Protestant on Early Church (Help)

[Makarios]

I need some help on something by a Protestant using the Early Church to refute the Real Presence. The problem is, this site doesn’t let me post links because it’s against the rules, even if it’s to help me.

How do I get help?

 

[Melchior_1]

I need some help on something by a Protestant using the Early Church to refute the Real Presence. The problem is, this site doesn’t let me post links because it’s against the rules, even if it’s to help me.

How do I get help?

You could copy and paste the text instead of the links or perhaps type things out longhand.

St. Justin the Martyr one of the (or simply THE) premier apologists in his era (pre-200 AD) who wrote about the Eucharist, his writings may be useful. There is also some excellent commentaries on John 6 floating around the Internet.

 

[zdon011]

I need some help on something by a Protestant using the Early Church to refute the Real Presence. The problem is, this site doesn’t let me post links because it’s against the rules, even if it’s to help me.

How do I get help?

Makarios, you may find this site useful:
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Blessings, zdon

 

[Theophorus]

I need some help on something by a Protestant using the Early Church to refute the Real Presence. The problem is, this site doesn’t let me post links because it’s against the rules, even if it’s to help me.

How do I get help?

by this site do you mean CAF? because many links are posted here daily

 

[Theophorus]

St Ignatius of antioch (died prior to A.D117) says in his letter to the Smyneans Ch7 V1:
St Ignatius:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.vii.html

 

[Makarios]

Mods: Please don’t ban me! I’m not looking to refute Catholicism! I just need help defending it! Thanks.

onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The link above is troubling me

 

[MarkThompson]

Mods: Please don’t ban me! I’m not looking to refute Catholicism! I just need help defending it! Thanks.

onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The link above is troubling me

I’ll tell you what, this is so long, yet so full of dreadful logic, that it would take a book to point out all the glaring errors. I’ll start with one: none of the article makes any reference in the slightest to the original text of the documents at issue, yet it purports to find deep significance in things like whether a verb was in present or past tense. Without being familiar with the original (Greek or Latin) and knowing very thoroughly the conventions of writing in that language, it is simply impossible to draw the kind of conclusions that are made here. The author clearly has zero understanding of this, which renders the entire project armchair theologizing of the worst sort.

Besides which, basically the entire article amounts to saying this: “Yes, all these authors said that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ. However, if you squint really hard and distort the meaning of their words, you can make certain passages consistent with a view that denies the Real Presence.” In other words, if you ignore all the times when these writers said that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, you can find parts that can be read as consistent with someone’s preexisting view that they are not.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[Theophorus]

timing is a funny thing! Zwingli published the book “Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia” On August 17, 1525 in which he defended his novel belief that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were only symbols.

Of all the early church fathers St. Ignatius of Antioch (hence my Username) is one I have a good knowledge of, and the author of that post distorted his writings quite a bit. Ignatius had one of the best documented Eucharistic theologies of any of the early church fathers. His letter to the Ephesians, the Philadelphians, and the smyrneans mention the Eucharist explicitly with many allusions to it in his other letters.

God Bless

 

[Brian_Culliton]

I need some help on something by a Protestant using the Early Church to refute the Real Presence. The problem is, this site doesn’t let me post links because it’s against the rules, even if it’s to help me.

How do I get help?

If you post two or more links your comment will be held for moderation. I received no notification that you posted anything. Why don’t you start by posting a comment with no links then I will make sure the rest of your comments are approved, as long as the amount of links is reasonable.

The author

 

[Psalm_51]

He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him. (John 6:57)

For those who have been taught that this verse was merely a metaphor or figurative language, I would ask you to consider a couple of things. First, after Jesus repeated himself and refused to back off from a literal interpretation, some of his disciples finally got it and finally understood that he was NOT speaking figuratively (Read the passage in John 6 for yourself to see this). Consequently the disciples, upon being faced with an adamant Jesus who refused to give other than a literal interpretation that “He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him,” fled Jesus and walked away from him and decided that this teaching was too “hard” for them. At this point, Jesus asked them, “do you take offense at this?” Jesus could have called them back to explain that he was only speaking figuratively and that there was another meaning if that is what he was actually doing; yet, he stayed silent and, unlike on other occasions where Jesus corrected his disciples or offered a further explanation, he gave no such correction. He simply let them go. And he turned to the 12 apostles who remained and asked them: "“Will you also go away?”

Second, what if we could find the writings of a disciple of one of the Apostles who could provide some insight as to whether Jesus was speaking literally or merely figuratively and symbolically? One would think that this individual would have been taught exactly what the Apostle learned from Jesus, correct? One would think that this issue would be cleared up because the Apostle certainly wouldn’t allow confusion on such an important teaching which the Apostle heard from the very lips of Jesus, correct? Well, in fact we DO have the writing of one of the disciples of an apostle and his name was Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John. Now Ignatius wrote a letter, an epistle, to the Smyrnaeans in approximately the year 107. The purpose of the letter was to address a false teaching which was floating around the Church there and how these heretics were attempting to deny the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and thought they could administer the sacrament of the Eucharist without recognizing the authority of a bishop. Here is a portion of Igatius’ epistle and note what he says in the FIRST sentence regarding how “they” [the heretics] regard the Eucharist:

The Epistle of Ignatius student of the Apostle John] to the Smyrnaeans
c. 107

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.