Eucharist question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sword_Brethren
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sword_Brethren

Guest
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
 
Sword_Brethren said:
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
Click to expand...
1400 years before there ever was such a thing as a protestant, the first Catholics said this:

“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.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans (A.D. 110)

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

“The bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)

I cant find it right now, but the Romans even accused the Catholics of being cannibals. (in the writings of Athenegoras?) Why you may ask? Because we proclaim to have received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Blessed Lord in consuming the Eucharist.
 
Sword_Brethren said:
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
Click to expand...
It was the Catholic Church that Christ established, entrusted with the Deposit of Faith, and gave authority to teach in matters of faith and morals.

When you say a non-Catholic do you mean a Protestant?

The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, believed in the Real Presence and rejected it being symbolic.

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. 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.
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.”

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
 
Sword_Brethren said:
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
Click to expand...
Catholics and non-Catholics differ on what proper hermeneutics includes. For instance, Catholics think that Sacred Tradition ought to be consulted as part of proper biblical hermeneutics.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
1400 years before there ever was such a thing as a protestant, the first Catholics said this:

“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.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans (A.D. 110)

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

“The bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)

I cant find it right now, but the Romans even accused the Catholics of being cannibals. (in the writings of Athenegoras?) Why you may ask? Because we proclaim to have received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Blessed Lord in consuming the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I am really interested in the Early Church Fathers and their teachings. Could you tell me where I can find the documents these quotes are found? Pretty cool!
 
Sword_Brethren said:
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
Click to expand...
I think you should read this article on the Real Presence from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it should explain any question you have.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Linus2nd
 
Sword_Brethren said:
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
Click to expand...
Oooh I love trick questions!
  1. The non-catholic has a problem understanding the simplest set of instruction from Christ. Which is “eat me”. The non-catholic thinks , “it can’t be THAT simple”.
  2. He has empowered himself to discern what is proper or improper. Isn’t that nice and hold oneself high and above everyone else.
  3. He thinks he know his stuff. Otherwise how would he know how to make the most simplest of command into the most complex legal verbage that didn’t come out from Christ. This is my body/blood. Eat/drink me. Do it in memory of me. Full stop. Everything else is waffling around His commands.
 
Sword_Brethren said:
A non-Catholic stated this to me on Catholic’s belief in the real presence, "I really cannot understand why proper hermanutics applied to the text here has been forsaken by our Catholic brethren. " Please, how do I respond to that?
Click to expand...
The church fathers are some of the best responses for protestant questions as they reveal what the church thought for1500 years. In the times I have spoken with protestants about the fathers I find they usually just ignore them. But I press them with what the fathers taught and they usually just walk away
 
ignatius777 said:
The church fathers are some of the best responses for protestant questions as they reveal what the church thought for1500 years. In the times I have spoken with protestants about the fathers I find they usually just ignore them. But I press them with what the fathers taught and they usually just walk away
Click to expand...
I, for one, never realized there were writings by early Christians - and some who were even disciples of the apostles! I am fascinated by their writings and see this as one of the best “discovered jewels” I have learned here on these forums!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top