catechism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melissa2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Melissa2007

Guest
Can everything that is written in the catechism be backed up by the Bible? What the catechism exactly. I am obviously not catholic, but my dh is and I am trying to get a better understanding of what he believes. Most articles quote the catechism, but I am not really interested in that at this point. I am interested in what the Bible says.
 
Can everything that is written in the catechism be backed up by the Bible? What the catechism exactly. I am obviously not catholic, but my dh is and I am trying to get a better understanding of what he believes. Most articles quote the catechism, but I am not really interested in that at this point. I am interested in what the Bible says.
The Catechism contains the teachings of the Catholic Church laid out in a systematic way. There are thousands of scripture references in the body of the text as well as the footnotes from virtually every book and chapter in the Bible.

It’s available online at: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Finally, I can appreciate that you are interested in what the Bible has to say. Keep in mind that the Bible tells you that the Church, and not a book, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Can everything that is written in the catechism be backed up by the Bible? What the catechism exactly. I am obviously not catholic, but my dh is and I am trying to get a better understanding of what he believes. Most articles quote the catechism, but I am not really interested in that at this point. I am interested in what the Bible says.
Here is an online Catechism of the Catholic Church:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The search feature is very helpful. At the bottom of the page all the Bible references are given.
 
There are thousands of ways to interpret Scripture. The Catechism, among other benefits, is our guide for understanding the Bible.
 
Finally, I can appreciate that you are interested in what the Bible has to say. Keep in mind that the Bible tells you that the Church, and not a book, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15)
:amen:

-mp
 
The more I read the more it all starts to make sense. However, it is hard to just “unbelieve” everything that I have been taught and believed for the past 28 years. I have been looking in to the catholic faith for 5 years, but I am not quite ready to take the leap into catholicism. I think the next step might be to dig into the teachings of the church. I have already unproven most of the myths of the catholic church. I am still really struggling with the whole concept of purgatory though. (Yes, I know that’s a whole other topic) 😉
 
Welcome to the forums. This is a great place to learn about the faith. Purgatory is another topic but you can find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches about it right here. There have been numerous threads on the subject that you can research or start one of your own.

Just keep searching and praying…the Lord will not disappoint you.
 
The Catechism contains the teachings of the Catholic Church laid out in a systematic way. There are thousands of scripture references in the body of the text as well as the footnotes from virtually every book and chapter in the Bible.

It’s available online at: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Finally, I can appreciate that you are interested in what the Bible has to say. Keep in mind that the Bible tells you that the Church, and not a book, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
The Catechism at nearly every point is contradictory to some teaching in the Bible, especially the ones concerning Mary. You say the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth… certainly… but you refer that to your Church… I am 100% certain the Catholic Church is not the Church mentioned here; In my Bible it says the Church of GOD… not the Church of random teachings based on some old guy who sits around on a throne all day in Rome… of all the things! The Church mentioned here will be the Church that bases itself on GOD… not Mary… not the Saints… not the Pope… JUST GOD and the Word which he has given us… His Word has told more truth than any present church today, I am certain also. THAT Church of God will be infallible, THAT Church of God will be the pillar and foundation of truth, no questions asked! It’s logical as well! Truth comes from God, you can note the Pope nor any religious leader is God… they will have their faults.
 
The Catechism at nearly every point is contradictory to some teaching in the Bible, especially the ones concerning Mary.
There are quotes in the Catechism that quotes the Bible. There is no contradict. Most of the contradiction you claim are based on your self-interpretation. Second, who gave you authority to judge us?
You say the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth… certainly… but you refer that to your Church… I am 100% certain the Catholic Church is not the Church mentioned here; In my Bible it says the Church of GOD… not the Church of random teachings based on some old guy who sits around on a throne all day in Rome… of all the things! The Church mentioned here will be the Church that bases itself on GOD… not Mary… not the Saints… not the Pope
I’m trust Jesus Christ established a visible Church and built it upon Peter, Our First Pope. Yes, the name pope was not know then. Pope derives from the Latin word Papa which means Father because he acts as our spiritual Father.

I am 100% sure that Jesus promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. The Catholic Church is 2,000 yrs. St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom Mem was celebrated yesterday (he is also a disciple of John, the Apostle) said this:

CHAPTER 8: Letter to the Smyrnaeans ((Written 107-110 AD)

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
… JUST GOD and the Word which he has given us… His Word has told more truth than any present church today, I am certain also. THAT Church of God will be infallible, THAT Church of God will be the pillar and foundation of truth, no questions asked! It’s logical as well! Truth comes from God, you can note the Pope nor any religious leader is God… they will have their faults.
The Church is also called the Bride of Christ, the Spouse of the Lamb. The Church is also called the Body of Christ and Jesus is the Head. You defame the Catholic Church, you defame his Church. How dare you attack the Catholic Church by coming into this forum and claim we aren’t. My Friend, the Catholic Church is the ONLY TRUTH CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

Protestants like yourself didn’t exist until 1517 when Martin Luther came into the scene and distort the Bible with false doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelis.
 
There are quotes in the Catechism that quotes the Bible. There is no contradict. Most of the contradiction you claim are based on your self-interpretation. Second, who gave you authority to judge us?

I’m trust Jesus Christ established a visible Church and built it upon Peter, Our First Pope. Yes, the name pope was not know then. Pope derives from the Latin word Papa which means Father because he acts as our spiritual Father.

I am 100% sure that Jesus promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. The Catholic Church is 2,000 yrs. St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom Mem was celebrated yesterday (he is also a disciple of John, the Apostle) said this:

CHAPTER 8: Letter to the Smyrnaeans ((Written 107-110 AD)

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

The Church is also called the Bride of Christ, the Spouse of the Lamb. The Church is also called the Body of Christ and Jesus is the Head. You defame the Catholic Church, you defame his Church. How dare you attack the Catholic Church by coming into this forum and claim we aren’t. My Friend, the Catholic Church is the ONLY TRUTH CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

Protestants like yourself didn’t exist until 1517 when Martin Luther came into the scene and distort the Bible with false doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelis.
chuckles

“There are quotes in the Catechism that quotes the Bible. There is no contradict. Most of the contradiction you claim are based on your self-interpretation. Second, who gave you authority to judge us?”

Yes, I know the Catechism quotes the Bible and that’s why I said NEARLY every point in the Catechism is contradicted by the Bible, please do not prove to ignorance…

Along the line of complete ignorance I see you label me as a protestant! Where have I proclaimed myself to be a protestant? Nowhere! I follow none of those lines, I know they are foolish teachings and subject to fallacies.

You call the Catholic Church the only true Church of Christ, yea yea, I’ve heard this excuse many times, but how come the Catholic Church has made so many changes to its religion if it has access to the entire truth of the world? Well, for one, it doesn’t have that access… because it isn’t the Church of God! The Catholic Church does not even completely comply to the Bible… trust me I KNOW this… I have attended mass one time in my life, the only thing I could notice were the repetitive and boring traditions- the prayers to Mary which are heretical, the re-sacrifice of Christ for his blood and flesh which is heretical, and the consumption of his flesh and blood which is completely unbiblical!
 
chuckles

Along the line of complete ignorance I see you label me as a protestant! Where have I proclaimed myself to be a protestant? Nowhere! I follow none of those lines, I know they are foolish teachings and subject to fallacies.
You don’t need to proclame your self a protestant to be a protestant. To be a protestant is to PROTEST against the Catholic Church
newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
 
chuckles

I have attended mass one time in my life, the only thing I could notice were the repetitive and boring traditions- the prayers to Mary which are heretical, the re-sacrifice of Christ for his blood and flesh which is heretical, and the consumption of his flesh and blood which is completely unbiblical!
Hoe do you particapate in Christ sacrifice?
 
You don’t need to proclame your self a protestant to be a protestant. To be a protestant is to PROTEST against the Catholic Church
newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
I see, I had heard otherwise elsewhere on the web of a certain set of beliefs that went with it, almost the same as Catholics, I don’t believe the subject ever really interested me, oh well, thanks for enlightening me- that’s all I can say, I suppose I am a protestant in your views. nevertheless my opinions do not change.
 
Dictionary.com Unabridged
**cat·e·chize **
  1. to instruct orally by means of questions and answers, esp. in Christian doctrine.
  2. to question with reference to belief.
  3. to question closely.

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < LL catéchizāre < Gk katéchízein to make (someone) learn by teaching orally, equiv. to katéch(eǐn) to teach orally (see catechist) + -izein -ize]
[French catechisme, from Old French, from Late Latin catēchismus, from Late Greek katēkhismos, from katēkhizein, to **teach by word of mouth; see catechize.]

[Middle English catecizen, from Old French catechiser, from Medieval Latin catēchizāre, from Late Greek katēkhizein, from Greek katēkhein : kata-, down, off, out; see cata- + ēkhein, **to sound (from ēkhē, sound).

American Heritage Dictionary - **cat·e·chist ** (kāt’ĭ-kĭst) Pronunciation Key

n. A person who catechizes, especially** one who instructs **catechumens in preparation for admission into a Christian church.

[French catechiste, from Old French, from Late Latin catēchista, from Late Greek katēkhistēs, from katēkhizein, **to teach by word of mouth; see catechize.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This **cat·e·chu·men ** (kāt’ĭ-kyōō’mən) Pronunciation Key
n.
**One who is being taught **the principles of Christianity.
**One who is being instructed **in a subject at an elementary level.

[Middle English cathecumine, from Old French catechumene, from Latin catēchūmenus, from Greek katēkhoumenos, present passive participle of katēkhein, **to instruct; see catechize.

**catechesis **

noun
oral religious instruction

(as before baptism or confirmation)
 
chuckles

“There are quotes in the Catechism that quotes the Bible. There is no contradict. Most of the contradiction you claim are based on your self-interpretation. Second, who gave you authority to judge us?”

Yes, I know the Catechism quotes the Bible and that’s why I said NEARLY every point in the Catechism is contradicted by the Bible, please do not prove to ignorance…

Along the line of complete ignorance I see you label me as a protestant! Where have I proclaimed myself to be a protestant? Nowhere! I follow none of those lines, I know they are foolish teachings and subject to fallacies.

You call the Catholic Church the only true Church of Christ, yea yea, I’ve heard this excuse many times, but how come the Catholic Church has made so many changes to its religion if it has access to the entire truth of the world? Well, for one, it doesn’t have that access… because it isn’t the Church of God! The Catholic Church does not even completely comply to the Bible… trust me I KNOW this… I have attended mass one time in my life, the only thing I could notice were the repetitive and boring traditions- the prayers to Mary which are heretical, the re-sacrifice of Christ for his blood and flesh which is heretical, and the consumption of his flesh and blood which is completely unbiblical!
Hello Nezmithb.
I can see where you might have some preconceived notions about the Catholic Church. Many people that aren’t Catholic believe the Church to be heretical until they do serious study into our faith. You’ve pointed out many things about Catholics that you believe to be in error. If I were to refute every single claim, this post would go on forever, so I propose to address a single topic, and see if I can provide evidence for it. If we can prove that one of the more substantial claims of the Catholic Church may be true, it may cause you to do more research into some of the others. If (and naturally, that’s a big if) that time comes, we’ll be here to help you do that research.

The topic I’ve chosen is the Eucharist, and specifically, the Real Presence. Catholics believe that Jesus is not just symbolically present in Communion, but actually physically present. You may be interested to note that we are not the only denomination that holds to this view. In fact, about 2/3 of ALL Christians believe this to be true, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans. In order to prove the Real Presence, I think it’s essential to look at both what the Bible says and what has historically been true. After all, if it is a corruption, it should be fairly easy to track down at what point it entered into Catholic belief. Looking at what people believed in the very early church would be critical to your argument that it is false.

So, I’m going to begin to answer the question from the historical perspective, and then go back and deal with the Biblical issues. I realize that it will be very important to back up the claim with what’s taught in the Bible, since it is an inspired source. BUT, if we want to know how to correctly interpret that source, we need to see what the apostles and the followers of the apostles thought about how it should be interpreted. If it matters, I’m a professional historian at a small private college in the South, although my area of expertise is Latin America, not the Catholic Church or theology. (Just so you know that my research has some credibility.)

By the way, I will apologize for what is going to be a long post in advance. However, I hope you find the research interesting.
 
I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.

First, a couple of assumptions:
  1. I think we can both agree that the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is established by the Reformation, so I will leave any discussion from that era out.
  2. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Real Presence in the Orthodox Eucharist), we can assume that the doctrine predates the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox.
(Now, that said, the Orthodox will not use the word “Transubstantiation”. They leave the miracle of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a mystery, but they DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ, and in basically the same way as Catholics.)

Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.

While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.

More to follow…
 
We can now proceed to push the date of the doctrine of the Real Presence back even further, using quotes from St. Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. Ambrose:

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Theodore of Mopsuestia


“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan


“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

These are all mainstream figures in the Catholic Church. Ambrose and Augustine were both important bishops. These statements are clear, and they define the position of the Catholic Church, which is then stated more formally at the Council of Ephesus. As a result, it’s clear that the idea of the Real Presence develops absolutely no later than the late 4th century.

continued…
 
I should mention that most of these quotes are coming from the Catholic Answers library on the front page of this site. I’m just adding some additional commentary.

In 350 A.D., we have another very important document from Cyril of Jerusalem. He states:

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Again, we have a clear indication of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now we begin with some quotes that are slightly less clear, but offer some strong evidence for the Real Presence:

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Now granted, this particular quote could be interpreted as merely symbolic, but given the documentary evidence from other sources and the fact that the Real Presence is clearly believed in 350 A.D., it strongly suggests that this quote is to be taken literally.
**
Council of Nicaea I**

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Here we have a reference to the Eucharist in one of the most important of all Church councils, the Council of Nicaea. The important parts of this quote are the reference to the sacrificial, rather than symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that it is regarded as something special and important enough that only priests and bishops may offer it.

Next, we have Cyprian of Carthage talking about how the Eucharist must be eaten only by those who have confessed of their sins. The sacrifice of the Eucharist may only be consumed by the pure, because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He then proceeds to back up his opinion through Holy Scripture:

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

continued…*
 
Here are several more quotes:

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

**Hippolytus
**
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Tertullian


“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” **(The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
**
Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] 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” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Here is what J. N. D. Kelly has to say in his book Early Christian Doctrines about the above quotes. (pgs 211-212):

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. (see my last post) Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”.

Now, out of these last few passages, no single quote would support belief in the Real Presence all by itself. However, taken as a collection, it provides strong evidence that the belief was widespread. In light of even earlier documentary evidence (which I’ll give in my next post) that is far more clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence, these quotes become important as evidence of continuity.*
 
And finally, we come to the most important quotes of all:

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He 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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

Now this IS significant! We have Iraneus of Lyons, in 189 A.D., writing an entire tract to refute the heresy of the Docetists. Here is what Wikipedia says about the Docetists:

"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], “to seem”) is the belief that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence “the Word was made Flesh” (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

Christology and theological implications

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view. Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, largely dying out during the first millennium A.D. . Other surviving gnostic movements, such as Catharism incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229)."

Irenaeus is arguing against Docetism because it denies the sacrifice of Jesus. If God could never take true human form because it was evil, then Jesus’ death was simply an illusion with no real value. Irenaeus HAD to emphasize the Real Presence as part of his argument to prove that Jesus actually DID become flesh. How could someone reject the Real Presence as possible if it didn’t already exist?! The document by Irenaeus is long, but clear, and combined with the other quotes above, helps to push the date for the Real Presence all the way back to the late 2nd century. Keep in mind that Irenaeus was born a mere 25-30 years after the death of the Apostle John, so we are now getting VERY close to the New Testament era.

continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top