Incarnation, not Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eruvande
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eruvande

Guest
I recall in my convinced protestant days, a certain teacher using church fathers to prove that they didn’t actually believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, they were merely talking about the reality of Christ’s original incarnation, as opposed to what gnostics were saying about Christ not being really human.

So the passages in the fathers that appear to talk about the real presence were in fact apologetics against the gnostics. I can’t recall who it was that taught this, and remember thinking at the time that it was a bit convoluted, but accepted it because I didn’t want to believe that Jesus was specially and truly present in the Catholic mass. My husband recalls it, and found it convincing, but can’t help me remember who made this case.

Does this teaching ring any bells for anyone, and how would someone refute it?
 
Eruvande said:
I recall in my convinced protestant days, a certain teacher using church fathers to prove that they didn’t actually believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, they were merely talking about the reality of Christ’s original incarnation, as opposed to what gnostics were saying about Christ not being really human.

So the passages in the fathers that appear to talk about the real presence were in fact apologetics against the gnostics. I can’t recall who it was that taught this, and remember thinking at the time that it was a bit convoluted, but accepted it because I didn’t want to believe that Jesus was specially and truly present in the Catholic mass. My husband recalls it, and found it convincing, but can’t help me remember who made this case.

Does this teaching ring any bells for anyone, and how would someone refute it?
Click to expand...
Here is what some of the Church Fathers said.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
 
Eruvande said:
I recall in my convinced protestant days, a certain teacher using church fathers to prove that they didn’t actually believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, they were merely talking about the reality of Christ’s original incarnation, as opposed to what gnostics were saying about Christ not being really human.

So the passages in the fathers that appear to talk about the real presence were in fact apologetics against the gnostics. I can’t recall who it was that taught this, and remember thinking at the time that it was a bit convoluted, but accepted it because I didn’t want to believe that Jesus was specially and truly present in the Catholic mass. My husband recalls it, and found it convincing, but can’t help me remember who made this case.

Does this teaching ring any bells for anyone, and how would someone refute it?
Click to expand...
Post # 2 gives some good answers. Of course your early teachers were wrong. The Bible clearly explains, esp. in John’s discussion on the Eucharist, that Christ was talking about his resurrected, glorified body. But please note that his glorified body is still his Incarnate body, but it is his Incarnate body in its glorified form, not his earthly form. There is no conflict between Christ’s Incarnate, earthly body and his Resurrected, Incarnate, glorified body. Both are Christ Incarnate, he will always be Christ Incarnate. But his earthly body was passable and subject to matter, time, space. Whereas his glorified, Incarnate body is impassible, it is not subject to matter, time and space.

Remember how Christ appeared after his Resurrection. Mary could not recognize him, his Apostles did not recognize him, he appeared in the upper room twice when the door was closed and locked, he showed Thomas his wounds, hes Ascended into heaven. In other words after his Resurrection, he appeared in his glorified body, which was not subject to matter, time, space. And it is his glorified, Incarnate body we receive in the Eucharist. We could talk a lot about this but read the part in the Catechism on the Eucharist and it will tell you more about the power of Christ’s glorified body in the Eucharist.

God Bless
Linus2nd
 
Thank you, that’s a helpful distinction, and thank you too for the link - it really helps build my faith in the real presence, despite my protestant friends objections and arguments,
 
Eruvande said:
I recall in my convinced protestant days, a certain teacher using church fathers to prove that they didn’t actually believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, they were merely talking about the reality of Christ’s original incarnation,
Click to expand...
I’d have to see the actual quotations and in context to accurately evaluate the claim.
 
Ignatius said:
I’d have to see the actual quotations and in context to accurately evaluate the claim.
Click to expand...
Of course. I’ve spoken to my husband about it, but I’m reluctant to post the name, as the teacher in question used a previous thread of mine on his radio show, and I’d rather not draw attention to myself in that manner again. Besides, I can’t find it on his website, despite an extensive search.

I shall just have to go and really meditate on the scripture refs and church father quotations and come to my conclusion that way. Many thanks for taking the time to read my post.
 
Eruvande said:
Of course. I’ve spoken to my husband about it, but I’m reluctant to post the name, as the teacher in question used a previous thread of mine on his radio show, and I’d rather not draw attention to myself in that manner again. Besides, I can’t find it on his website, despite an extensive search.

I shall just have to go and really meditate on the scripture refs and church father quotations and come to my conclusion that way. Many thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Click to expand...
If you’d like to PM that information, I’ll respond without mentioning you.
 
Eruvande said:
I recall in my convinced protestant days, a certain teacher using church fathers to prove that they didn’t actually believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, they were merely talking about the reality of Christ’s original incarnation, as opposed to what gnostics were saying about Christ not being really human.

So the passages in the fathers that appear to talk about the real presence were in fact apologetics against the gnostics. I can’t recall who it was that taught this, and remember thinking at the time that it was a bit convoluted, but accepted it because I didn’t want to believe that Jesus was specially and truly present in the Catholic mass. My husband recalls it, and found it convincing, but can’t help me remember who made this case.

Does this teaching ring any bells for anyone, and how would someone refute it?
Click to expand...
I guess I would ask where the Fathers spoke against, or denied the real presence. That was Luther’s question of the “sacramentarians”.
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.
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...
It seems if the Fathers did not believe that the Eucharist was Christ’s body and blood, they would have said so. 🤷
 
1 Cor 11:27029 Partaking of the Eucharist Unworthily

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

There it is right from Scripture!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top