Ping
Other Irenaeus quotations:
Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”
-”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely
Clement of Alexandria:
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,
“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,
-”The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,
“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,
-”The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,
The quote from Irenaeus is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. Irenaeus refers to “earthy” he is referring to are the physical characteristics that our senses pick up. When he refers to “heavenly” he is referring to the essence of the bread and wine which has become the blood and body of Christ. Paul in I Corinthians, cited as the earliest book of the NT, when talking about the Last Supper stated “Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
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?
I am always suspicious of the motives of people who come out of the woodwork to try to weaken the faith of others during the most powerful attacks against all of us by atheists, Muslims and their sponsor, the devil.
Did you miss reading Luke 22:14?
Shame on you. I can only pray for your redemption.
What a load of empty, theologically illiterate bilge.
So a handful of Fathers of the Church used LESS PRECISE language than Trent? I’m shocked. SHOCKED!
They lived more than a thousand years before Trent.
Jesus called his blood “wine” because it HAD BEEN wine, and because it still looked like wine, and was drunk like wine, and was being drunk in the Seder, in which there are four cups of blessing drunk. The liturgical prayers still in use today also call the Eucharist “this bread” and “this cup”—immediately after the consecration. Why? Because the bread and wine that are offered DO symbolize flesh and blood. They symbolize flesh and blood BEFORE the consecration, and they continue to symbolize flesh and blood AFTER the consecration—because they still look and taste like bread and wine.
The Eucharistic species ARE the flesh and blood of Jesus, and SIMULTANEOUSLY function as symbols of flesh and blood.
This whole article is based on abject ignorance of Catholic theological terminology, liturgical language, the difference between second-century language and Scholastic language, etc., etc. It ignorantly asserts that because sometimes the Church uses less precise, more Scriptural terminology (as in the liturgy), it must be DENYING all its statements made in the tighter, more precise language of Scholasticism, which was the language of Trent and other councils.
There is nothing in any of the ancient Fathers’ quotations that contradicts the dogma taught by Trent.
Well, the interpretation is man’s interpretation. I think its obvious Jesus was speaking metaphorically. So no, we don’t eat the body or drink the blood of Christ, and it doesn’t miraculously change when we consume them either.
When we take the Eucharist we are commemorating Jesus’s last meal before being crucified for our sins. It’s a formal commemoration performed with blessed bread and wine, to convert them into the Eucharist sacraments.
So the apostles, which the New Testament was written from, were lying? Clearly “take and eat, this is my body”... “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many”
So I guess Christ lied also, right.
You can argue all kinds of things, but the Eucharist comes straight from the Lord himself!
Catholics wrote the New Testament and people say they are wrong???
Read about the early Church fathers. God Bless.
It must be very, very, very sad to be a protestant....Christ gave us the Sacraments and you willingly discard them as folly......WOW...I cannot even imagine the depravity of that thought process...
And for you, too.
Reading through all the strident and angry comments from the resident FRoman Catholics that began immediately after you posted this proves exactly what the author contends. It's funny how they can post dozens of threads about the Eucharist, defending what they teach and believe, condemning everyone (even some other Catholics) who don't believe it EXACTLY the same way, criticizing Evangelicals/Protestants who would DARE defend a contrary belief, accusing anyone who opposes of hatred and bigotry and being anti-Catholic and bemoan the seeming change of FR RF into anti-Catholicism (even though they regularly post anti-Protestant threads), but DARE you or anyone else post a thread explaining WHY there is disagreement and it literally hits the fan!
The author is SO right! They are scared out of their minds to even consider that their church has lied to them about the history of what they say is THE most important part of their religion. The proof of this is in their inability to EVER discuss the topic in a respectful or sane manner. They post their biased threads day and night - making Free Republic look like an annex of the Vatican website - but, should a non-Catholic post a thread about the Christian faith from another viewpoint, and they come out of the woodwork screaming and howling about bigotry and demanding threads be closed and pulled! I often wonder if any step back and try to look objectively at what is being said? If they try to see an issue from the other side for once?
If their faith is SO precarious that they cannot possibly allow an opposing view, then how secure are they in what they believe and why they believe it? If all they have to fall back on is, "That's just what we believe." or "That's what the church teaches.", then no wonder they fight so fiercely against opposition. I think you are brave to post the threads you have for the last few weeks. The sheer number of screeds, angry tirades and hate-filled diatribes shot back at you and others here just shows how insecure some really are in their faith. It proves to me that these threads NEEDED to be seen and I know that God will use them for HIS glory. God bless you.