Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:

childishness



Skip to comments.

Is The Roman Catholic View of the Eucharist Supported by the Historical Evidence?
In Plain Site ^ | Jason Engwer

Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7

There aren't many subjects Catholic apologists like to discuss more than the eucharist. Even if their arguments about the papacy are refuted, even if the evidence they cite for the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and other doctrines isn't convincing, they still think they have a strong argument in the doctrine of the eucharist. They'll quote John 6 and the passages of scripture about the Last Supper. They'll quote centuries of church fathers referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice and referring to Jesus being present in the elements of the eucharist. They'll point out that even Protestants like Martin Luther have believed in a eucharistic presence. How, then, can evangelicals maintain that the eucharist is just symbolic, that there is no presence of Christ? Are evangelicals going to go up against 1500 years of church history?

This sort of reasoning seems to have had a lot of influence on evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism. Some converts to the Catholic Church even cite the eucharist as the primary issue, or one of the most significant issues, in convincing them to convert. But is the argument as compelling as so many Catholics think it is?

There are a lot of problems with this popular Catholic argument. The argument isn't even a defense of Catholicism. It's a defense of something like what the Catholic Church teaches. The Council of Trent made it clear just what the Catholic position is on this issue (emphasis added):

According to the Catholic Church, transubstantiation is the view of the eucharist always held by the Christian church. Some Catholics try to redefine this claim of the Council of Trent by saying that what Trent meant is that there was always some sort of belief in a presence in the eucharist, which was later defined more specifically as transubstantiation. While it's true that Trent doesn't claim that the word "transubstantiation" has always been used, Trent does claim that the concept has always been held by the Christian church.

There are two sentences in the quote above. The first sentence refers to a view of the eucharist always being held by the Christian church. The second sentence says that this view is transubstantiation. The way in which Trent describes the view always held by the Christian church makes it clear that transubstantiation is being described. The council refers to the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine being converted. That's transubstantiation.

Why do Catholic apologists attempt to redefine what the Council of Trent taught? Because what Trent said is false. Let's consider just some of the evidence that leads to this conclusion.

Though Catholics often cite some alleged references to their view of the eucharist in the Bible, the truth is that there's no evidence of the Catholic eucharist in scripture. John 6 is often cited as referring to eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood by means of a transubstantiated eucharist. There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him. Jesus doesn't refer to how these things will begin in the future, when the eucharist is instituted. Rather, He refers to them as a present reality. And John 6:35 identifies what the eating and drinking are. The passage is not about the eucharist. (See http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm for a further discussion of the problems with the Catholic interpretation of John 6.) Likewise, the passages about the Last Supper don't prove transubstantiation. They could be interpreted as references to a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist. That's a possibility. But they can also be interpreted otherwise.

There's no evidence for the Catholic view of the eucharist in scripture, but there is some evidence against it. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus refers to the contents of the cup as "this fruit of the vine". It couldn't be wine, though, if transubstantiation had occurred. And Jesus refers to drinking the contents of the cup with His followers again in the kingdom to come. Yet, the eucharist apparently is to be practiced only until Jesus returns (1 Corinthians 11:26). If the cup in Matthew 26:29 contained transubstantiated blood, then why would Jesus refer to drinking that substance with His followers in the future, at a time when there would be no eucharist? And if the eucharist is a sacrifice as the Catholic Church defines it to be, why is there no mention of the eucharist in the book of Hebrews?

The author of Hebrews is silent about the eucharist in places where we would expect the eucharist to be mentioned, if it was viewed as the Catholic Church views it. This is acknowledged even by Catholic scholars. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990) is a Catholic commentary that some of the foremost Catholic scholars in the world contributed to. It was edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy. Near the end of the section on the book of Hebrews, the commentary admits:

There's nothing wrong with viewing the eucharist as a sacrifice in the sense of thanksgiving and praise (Hebrews 13:15). Some of the church fathers referred to the eucharist in such a way. For example, Justin Martyr wrote the following in response to the followers of Judaism who claimed to be fulfilling Malachi 1:11 (emphasis added):

These arguments of Justin Martyr are contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. According to Justin Martyr, the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of being a means by which Christians offer prayers and thanksgiving to God. Justin Martyr not only says nothing of the eucharist being a sacrifice in the sense Catholics define it to be, but he even excludes the possibility of the Catholic view by saying that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of prayers and thanksgiving being offered through it. Justin Martyr seems to have had Biblical passages like Hebrews 13:15 in mind, which is a concept that evangelicals agree with. The eucharist is a sacrifice in that sense.

Some church fathers defined the eucharist as a sacrifice differently than Justin Martyr, including in ways that are similar to the Catholic view. But Justin Martyr illustrates two things. First, it's false to claim that all of the church fathers viewed the eucharist as the Catholic Church views it. Secondly, the eucharist can be referred to as a sacrifice in numerous ways. It's not enough for Catholic apologists to cite a church father referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice. What type of sacrifice did the church father believe it to be? And how convincing are that church father's arguments?

Even more than they discuss the concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice, Catholics argue that there's a presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that the church fathers agreed with them on this issue. Some Catholics will even claim that every church father believed in a presence in the eucharist. They'll often cite a scholar like J.N.D. Kelly referring to the church fathers believing in a "real presence" in the eucharist. But what these Catholics often don't do is quote what Kelly goes on to say. As Kelly explains, the church fathers defined "real presence" in a number of ways, including ways that contradict transubstantiation. Some of the church fathers were closer to the consubstantiation of Lutheranism or the spiritual presence of Calvinism, for example.

See the section titled "The Church and the Host" at:
http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html

Also see the historian Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

And section 95 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions.

The church fathers held a wide variety of views on subjects such as how to interpret John 6 and Christ's presence in the eucharist. For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 (emphasis added):

In another passage, Clement contradicts transubstantiation. He writes the following about how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking alcohol (emphasis added):

Clement, like evangelicals, cites Matthew 26:29 as evidence that Jesus drank wine. If Clement believed that wine is what was drunk at the Last Supper, he didn't believe in transubstantiation.

Similarly, Irenaeus denies transubstantiation in his writings. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example (emphasis added):

Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that's from the earth. He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ's future kingdom, after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26). Irenaeus, like Clement of Alexandria, contradicts transubstantiation. Though Irenaeus does seem to have believed in a presence in the eucharist, it isn't transubstantiation.

Other examples could be cited, and other examples are cited in the article I linked to above. It's a historical fact that the church fathers held a variety of eucharistic beliefs, including some that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. This fact is contrary to the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation had always been the view held by the Christian church.

It should be noted, also, that many evangelicals believe in a presence in the eucharist. Some believe in consubstantiation. Some believe in a spiritual presence. Evangelicals don't even have to hold to any specific view. Jesus and the apostles told Christians to celebrate the eucharist. A Christian can do so without knowing whether there's any presence of Christ in the eucharist or what type of presence there is. For an evangelical, this issue isn't too significant. The reliability of our rule of faith (the Bible) isn't dependent on proving that Christ is present in the eucharist in some particular way. Catholics, on the other hand, must defend the Catholic Church's allegedly infallible teaching of transubstantiation. They must also defend the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church, as well as Trent's claim that every other view is unacceptable. Evangelicals just don't carry the same burden of proof that Catholics carry on this issue. Catholics can't say that this is unfair, since the claims of the Catholic Church itself are what create the added burden of proof for the Catholic apologist. If you don't want to have to carry such a burden, then tell your denomination to quit making such weighty claims.

In summary:

The eucharist is another issue that illustrates how anachronistic, misleading, and false many of the claims of the Catholic Church are. Some Catholics seem to ignore or minimize their denomination's errors on issues like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception, because they think that the Catholic Church is at least closer to the truth than evangelicalism on other issues, like the eucharist. But such reasoning is fallacious. For one thing, all it takes is one error to refute Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church teaches that its traditions are just as authoritative as scripture, an error on one subject also disproves what the Catholic Church has taught on other subjects. If the Immaculate Conception doctrine is contrary to the evidence, for example, that isn't just problematic for the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived. It's also problematic for the doctrine of papal infallibility, since Pope Pius IX allegedly was exercising that power when he declared Mary to be conceived without sin. When the Catholic Church is shown to be wrong on the eucharist, the Immaculate Conception, or some other issue, that has implications for far more than just that one doctrine.

With regard to the eucharist, consider one of the larger implications of the Catholic Church being wrong on that subject. If it's true that the church fathers held a wide variety of eucharistic beliefs, and that they also held a wide variety of beliefs on a lot of other subjects, what does that tell us about early church history? It tells us that it's unlikely that the church fathers were part of one worldwide denomination headed by a Pope. What's more likely is that the church fathers disagreed with each other so much because they belonged to churches that were governmentally independent of one another, and they interpreted the scriptures for themselves. In fact, many of the church fathers specifically said as much. The fact that there were so many differing views among the church fathers, including views that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches, suggests that they weren't Roman Catholics.

If the Catholic Church isn't reliable, what are we to conclude about the eucharist, then? What do we do if we can't trust Catholicism to tell us what to believe? We ought to go to the scriptures. And if the beliefs of the church fathers and other sources are relevant in some way, we should also consider those things. We should study the issue ourselves instead of just uncritically accepting whatever an institution like the Roman Catholic Church teaches. When we go to the scriptures, we find that a number of eucharistic views are plausible, but transubstantiation isn't one of them (Matthew 26:29). The concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice is unacceptable. Trying to continually offer Christ's sacrifice as an atonement for our sins, and offering it as a further atonement of the temporal portion of sins already forgiven, is contrary to what's taught in the book of Hebrews, such as Hebrews 9:12-10:18. For example, in Hebrews 9:25-26, we see the author distinguishing between Christ's sacrifice and the offering of that sacrifice. Not only was Christ only sacrificed once, but He also offered that one sacrifice to God only once. Catholics acknowledge that there was only one sacrifice, but they argue that the one sacrifice is offered repeatedly through the eucharist. This claim of the Catholic Church is contrary to scripture. And there are a lot of other contradictions between what scripture teaches on these subjects and what the Catholic Church teaches, especially in the book of Hebrews. We can reasonably arrive at a number of different views of the eucharist, but the Catholic view isn't one of them.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: bread; doctrine; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 581-592 next last
To: ealgeone

As an aside...did you know your username is misspelled?


121 posted on 02/20/2015 4:14:26 PM PST by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; terycarl
It must be difficult being a catholic.

There is soooooooooo muuuuuuuuch stuff you have to know.

Are you in violation of some "edict" a pope wrote 800 years ago?

Have you "done enough" penance for your sins?

Have you committed a mortal sin and not been to confession yet? Will you go the Heaven or Hell? The rcc says the later. What if you've committed enough venial sins that have now added up to be mortal, but you don't know you've crossed the line...what do you do????

Man that's living in fear and bondage.

There is a better way.

Jesus said, "“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30“For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matt 11:28-30

122 posted on 02/20/2015 4:17:23 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

How do you know I didn’t spell it that way on purpose?


123 posted on 02/20/2015 4:17:59 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
How about when he cursed the fig tree?

What about it?

124 posted on 02/20/2015 4:18:35 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“Do this in remembrance of Me......”

Luke 22:19

Used as the literal interpretation by many who do not believe in transubstantiation.


125 posted on 02/20/2015 4:19:30 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
How do you know I didn’t spell it that way on purpose?

I didn't think about that...I might to want to check to see if I'm dyselxic!
126 posted on 02/20/2015 4:21:48 PM PST by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You must have missed the philosophy class where they discussed the existential attributes of what ‘eternal’ means or what ‘three persons in one God’ mean.

Feel free to make-up whatever you think they mean because in protestantism everybody gets to believe whatever suits them.

AMDG


127 posted on 02/20/2015 4:21:56 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Do this in remembrance of Me......

do what???.......THIS!!!!

128 posted on 02/20/2015 4:23:25 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails overall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

There is a better way.

Yes the protestant way - believe whatever you want.

AMDG


129 posted on 02/20/2015 4:24:06 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
“Do this in remembrance of Me......” Luke 22:19 Used as the literal interpretation by many who do not believe in transubstantiation.

All symbolic of His body and blood.

130 posted on 02/20/2015 4:31:04 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

There,s the part when Christ said He was one with the Father was He speaking figurative? Lying?


131 posted on 02/20/2015 4:31:08 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Yeah, a dissident priest.....wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever.


Opinions vary. ;-)


132 posted on 02/20/2015 4:38:31 PM PST by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
There is a better way. Yes the protestant way - believe whatever you want. AMDG

Have you committed a mortal sin and not been to confession yet? Will you go the Heaven or Hell? The rcc says the later. What if you've committed enough venial sins that have now added up to be mortal, but you don't know you've crossed the line...what do you do????

Tell you what....you keep catholicism....I'll stay with Christ.

As Christians we have direct access to Him.

If we confess our sins to Him they are forgiven. But even better, they were forgiven the moment we believed in Him as His Word tells us. That forgiveness continues to this day in the life of the believer.

The Christian has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise Who is given as a pledge of our inheritance.

I find no passage in the NT where it says we are ever unsealed. In fact, Jesus says He will not lose any who have been given to Him by the Father.

Jesus loves us.

All of these are Biblically based.

Now, for the catholic, you're counting on Mary to intercede for you. No Biblical proof she is doing this. And please, don't cite the wedding at Cana to justify this belief as that is not even what the text is about.

You're counting on Mary, a limited created person, to be able to handle all of your prayers, to "put in a good word" for you., etc. In no capacity is she ever described in the Bible as being able to do this.

There is a better way. Follow Christ.

As Peter said in Acts 2:21, "and it shall be that every one who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

133 posted on 02/20/2015 4:39:17 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
There,s the part when Christ said He was one with the Father was He speaking figurative? Lying?

Nope to both.

134 posted on 02/20/2015 4:40:03 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
>Do this in remembrance of Me......<

do what???.......THIS!!!!

You tell me.

135 posted on 02/20/2015 4:42:08 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I certainly agree that we’re redeemed, but what does Paul mean that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and what does Christ mean when he says that not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who hears my word and does it? Why would it be necessary for Christ to breathe on his apostles and give them the power to loose or bind sins? God’s Grace is a free gift but we have to cooperate with it, don’t we?


136 posted on 02/20/2015 4:42:26 PM PST by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I certainly agree that we’re redeemed, but what does Paul mean that we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and what does Christ mean when he says that not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who hears my word and does it? Why would it be necessary for Christ to breathe on his apostles and give them the power to loose or bind sins? God’s Grace is a free gift but we have to cooperate with it, don’t we?


137 posted on 02/20/2015 4:42:27 PM PST by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Catholics venerate Mary because she said yes. She could have said no! That makes her “fiat” the greatest act that anyone (except Christ Himself) has ever done and every will do until the end of time! She’s the mother of all disciples, which is what Christ said on the cross, “Behold your mother.”


138 posted on 02/20/2015 4:49:09 PM PST by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

So if Christ was one with the Father - could they be in separate places at the same time?

And since they are infinite and eternal - could there actually be such a thing as separate places - for a being who was infinite?

And since the are eternal does the phrase ‘at the same time’ ever apply to Them?


139 posted on 02/20/2015 4:50:04 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
>>It must be difficult being a catholic.<<

They are to even subject their intellect to the pope.

140 posted on 02/20/2015 4:54:00 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 581-592 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson