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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 581-592 next last
To: LurkingSince'98

you’re not answering my questions. You confidently told me that Christ is forever being sacrificed but can’t answer my questions?


141 posted on 02/20/2015 4:56:38 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
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????

I hope the ignorance that's just been displayed by that paragraph is invincible. How can you write something like that and expect any Catholic to take you seriously when you offer your opinions about the Catholic Church? If you're so completely wrong on that subject (and you are) then how can you be believed on any other?

My kids can answer those questions... sheesh.

A mortal sin requires three conditions: The object is grave matter. It is committed with full knowledge. It is done with deliberate consent.

Nobody is accidentally going to hell. Nobody who dies on the way to Confession is going to hell because of some freak accident. God is not looking for ways to send us to hell, He's pulled out all the stops to make attaining Heaven dead simple. Love Him, that's what we're made for. Love Him more than you love yourself and you're headed for glory.

142 posted on 02/20/2015 4:59:05 PM PST by Legatus (Either way, we're screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
>>All symbolic of His body and blood.<<

It can't be symbolic of His body and blood. It's symbolic of "eating" or internalizing His word just as "eating the scroll" was symbolic of reading and internalizing the word of God. Christ was not talking about His physical flesh and blood but of the word.

143 posted on 02/20/2015 4:59:55 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Ge0ffrey
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.”

Dude...did you see the list of titles Mary's been given by the rcc?

Have you seen the prayers to her?

Have you seen the buildings named after her?

Have you seen the statues of Mary in the catholic churches?

Have you seen the schools that studies Mariology? There's even one that offers a Masters in Theological Studies with a Marian concentration!http://catalog.udayton.edu/graduate/imri/

That's not veneration....it's worship.

Jesus puts John in charge of taking care of His mom and suddenly she's the mother of all disciples??? Now that's a stretch.

Jesus was indicating who had responsibility for Mary's well-being in this situation.

It is believed that Joseph is dead at this point. We also know there was disbelief among His step brothers and sisters regarding Who He was at this point. Jesus put Mary under the care of one who loved Him.

Not surprising to see Him do this.

Notice He didn't put her in Peter's care. Why?

144 posted on 02/20/2015 5:00:39 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

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

When you got married it says you are one. Does that mean you are both the same person? Can you never be apart?

145 posted on 02/20/2015 5:01:44 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: metmom; LurkingSince'98

Amen. Pinging to LurkingSince’98 since it might be of some instruction...

Hoss


146 posted on 02/20/2015 5:04:09 PM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98; ealgeone

You keep asking questions but don’t answer mine. What’s up with that?


147 posted on 02/20/2015 5:04:18 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: metmom
He’s not a commodity that we bring to God as the Israelites brought the lamb for their sacrifice.

Absolutely! Great way to put it. And the point is that he laid down his life -- past tense -- he doesn't "continue to lay down his life" -- Roman Catholicism wants to continually crucify him.

Very sad.

Thanks Met!

Hoss

148 posted on 02/20/2015 5:06:33 PM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
That's not veneration....it's worship.

Worship requires a sacrifice made to the object of adoration, there is only one Sacrifice in Catholicism, and that is the sacrifice of the eternal High Priest and Victim and that sacrifice is offered to God the Father, not the Mother of God.

Again, if you're not offering a sacrifice you're not worshiping... you may be praising or something but by definition the act is not worship.

149 posted on 02/20/2015 5:09:01 PM PST by Legatus (Either way, we're screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Legatus; ealgeone
>>Worship requires a sacrifice made to the object of adoration, there is only one Sacrifice in Catholicism, and that is the sacrifice of the eternal High Priest and Victim and that sacrifice is offered to God the Father, not the Mother of God.<<

Hebrews 13:15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.

Catholics offer the sacrifice of praise to Mary all the time. And they make images of God in the likeness of man.

Romans 1:21-23 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

150 posted on 02/20/2015 5:22:21 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The Bible I use to study with is the NASV and verse 30 of Eph 5 does not include “of His flesh and of His bones” and there is a notation in my mother’s Catholic Bible that it is not included in the best Greek manuscripts.

I am always cautious of basing a big part of my theology on certain parts of scripture when notated in that manner, especially the section where Jesus talks about casting the first stone. Too many people do not warn others of hell because of that section.


151 posted on 02/20/2015 5:22:22 PM PST by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Legatus
A mortal sin requires three conditions: The object is grave matter. It is committed with full knowledge. It is done with deliberate consent.

Nobody is accidentally going to hell. Nobody who dies on the way to Confession is going to hell because of some freak accident.

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.... Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.(Catechism, 1855 & 1861) http://www.beginningcatholic.com/mortal-sin.html

I hope the ignorance that's just been displayed by that paragraph is invincible. How can you write something like that and expect any Catholic to take you seriously when you offer your opinions about the Catholic Church? If you're so completely wrong on that subject (and you are) then how can you be believed on any other?

I think we've addressed that question.

Now that we've shown what Catholicism teaches, and it does teach if you've committed a mortal sin and it has not been confessed you do not go to Heaven, what do you do?

As I said, if I were catholic, I'd camp out at the door of the priest.

The Bible says:

13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

152 posted on 02/20/2015 5:26:40 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Jesus did not change the law nor did He break the law.

Eating pork O.K. Now??, does a man still have to be circumcised???/ does a person with leprosy or any communicable disease have to tear his clothong and wander through the streets shouting to those around him "UNCLEAN-UNCLEAN-UNCLEAN"......wasn't there something about animals without cloven hooves....and are women having their periods somehow unclean????

153 posted on 02/20/2015 5:27:26 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails overall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
But he WAS a Roman Catholic priest when he nailed the paper to the door, correct?

Yes...so what....there have been priests who have made VERY bad decisions in their lives.....just like the rest of us.

154 posted on 02/20/2015 5:30:22 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails overall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
Yes...so what....there have been priests who have made VERY bad decisions in their lives.....just like the rest of us.

That's a poor excuse for bad behavior. Why then single out the Roman Catholic priest Martin Luther for scorn?
155 posted on 02/20/2015 5:34:40 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
>>Eating pork O.K. Now??,<<

We are not under the old law. Jesus and the apostles were. Besides, Acts 15 still has the prohibition against eating blood.

>>does a man still have to be circumcised???<<

He most certainly did while Christ was still alive and so He was.

Scripture says Christ followed the Old Testament laws which He was born under. If He hadn't He would not have been the sinless sacrifice.

156 posted on 02/20/2015 5:36:34 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Legatus
Worship requires a sacrifice made to the object of adoration,

What do you "offer as a sacrifice to Christ?"

Worship in the NT included prayers, kneeling, etc. You know, the stuff catholics do with Mary.

BTW....first I've heard about having to offer a sacrifice to Christ from catholics....or anyone else. Unless we're heading back to the OT.

157 posted on 02/20/2015 5:37:47 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Prayers for The Religion Forum (Ecumenical)

And for you, too.

158 posted on 02/20/2015 5:56:01 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

You do realize that God forgives sin as soon as we repent don’t you? Confession is the ordinary means established by the Church for the reconciliation of sinners to the Body of Christ. God works in extraordinary ways.

You seem to think you know a lot about what Catholicism teaches... you just don’t seem to get the actual teaching.


159 posted on 02/20/2015 6:00:01 PM PST by Legatus (Either way, we're screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

The Mass is the Sacrifice offered to God the Father, it is one and the same Sacrifice as that offered by Our Lord on the Cross. Same spotless Victim, same eternal High Priest.

I’m willing to be corrected by the Church but I don’t think the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is worshiped technically... adored yes, but the Sacrifice is offered to the Father by the Son through the Holy Ghost. The only act of divine worship is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, everything else is secondary. I’ve got a priest on the way over here in a few minutes, I’ll ask him and if I’ve screwed it up I’ll let you know.


160 posted on 02/20/2015 6:10:19 PM PST by Legatus (Either way, we're screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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