Did the Apostles Teach About The Eucharist in Error?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Porknpie

Guest
Protestants (majority view) believe that the Lord’s Supper is symbolic, that the bread and wine (if wine is used at all) is only symbolically representative of Christ or that they receive Christ only spiritually.

However, this is not what the Church has believed since the apostolic age. Everywhere the apostles went to preach the Gospel, the Churches that they formed believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Middle East, Africa, Turkey, Italy, India…etc).

St Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John and here is what he said :

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Justin Martyr writing in the early to mid second century says “we have been taught” that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of our Lord :

“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 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.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

So my question is, how do Protestants view the words of St. Ignatius (taught by the apostle John) and Justin Martyr? Did the apostles, who spent three years with Jesus Christ, plus time with him after the resurrection, teach in error?

If not, where is the error coming from?

Pork
 
Porknpie said:
If not, where is the error coming from?
Click to expand...
It’s coming form their refusal to submit to God’s authority, and refusal to accept the Truth he has revealed to us. The only error is their refusal to acknowledged the Truth.
 
I’ve never been able to get a straight answer from people that don’t believe in the True Presence. In ever single debate, the person just ends up saying “it’s not in the Bible, so if you aren’t going to debate on what is in the Bible then forget it.”

Even the Bible teaches the True Presence. Not only did Jesus state that he would be present in the Eucharist, the Apostles taught it, and that evidence is plainly written in I Corinthians 11:

“…or there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”

Paul first scolds them for not celebrating the Eucharist when they come together, and goes on to explain what they are to do, and how to do it properly, even in what manner one is to receive the Eucharist.

He states the importance of it and what exactly the reason is for doing: " For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come." (a proclamation of the Lords death, by which we are all saved).

and then he testifies to the True Presence of our Lord: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

How can one sin against the body and blood of the Lord if He is not present in the Eucharist?
 
Many Protestants are unaware there even were such men as St. Ignatius or St. Justin Martyr. However, for those that do know about such statements…I suppose even those words are taken to mean sacred symbolism, as opposed to literal transformation. If one it conditioned enough to deny the Real Presence one can find many ways to justify that view. Additionally not all Protestants deny the Real Presence. Lutherans, some Anglicans, and various others (including my pastor) believe in it, although not necessarily in the exact same way as the CC.
 
MattofTexas said:
Many Protestants are unaware there even were such men as St. Ignatius or St. Justin Martyr. However, for those that do know about such statements…I suppose even those words are taken to mean sacred symbolism, as opposed to literal transformation. If one it conditioned enough to deny the Real Presence one can find many ways to justify that view. Additionally not all Protestants deny the Real Presence. Lutherans, some Anglicans, and various others (including my pastor) believe in it, although not necessarily in the exact same way as the CC.
Click to expand...
You it the nail on the head when you stated that many people do not know of the Church Fathers. CARM.org is a wonderful example of such. 😦
 
I like to point out to them, that even Satan believes in the Real Presence! I have never heard of any Satanic group breaking into a protestant church to steal THEIR bread for “communion” so that they could desecrate it! :eek:
 
vindicated said:
I like to point out to them, that even Satan believes in the Real Presence! I have never heard of any Satanic group breaking into a protestant church to steal THEIR bread for “communion” so that they could desecrate it! :eek:
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely fair. I’ve known Protestants who believe firmly in the real presence, but Satanists don’t steal their hosts because they frankly don’t place such emphasis on the Eucharist as Catholics do. It’s a matter of appearances, perceptions, and propaganda value. 🙂
 
Porknpie said:
Protestants (majority view) believe that the Lord’s Supper is symbolic, that the bread and wine (if wine is used at all) is only symbolically representative of Christ or that they receive Christ only spiritually.

However, this is not what the Church has believed since the apostolic age. Everywhere the apostles went to preach the Gospel, the Churches that they formed believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Middle East, Africa, Turkey, Italy, India…etc).

St Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John and here is what he said :

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Justin Martyr writing in the early to mid second century says “we have been taught” that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of our Lord :

“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 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.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

So my question is, how do Protestants view the words of St. Ignatius (taught by the apostle John) and Justin Martyr? Did the apostles, who spent three years with Jesus Christ, plus time with him after the resurrection, teach in error?

If not, where is the error coming from?

Pork
Click to expand...
I read that Luther believes in the Real Presence but that Calvin and Zwingli didn’t. I am surprised that when Reformer Fathers disagree with each other, why didn’t they seek the views of the Early Church Fathers to understand the issues better? Why did they think that THEIR interpretation is the correct one and that they couldn’t be in error? These are learned men and learned men do read history as part of basic education of whatever fields they wish to master. Virtually all Early Church Fathers believe in the Real Presence.

Was it ultimately down to pride and ego?
 
The sad reality is that American Christians do not as of yet seek to academically and objectively study the roots of their faith.

Protestant ministers are now studying early church history and early church fathers and they are becoming Catholic.

The problem – ironically – that led to the breakdown of Christian unity was the architectural barrier put up between the clergy and the witness of the Mass vs the laity who stood on the other side, and could only see the Eucharist lifted up above the partition to gaze and reflect on the Eucharist. They increasingly felt unworthy, and so over time, not that many communicated.

It was the sense of exclusivity of the clergy, it sliding into the cesspool thinking it owned the Church and its properties, that led to many abuses.

The majority of abuses happened at the Mass. The Council of Trent listed the abuses – a long list at that, used the printing press to consolidate the Mass’s order into a universal book and then had the Holy Father be the one to set up the proper recitation of the Mass.

The lesser abuses were the selling of indulgences. The other component was the sense of nationalism vs the universal Catholic faith. It was Germany, outside of the universal Church, that had the Mass said in its vernacular tongue, and thus it was Germany through Luther who started the Reformation.

He was not so good as a systematic theologian, but was profound in taking vernacular religious songs, and making them liturgical. His flaw was seeing the congregation as the priesthood, and so the main focus was the preacher rather than the saving action of the Mass as atonement for sin.

Jesus came to save us and redeem us, and this is still the main theology behind the Mass, as well as the proper rite to provide us the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is the source of eternal life. I just read a piece by St. Francis of Assisi who spoke vehemently against heresy that did not believe in eternal life given us by Christ in the Eucharist.
 
ericc said:
I read that Luther believes in the Real Presence but that Calvin and Zwingli didn’t. I am surprised that when Reformer Fathers disagree with each other, why didn’t they seek the views of the Early Church Fathers to understand the issues better? Why did they think that THEIR interpretation is the correct one and that they couldn’t be in error? These are learned men and learned men do read history as part of basic education of whatever fields they wish to master. Virtually all Early Church Fathers believe in the Real Presence.

Was it ultimately down to pride and ego?
Click to expand...
It is not as if the Church Fathers were totally unknown to the Reformers. Calvin in his Institutes argues against transubstantiation drawing from the Church Fathers in addition to Scripture, from St. Augustine in particular. However, he makes no mention of St. Ignatius or St. Justin Martyr.

ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xviii.html
 
Classicist said:
That’s not entirely fair. I’ve known Protestants who believe firmly in the real presence, but Satanists don’t steal their hosts because they frankly don’t place such emphasis on the Eucharist as Catholics do. It’s a matter of appearances, perceptions, and propaganda value. 🙂
Click to expand...
I would question your last statement. Many, probably most, thefts of the Eucharist are done stealthily. (Eg. receiving Communion in the hand and then not consuming it, but taking it for satanic purposes. I don’t really think they even want publicity.) Unfortunately, I think satanists know where Jesus is truly present. I wish it was only unconsecrated hosts/bread that they were stealing. They know to steal the consecrated hosts and not the bags of unconsecrated ones.

I’ve heard an ex-witch speaking on one of the EWTN programs, and she said any true witch can tell a consecrated host from an unconsecrated one. This does not surprise me, as it was the demons in the demon possessed people who were the first to recognize Jesus (excluding Mary and Joseph) when He was on earth.
 
ericc said:
I read that Luther believes in the Real Presence but that Calvin and Zwingli didn’t. I am surprised that when Reformer Fathers disagree with each other, why didn’t they seek the views of the Early Church Fathers to understand the issues better? Why did they think that THEIR interpretation is the correct one and that they couldn’t be in error? These are learned men and learned men do read history as part of basic education of whatever fields they wish to master. Virtually all Early Church Fathers believe in the Real Presence.

Was it ultimately down to pride and ego?
Click to expand...
Luther did.
Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Click to expand...
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
Click to expand...
Jon
 
There came about in some liturgical communities that held the Eucharist literally in the sense that, which is also reflecting ‘attitude’ by some priests and monks, that the laity chewed the Eucharist as with nails piercing Him…implying abuse of the Eucharist.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that we believe in the presence and life of the Eucharist, but the Lord is glorified in heaven, and if one chooses to chose and not simply swallow, is not abusing our Lord.

Back to CARM and the early Church Fathers, I went back simply to encourage Catholics not to spend their time there because the posters were so abusive. I pointed out that the fellow running this site was putting early Church Fathers in, such as Justin the Martyr, but would not relay to his followers the description of the early Mass in practice throughout the Christian world in that time. When I wrote out Justin’s actual words, my post was deleted.

So some times I think these types of ‘ministers’ should be exposed for deliberately misrepresenting our faith. But on the other hand, people who follow him are following their own prejudices and not truly seeking Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top