Evangelical interpretation of Church Fathers on the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bmonk said:
I’ve not gotten a real response to this (or other questions) from Evangelicals–such as which text of the Bible is the authoritative one, and how they know it–but here’s my take on it.

One of the most popular positions is that the Church strayed from the truth, and then the Reformers restored the true faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Which, of course, begs the question as to why the Spirit did not do a better job of guiding the Church in those intervening centuries, or how they know they were (and are) guided by the Spirit in their actions.
Click to expand...
You won’t receive an answer because there is no answer.

Most Evangelicals will reject the Mormon notion of a “Great Apostasy” because there is an unexplainable gap in history that Mormons must deal with. What happened to salvation? Why is it that you would know better? Why would God allow this tremendous void without truth?

What about all the Church Fathers? Am I going to say that I know better than they? That my interpretation is more correct than their interpretation, even those of them who had a direct correspondence with the Apostles? That’s a supreme arrogance I’m not willing to have.

Additionally, historically, this supposed falling away happened way too rapidly. For something to become distorted historically, it generally takes centuries. To suggest that in a couple of decades after Jesus’ death the Church became suddenly corrupted is absurd. There is no explanation of why. And to me, if we can trust a biography of Alexander the Great that was written 800 years after his death, we can trust what the Church Fathers said about the Christian faith.
 
The great heresy was that – not believing in the Divine Presence in the Breaking of Bread…not an ordinary meal. Heresy was already at work since Christ Himself was alive…challenging those who did not understand His message…

And before the Last Supper, He introduced the concept of eating His body and drinking His blood, and then giving the context at the Last Supper and the new form of worship in the Memorial.

The liturgy, the role of administration based on the bishop model that was drawn from Judaism, and the Apostle’s Creed were already set up by 100 AD.

People have to realize that the Holy Spirit began the Church at Pentecost…and at that time the Church was as a seed.

During the time of St. Justin the Martyr…and I have read several of his defense of Christianity…that he and others were at the beginning stages of Christology…in defining Christ.

It wasn’t until Arius challenged his bishop inserting that Christ had a beginning and an end…that the Council of Nicea came about…the Church began the science of Christology which works to always uphold the integrity of Christ to the world.

Read Dr Scott Hahn’s book, a former Bible alone Protestant now Catholic professor…‘Worthy is the Lamb’. He writes for both Protestants and Catholics.
 
John_A said:
Yes, that’s been a problem for me as well.

The Church had 1500 years of apostolic tradition on their side and Luther just sauntered up and said it was all false. When you use the Bible alone, unlike everyone in the early church, it is easy to get a purely symbolic Eucharist. But when you see that the early church believed things like transubstantiation, they being taught by the apostles, the argument that you’re “Bringing the church back to its New Testament roots” or whatever becomes really thin.

Thanks everyone, this has been helpful. I will begin to read some of the ECF’s on the Catholic encyclopedia so I can see for myself what they believe.
Click to expand...
John, I was in the same boat as you as I became Protestant about 6 years ago(and before that didn’t belong to any religion). Eucharist at my old church was purely symbolic and was nothing more than wafer and grape juice taken once a month. My turning point was when I started reading extensively about reformation. By the way, I debated several of my Protestant friends before and their favorite question was “where does that say that in the Bible?”-my answer was “where does it say in the Bible that everything has to be in the Bible?”👍
 
What is key is how the successors of the apostles and the faithful lived out their faith, how they put it into practice…and there was general practice of faith by 100 AD…this only possible through the Holy Spirit.

When we speak of the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic faith…what we mean by that in practice is summed up in our living, mystical experience as a church at the Mass of the Resurrection – every Sunday – where we come to worship and adore God through Christ Who is atonement for our sins, that our unity of faith is declared in the creed, nurtured by the Word and Sacraments together in communion, and though stationery in our pews, we are truly being carried forward by the Holy Spirit to the Heavenly Father in heaven. Each day as a faithful Catholic, we as Church are in our last days and are being drawn only by faith and grace to our full communion with the Lord in heaven.

Declaring the Catholic Church as such…we do not relate to it as a statement, but rather as members and participants in the living, breathing church of Christ, His bride…He is the one Who nurtures us with His life…

So the emphasis is more on the living experience of being in the Church, just as the early Church Fathers were, but also at the time of the beginning of theology, Christology.

As the Church enters into various races and cultures, and sub-cultures…the Church must also integrate into their cultures and draw the truth of Christ which exists in them…so the Church is constantly evolving and expanding in its universal character.

The Early Church Fathers were beginning to define Christ…each one in his locale…and inter-communications took alot of time…as also did the work to hold councils to resolve issues as they came up in the universal church…It took time and prayerful, fidelity to the witness of the Apostles, and great reflection of the Holy Spirit drawing on many people to develop more systematic theology.

Hence, there are protestants who will show discrepancies or omissions by early church fathers as something other than they are not…

Subsequently, the Church makes decrees of what aspect of early church fathers who were teaching publicly in the Holy Spirit …the spirit of the Church, and that which was akin to something of their own inclinations…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top