and forever remains) fully God and fully man, two distinct natures in one person; yet these two natures are not mixed or confused in any way. In other words the human nature of our Lord does not take upon itself any divine attributes such as omnipresence or omnipotence. This view, set forth by the church at the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, is accepted by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. Yet transubstantiation attributes divine attributes to Christ’s human nature.[25] His human body, His flesh and blood cannot be all over the world in the Eucharist at the same time without having the divine attribute of omnipresence. Therefore, the Bible teaches that Jesus is spiritually present—not physically present—in the holy supper. (c) The doctrine of transubstantiation ignores the role of faith in appropriating Christ and His benefits. Nowhere does the Bible teach that we are sanctified by cannibalism. In fact God’s law forbids the consumption of blood (see Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10, 12; Ac. 15:20). Eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood accomplishes nothing other than physical nourishment. What Christians need is a spiritual union with the Savior, spiritual nourishment. Believers are sanctified by the Holy Spirit as He applies the outward means to the heart, which receives what the sensible signs signify by faith. Transubstantiation is mystical, magical, pagan nonsense. (d) Transubstantiation is disproved by parallel passages regarding the holy supper that can only have a figurative sense. Note how Paul describes the sacrament in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “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?” Turretin writes: “Here Paul (explaining Christ’s words) for the body and blood of Christ substitutes the communion (koinonian) of both. This evidently cannot be understood properly and literally (kata to rheton), but only figuratively and sacramentally. Then by parity (as the victims are called the communion of the altar, v. 18), they who eat of the sacrifices are said to be communicants (koinonoi) or partakers of the altar; and the sacrifices to idols are called the communion of devils, and those who eat things sacrificed to idols are said to have fellowship (koinonoi) with devils (vv. 20, 21), not otherwise than tropically and sacramentally, to signify the mystical fellowship of those eating the victims and idol sacrifices with the altar and devils. Therefore in no other sense is the bread and cup called the communion of the body and blood of Christ.”[26] (e) Transubstantiation is disproved by the analogy of Scripture which explicitly refutes the concept of the mass wherein Jesus is sacrificed again and again. According to the Roman Catholic Church, in the mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice to God is offered.[27] That sacrifice is identical with the cross inasmuch as Christ is both priest and victim. The only difference lies in the manner of offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on the altar.[28] The Bible teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was perfect, complete, final—a one-time event never to be repeated. The Savior “does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (Heb. 7:27). “He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12); “not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another. He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself…so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:25-28). “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God…. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:12, 14). “Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more…. He died to sin once for all” (Rom. 6:9, 10). The Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation is an attack at the very heart of biblical Christianity, the sufficiency of the atoning death of Jesus. The Papal church denies this crucial doctrine by supposedly re-sacrificing Christ every day in the ritual of the mass. The Roman Catholic mass (which is the central pillar of their system of salvation) is totally unbiblical and sinful for it is a denial of the efficacy of the Savior’s suffering on the cross and death. Further, the Romanist practice of worshiping the host as God even though it is nothing more than a cracker is rank idolatry..." The Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation must be rejected as unscriptural for the following reasons.
The Apostles spread the Gospel over the known Roman world, Thomas taught the same doctrine as Paul, Peter, James, Andrew, etc. etc. This “deposit of faith” was “Catholic”, because it had the Holy Spirit as its author. So a Catholic in Antioch believed what they believed in Rome, Jerusalem, Corinth, etc. etc. So when you read all the Church Fathers, whether they are Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, etc. etc. you find the same Catholic doctrine about Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. etc.
If you have a different history ( since you don’t have the papist glasses i have ), maybe you would be kind enough to tell me when the Real Presence in the Eucharist was first taught and what “true” NON-PAPIST Christians were there to oppose this heresy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.