Symbolic "Eucharist" only 300 years old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lrning
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Catholic (Roman Catholic) I had to check some sources since these answers seemed contrary to my belief.

Whom better to check with but a Doctor and Saint.

St Thomas Aquinas:

Concencrating:
*On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): “Just as Baptism remains in them,” i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, “so do their orders remain intact.” Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders remain entire.

I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.*

Receiving:
*I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John’s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that “He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass. *

*Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, “with such a one not so much as to eat,” Augustine’s gloss runs thus: “In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God’s law, according to the Church’s ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted.” *
 
I had just received the Jan/Feb. 2007 issue of “The Catholic Answer” and starting on page 26. is an article titled, “This is My Body”…

It discusses the beliefs of the early church and what the early church fathers wrote about the Eucharist…

Nice article, check it out if you get a chance…
 
I had just received the Jan/Feb. 2007 issue of “The Catholic Answer” and starting on page 26. is an article titled, “This is My Body”…

It discusses the beliefs of the early church and what the early church fathers wrote about the Eucharist…

Nice article, check it out if you get a chance…
Is it online?

How do I get that copy?
 
this magazine is put out by Our Sunday Visitor. I went to their website and the jan/feb edition has not posted at this moment…
I am very interested in reading what they have written so if you know it is available could you post a link for this thread?

I will try to look for it as well…

God Bless and Peace

Jack
 
Lot’s of interesting posts, but nothing so far that seems to answer my question.

Does anyone know if there was a heresy in the early Church that denied the Real Presence? Or did this idea that the Eucharist is “symbolic” develop since the Reformation?

I have some family (baptized Catholic) that cannot (or perhaps will not) believe in the Real Presence. They flop back and forth between denominations and are at a point in their search where I know they would be receptive to some pro. I have tons of information supporting the Real Presence, but I’d like to know the history of this symbolic belief. If the “symbolic” idea is really only several hundred years old, how can someone justify belief in it?

Thanks for any help.
 
Lot’s of interesting posts, but nothing so far that seems to answer my question.

Does anyone know if there was a heresy in the early Church that denied the Real Presence? Or did this idea that the Eucharist is “symbolic” develop since the Reformation?

I have some family (baptized Catholic) that cannot (or perhaps will not) believe in the Real Presence. They flop back and forth between denominations and are at a point in their search where I know they would be receptive to some pro. I have tons of information supporting the Real Presence, but I’d like to know the history of this symbolic belief. If the “symbolic” idea is really only several hundred years old, how can someone justify belief in it?

Thanks for any help.
Yes there were heresy in the early church having in part or whole something to do with the real presense and in all cases it was squashed. It was not until the Protestant reformation and the so called ‘age of reason’ that this heresy took root and grew.

The idea is not new but the acceptance and growth of it is only 500 years old.
 
Lot’s of interesting posts, but nothing so far that seems to answer my question.

Does anyone know if there was a heresy in the early Church that denied the Real Presence? Or did this idea that the Eucharist is “symbolic” develop since the Reformation?

I have some family (baptized Catholic) that cannot (or perhaps will not) believe in the Real Presence. They flop back and forth between denominations and are at a point in their search where I know they would be receptive to some pro. I have tons of information supporting the Real Presence, but I’d like to know the history of this symbolic belief. If the “symbolic” idea is really only several hundred years old, how can someone justify belief in it?

Thanks for any help.
My friend, you had every sort of heresy imaginable in the early church, you had to be Jewish, you didn’t have to be Jewish but had to conform to Jewish law, Jesus was totally divine, Jesus wasn’t divine in any sense, Jesus wasn’t really here at all , he was just an image, Jesus was born human but became divine at baptism, Jesus was born human, was possessed by a spirit, became divine, then became human at crucufixion again, hence the My God why have you forsaken or abandoned me line, . There was no God There was one God, two Gods, three Gods, 30 Gods or 365 Gods. God became man, man became God, man had both natures, man had neither, man was an image a dream by God, God wasn’t divine, but a superior being, men were trapped on the earth due to some unknown cosmic cataclysm and needed to obtain knowledge in order to escape All will go to heaven, some will go to heaven, only the select will go to heaven,none will go to heaven. revelations are made to some, to all, to none, Every thing that you can think of. And that was only in the first couple hundred years

I think the heresy you are looking for though, at least the best known and documented one would be

DOCETISM circa 100-400 AD appx. Isolated pockets existed for a longtime afterwards though.
Condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

Docetists would not partake of the Eucharist because their belief was that Christ never assumed human form in the first place, so the Eucharist could not be his actual physical body and blood. They said it, the Eucharist was a false sacrament as a result. They were written about fairly extensively by St. Ignatious of Antioch. Gnostics probably also believed that because they generally believed that all matter was evil and thus the Eucharist could not be divine. They also believed in a good God and a bad God. Guess who had control over the earth and in fact created it?

Generally speaking all early church groups who accepted the fact that Christ was physically present on the Earth accepted that the Eucharist was the Real Presence and not merely symbolic.

The next big revival of the Eucharist being merely symbolic came about with the Protestant movement around 1500 or so.

Guess what, all the old heresies are still here today:) Every last one of them.👍

The only difference is now, we embrace them, we don’t call them what they are,

HERESIES
 
Thank you Jack and Palmas. So, since they do believe that Jesus was human and divine, I guess the symbolic beliefs my family hold are only about 500 years old. That will help a lot, thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top