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 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-592 next last
To: Legatus
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.

I've been told repeatedly on this board that only a priest can forgive sins and that you have to confess those to him to have them forgiven.

I'm just telling you what other catholics on this board have said.

So you're saying it is not necessary to go to a priest to have your sins forgiven? I want to be clear on this.

161 posted on 02/20/2015 6:12:20 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Legatus
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.

But that's the point...a sacrifice is not needed to please God any longer. The sacrifice was made on the cross for all of our sins....past, present and future.

162 posted on 02/20/2015 6:13:56 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Legatus
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.

Ask him about the forgiveness of mortal sins also.....through a priest or not? If confessed or not...Heaven or Hell.

You might want to post the answer so all catholics will have it straight from a priest.

I'm curious to the answer.

163 posted on 02/20/2015 6:15:41 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
I've been told repeatedly on this board that only a priest can forgive sins

Only God can forgive sin since God is the offended party.

Here are the words used by the priest: "God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Absolve is from Latin and means to loosen or set free.

164 posted on 02/20/2015 6:27:05 PM PST by Legatus (Either way, we're screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Sorry you dont see that the answer to your question is contained in my questions.

you are blinded from the Truth by your lack of understanding of the questions I posed.

Good Luck.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam


165 posted on 02/20/2015 6:31:11 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
So you're saying it is not necessary to go to a priest to have your sins forgiven? I want to be clear on this.

It is the ordinary means of reconciliation established by the Church ... hang on: priest incoming, will post in a few minutes.

166 posted on 02/20/2015 6:31:55 PM PST by Legatus (Either way, we're screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone; Elsie
nope. anything the pope says catholics have to do/think/sleep on religious matters. doesn't matter if they are "infallible" or not. else you're your own little denomination. that's how far reaching that statement it.

Nope, ask Elsie or look back a few posts...some Popes have said and done stupid things and I am under NO obligation to follow those thoughts....

167 posted on 02/20/2015 6:42:34 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails overall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98

Ok, so you can’t answer the questions. Got it.


168 posted on 02/20/2015 6:42:49 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

you said:
But that’s the point...a sacrifice is not needed to please God any longer. The sacrifice was made on the cross for all of our sins....past, present and future.

“any longer” describes a length of time

“past, present and future.” describes the dimensions of time

Since Christ is eternal and infinite so any of His actions are eternal and infinite - ie they are not governed or limited by time and space.

Therefore although you are finite and subject to both space and time, however Christ’s Sacrifice is not and is happening for Him in the eternal now.

For the Greater Glory of God


169 posted on 02/20/2015 6:46:33 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; Elsie; verga
Nope, ask Elsie or look back a few posts...some Popes have said and done stupid things and I am under NO obligation to follow those thoughts....

Congrats Elsie....you've become a New Church Father! TC is quoting you to defend his refusal to obey the pope in all religious matters...in spite of what the pope says.

YOPIOS for you TC!

TC, you're too much fun!

170 posted on 02/20/2015 6:47:08 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You can never understand or accept my thoroughly Catholic answers - I understand.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam


171 posted on 02/20/2015 6:52:27 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
you said: But that’s the point...a sacrifice is not needed to please God any longer. The sacrifice was made on the cross for all of our sins....past, present and future.

Yes...that need stopped on a Friday around 33 AD. It was confirmed on the following Sunday morning. No need for any additional sacrifices after that. It's called the resurrection.

To say that your past, present and future sins are forgiven does not have anything to do with time as you're attempting to place them. To be quite honest, I'm not really sure what kind of cosmological argument you're attempting to make. Reminds me of my philosophy class in college. Some weird stuff.

To say He's forgiven our past, present and future sins is a way of describing the complete forgiveness of our sins. Whether they're in the past or the ones we will sadly commit in the future. When we believe in Him, those sins are forgiven and covered. They're gone.

172 posted on 02/20/2015 6:53:47 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
>>You can never understand or accept my thoroughly Catholic answers<<

Nope, don't guess I ever will. Never could understand how someone could get sucked into those cults. Always thought people had more sense then that.

173 posted on 02/20/2015 6:57:19 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

As I said Good Luck.

AMDG


174 posted on 02/20/2015 7:03:21 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

When we believe in Him, those sins are forgiven and covered. They’re gone.

That must be why protestants believe that birth control is ok.


175 posted on 02/20/2015 7:06:51 PM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
>Do this in remembrance of Me......< do what???.......THIS!!!! You tell me.

Think real carefully

He took bread in His Hands, blessed it, broke it and gave it to His followers saying "TAKE AND EAT OF THIS, THIS IS MY BODY" when supper was ended He took the chalice of wine, Blessed it and gave it to His followers and said"TAKE AND DRINK OF THIS, THIS IS A CHALICE OF MY BLOOD WHICH WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN"......Then He said" Do This in remembrance of Me"

Now if we take that last sentence, which obviously referred to what He had just done, and diagram it as we were taught to do in the 4th grade we will come upon this:

the sentence is imperative therefore the subject (you) is understood, "do" is the verb...This.. is the subject of the sentence....You do this....is a complete sentence....you do this.....then He tells you why to do this....to remember Him by.....you do THIS in remembrance of Me.....THIS refers to what He had just done......transubstantiated bread and wine into His Body, Blood Soul and Divinity while retaining its appearance as that of bread and wine......see how easy it is when you READ and pay attention??

176 posted on 02/20/2015 7:11:39 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails overall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98

Luck?? I don’t believe in luck.


177 posted on 02/20/2015 7:12:54 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
>>It must be difficult being a catholic.<< They are to even subject their intellect to the pope.

no they don't...

178 posted on 02/20/2015 7:14:49 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails overall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
When we believe in Him, those sins are forgiven and covered. They’re gone.

That must be why protestants believe that birth control is ok.

I see...classic catholic dodge. You've been proven wrong on the need for an ongoing sacrifice as noted in post #172 so you run to your favorite fall back position. Birth control. Starting to get you guys figured out.

Catholic rule #1: When losing an argument, change the subject.

BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8“BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.” Romans 4:7-8

Did you know Jesus also forgives murderers and adulterers and liars?

So back to the post....do we still need to offer God a sacrifice? If so what would be sufficient that would equal what Jesus did on the cross for us?

179 posted on 02/20/2015 7:15:00 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

English is not your first language I take it.


180 posted on 02/20/2015 7:16:36 PM PST by verga (I might as well be playing Chess with a pigeon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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