A Challenge to Eucharistic teachings of the Church Fathers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Davis_tylerj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Davis_tylerj

Guest

Does anyone know if Catholic Answers has addressed some of the symbol quotations of Church Fathers regarding Eucharist. This author claims that the Church fathers understood Eucharist only symbolically and challenge those that view it otherwise. I think it is a load of poo but I am interested to see some counter evidence that the author’s use of these quotations of the Church fathers is inappropriate.

Thanks! Looking forward to the conversation!
 
I don’t know if CA in particular has, but either themselves or EWTN has covered how the “symbol verses” don’t deny the Real Presence, only speak of the meaning behind the substances and actions of the Last Supper (among other things).

Jesus’ Eucharistic presence has always been universally held by the Church.
 
Davis_tylerj said:
Does anyone know if Catholic Answers has addressed some of the symbol quotations of Church Fathers regarding Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I am almost certain they have; I remember reading something about precisely this, but I can’t remember where it came from. You could try their search engine at www.catholic.com .
 
Davis_tylerj said:
Does anyone know if Catholic Answers has addressed some of the symbol quotations of Church Fathers regarding Eucharist. This author claims that the Church fathers understood Eucharist only symbolically and challenge those that view it otherwise. I think it is a load of poo but I am interested to see some counter evidence that the author’s use of these quotations of the Church fathers is inappropriate.
Click to expand...
Today we hear priests bishops & popes state the Sacrements are outward signs of grace committed to us, ie a symbol of the essence of God transmitted to us.

That does not contradict the real presence or transubstantiation (sp).
 
Last edited:
Davis_tylerj said:
Does anyone know if Catholic Answers has addressed some of the symbol quotations of Church Fathers regarding Eucharist. This author claims that the Church fathers understood Eucharist only symbolically and challenge those that view it otherwise. I think it is a load of poo but I am interested to see some counter evidence that the author’s use of these quotations of the Church fathers is inappropriate.

Thanks! Looking forward to the conversation!
Click to expand...

 
They misunderstand what’s meant by symbols. The inward mystery is veiled while the outward appearance is visible and is a symbol of the higher reality it represents.

It doesn’t help that the Early Church Fathers were steeped in Platonist philosophy while our way of thinking today is far removed from that. A “symbol” isn’t just a recognition but a sign of a higher reality.
 
St Iraneus wrote in Against Heresies:
‘the bread and the wine, from being earthly, become heavenly; the Christian, from being corruptible, becomes fit for eternal life.’
 
Over the centuries, many people have died or been denied a living over what we mean by transubstantiation. The expressed view of the Church is that Jesus Christ, in body, blood, soul and divinity becomes really present in the form of the bread and wine offered during Mass. That is why we treat the sacred elements with the utmost of respect and why the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, exposed and carried in procession. So what exactly does transubstantiation mean? The substance changes - but nothing else. What was bread and wine continue to look and taste as they did. If someone was sacrilegious enough to conduct a chemical analysis, the sacred elements would continue to appear as bread and wine. Exactly how we should regard the miracle of Bolsena remains a mystery - but that’s what miracles are.
 
I cannot think of any early Church Father, except maybe Justin Martyr (and that is questionable), who speaks of the Eucharist as being symbolic of receiving the body and blood of Christ. Even Justin Martyr who appears at places to take that view is less concerned about explaining what is going on in the sacrament as refuting rumors begun by pagans who were spreading rumors that Christians were engaging in the cannibalism of children or foundlings during the sacrament of Holy Communion. I think his writings on the sacrament should not be read as dogmatic statements (he was a poor theologian) but as apologetic statements assuring the Roman authorities that Christians were in fact law-abiding citizens who should not be persecuted for the sole crime of being Christian.
 
Last edited:
We have to understand, when the Church Fathers spoke of ‘symbol’ it is not in the same sense which we understand ‘symbol’. They were speaking to an audience who primarily grasped Christianity through the mindset of neo-platonism, and as such must be viewed through that understanding of ‘symbol’. For the neo-platonists, a symbol was inherently part of the supernatural reality of that which it symbolizes. For the early Church Fathers to say the Eucharist is a symbol is almost identical to what we speak of when we talk of substance and accident with regards to the Eucharist.
 
Cripplegate cripples itself by claiming that easily misinterpreted writing - no matter how inspired - is the final authoerity. If it was, there would not be thousands of denominations, JWs and LDS among others.

Any and all such sources have hardened their hearts against the true Presence of Christ. Well did Fr. Mitch Pacwa sum up the “reformation” as an attack on the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top