C
cp1623
Guest
Hi Everyone,
I’ve been an avid reader of CAF for a while but am finally posting a question for the first time. Recently, I’ve been reading through the ECFs on the Eucharist and they all seem to agree with the Real Presence. However, I’ve heard some Protestant Christians (particularly the Reformed) claim that when the Fathers refer to a change in the nature of the elements (i.e. St. Ambrose, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc), they mean that the Eucharist is no longer common bread but is now bread that God uses to communicate the efficacy of Christ’s body and blood (they appeal to this line of reasoning again to argue against appeals to St. Ireneaus as well).
Additionally, they say that St. Justin Martyr; in his famous quote regarding the Eucharist, isn’t comparing the Incarnation to the Eucharist but is comparing Christ taking on flesh for our salvation and his giving the Eucharist to nourish our body and blood.
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
This seems to be revisionist history, but how should one respond to show that it is just that?
My apologies if this has already been asked and answered (or if I put this in the wrong thread). God Bless!
EDIT: Thank you for the response! Sorry for the typo here (as it does change the question a bit). I meant to ask how one should respond rather than if one should respond. Although I really do appreciate your answer to the question as originally asked!
I’ve been an avid reader of CAF for a while but am finally posting a question for the first time. Recently, I’ve been reading through the ECFs on the Eucharist and they all seem to agree with the Real Presence. However, I’ve heard some Protestant Christians (particularly the Reformed) claim that when the Fathers refer to a change in the nature of the elements (i.e. St. Ambrose, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc), they mean that the Eucharist is no longer common bread but is now bread that God uses to communicate the efficacy of Christ’s body and blood (they appeal to this line of reasoning again to argue against appeals to St. Ireneaus as well).
Additionally, they say that St. Justin Martyr; in his famous quote regarding the Eucharist, isn’t comparing the Incarnation to the Eucharist but is comparing Christ taking on flesh for our salvation and his giving the Eucharist to nourish our body and blood.
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
This seems to be revisionist history, but how should one respond to show that it is just that?
My apologies if this has already been asked and answered (or if I put this in the wrong thread). God Bless!
EDIT: Thank you for the response! Sorry for the typo here (as it does change the question a bit). I meant to ask how one should respond rather than if one should respond. Although I really do appreciate your answer to the question as originally asked!
Last edited:
