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 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 581-592 next last
Comment #501 Removed by Moderator

To: rwa265
In this particular case (Post 464), catholic was referring to those who’ve grown up Catholic, just as methodist, baptist, and lutheran were referring to those who grew up Methodist, Baptist, and Lutheran, respectively.

Because all were not capitalized, I would not see it as pejorative to any one group. It might not be proper grammar but I don't see it as insulting. If only one were consistently not capitalized, then you'd have grounds for complaint, IMO.

502 posted on 02/23/2015 12:35:54 PM PST by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Shhhh. It’s a secret.


503 posted on 02/23/2015 12:36:44 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
You're 100% positive...no exceptions. ALL ECFs are in 100% agreement?

With some writers we have much more to draw upon; for others we just have shorter or fragmentary pieces which as to the question at hand may not be entirely clear.

But what we DO know from this period is that the Church Fathers were a very conservative group, jealously guarding the Truth which they understood had been received from the Apostles. If someone advanced an idea that was out-of-step with what had been received, it tended to cause controversy. But there is no recorded controversy over the nature of the Eucharist until the 9th century.

Does this prove that there was total agreement? No. But it does make the case that the ECF's held to greatly varying viewpoints on the Eucharist look mighty weak. I've never seen it credibly advanced that any of the ECF's took a Protestant-type view that it is purely a symbolic, memorial meal. Even the most "figurative" writers (like those out of Alexandria) asserted that the Eucharist was a true sacrifice, which conveyed salvific benefit to the participant. "Infused grace" was the viewpoint in that day.

Like I said, I don't find Protestants talking this way.

504 posted on 02/23/2015 12:56:48 PM PST by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: CpnHook
ME>You're 100% positive...no exceptions. ALL ECFs are in 100% agreement?<

YOU With some writers we have much more to draw upon; for others we just have shorter or fragmentary pieces which as to the question at hand may not be entirely clear.

Wow....that's a pretty big qualifier you've inserted into the discussion now. Seems like you hedging on your statement that all 100% of the ECFs were in 100% agreement on this issue.

Here is one of the major problems with Catholicism....the use of allegory in understanding the text.

Clement (much like Origen, fellow Alexandrian) employed an allegorical style of Biblical interpretation which complicates understanding his views on the Eucharist.

So I would ask you...why should we believe anything you've posted on this topic....or any other for that matter?

ME>They contradict themselves on a host of issues.<

YOU But not on the Eucharist.

ME>That's the point with the ECFs....they've been picked over like fruit in a grocery store. <

YOU: Indeed, you are a case in point of a highly selective picker.

ME >They contradict themselves on a host of issues.<

YOU: But not on the Eucharist. When a Patristics scholar like Kelly (who without question is one of the foremost 20th century experts) can say of Augustine that "he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors," then your attempts to make the historical record appear otherwise is rightly called out as dishonest.

YOU: So, I ask again, why should we take anything else you claim as credible?

505 posted on 02/23/2015 1:19:40 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Seems like you hedging on your statement that all 100% of the ECFs were in 100% agreement on this issue.

That was never my statement. My position is that there is wide agreement among the ECF's on the Eucharist, and that those who are less than clear (they didn't write with your objections in mind) don't support the Protestant view, so what's your point?

So I would ask you...why should we believe anything you've posted on this topic....or any other for that matter?

You don't have to. But know this: if you try BS'ing your way on history (like you tried with Augustine and the others) I will call you on it every time I see it.

You can believe me on that.

506 posted on 02/23/2015 1:47:56 PM PST by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

Comment #507 Removed by Moderator

To: Elsie

Mary gives her consent. Can’t you see that?


508 posted on 02/23/2015 2:17:23 PM PST by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Ge0ffrey; Elsie

Mary gives her consent....so?


509 posted on 02/23/2015 2:41:24 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

510 posted on 02/23/2015 3:07:00 PM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Ha, you are a false prophet and an inane one.

 
 
 
Bernadine: …all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases. O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and since the grace of salvation can ONLY come through thy hands, OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THEE.

Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.

Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.

Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.

Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.

Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.

Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.

Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.

Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.

Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.

511 posted on 02/23/2015 3:08:04 PM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

512 posted on 02/23/2015 3:09:45 PM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Ge0ffrey

513 posted on 02/23/2015 3:11:18 PM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Ge0ffrey
Mary gives her consent. Can’t you see that?

No; she does not.

What she says is an acknowledgment of what IS going to happen.

Why does Rome CONSTANTLY try to put things into people's mouths that they do NOT say?


Luke 1:31-38

31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:

37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.

38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

 

 

514 posted on 02/23/2015 3:16:11 PM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

Comment #515 Removed by Moderator

To: CpnHook
>Seems like you hedging on your statement that all 100% of the ECFs were in 100% agreement on this issue.<

That was never my statement.

Roll tape.....

ME>They contradict themselves on a host of issues.<

YOU: But not on the Eucharist.

It was your position there was no contradiction on the ECFs.

As you asked me....why should we trust you going forward when you were incorrect on this issue?

516 posted on 02/23/2015 4:15:47 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

Comment #517 Removed by Moderator

To: Elsie

Yes, “Be it done to me according to your word.” Mary consented. She said YES!

Elsie, don’t you think Mary had free will?


518 posted on 02/23/2015 5:22:38 PM PST by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

You haven’t beaten me and you never will. Your quarrel is with Jesus Christ, not me.


519 posted on 02/23/2015 9:59:46 PM PST by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

Comment #520 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 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