Monday, 17 August 2009

  • The real presence in the Eucharist, chapter 2 of Damascus Road

    As I previously stated, in an office in February 2008, I stared a hole in the computer at work wondering where in the world this scripture had come from. This scripture was John 6, verses 35-59, especially verses 48-56. I had learned in Bible College that Roman Catholics believed that Jesus was truly present in the wine and bread of the Eucharist. However, I had always dismissed it as superstition and a horrible over emphasis on Jesus words at the last supper, “This is my body; this is my blood.” Yet, for the first time I was seeing Jesus say more then that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood, he tells the Jews that his flesh is really food and his blood is really drink. In fact he tells them seven times this truth. No talk about it symbolizing body and blood; no apologizing to the Jews, who leave because they can’t understand this teaching, saying he was only kidding. He makes the point, with no bones about it, he really means his flesh is eatable and his blood is really drinkable.

    The first thought that crushed my mind was the dang mackerel snappers were right, however, I assumed that someone had a great argument about what Jesus really meant here and that I was safe. The only plausible argument, brought up by a former Catholic (eternal-productions.com), was that in verse 63 Jesus says the flesh profits nothing. However, Dr. Scott Hahn notes Jesus says THE flesh and not HIS flesh profits nothing. Their minute attempt at trying to grasp this concept will lead them no where. The real presence is truly a mystery that defies any attempt to define it. Just like the doctrine of the trinity.

    Next I thought, ok just because these Catholics can make a good argument for the real presence, it doesn’t mean it’s the truth. Someone has to have some proof of the first Christians believing in a figurative Eucharist and then the Catholics screwed it up and it was that way until Martin Luther saved the day. I needed some proof that the first Christians were symbolic rather then literalists. Various websites proclaimed that the doctrine of transubstantiation was invented in the 5th – 6th centuries. However, that isn’t the truth. Transubstantiation was formally defined during that time period not invented. In my pursuit of the beliefs of the early Christians I stumbled upon Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch. As bishop he was entrusted with the care and admonishment of several churches. This leadership is shown in numerous epistles he wrote to the churches under his guidance. While reading his epistles I found what I had been looking for. A formally written belief on whether the first Christians believed the Eucharist was symbolic or literal. His answer scared me.

    “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer becausethey do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    A first century Christian leader in the Church defining that the heretics believed that the Eucharist was symbolic, and that real Christians believed the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Jesus. I was scared. Seriously scared. I thought perhaps this was just an anomaly and that he was a heretic himself; thus, I searched out other writings by the early Christians.  I found a man named Irenaus who wrote an apolagetical work entitled, Against Heresies. It was a second century discourse to the Roman governor about what was really going on when the Christians met on Sundays. He writes…

    “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

    The Romans had heard rumors of cannibalism within the Church, but Irenaus argues against the charge and describes what is truly taking place. The Christians weren’t feasting on one another, but upon the body and blood of Christ. Beyond this great apolagetical work I still had an issue; another Christian leader who clearly describes the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ. I had to dig deeper. My digging led to Cyril of Jerusalem. I already had quotations from the supposed “Golden Age” of Christianity; Cyril would supply me with writings after Christianity had apparently apostatized.  Cyril’s belief backed up what Christians had apparently believed for 300 years. He states…

    “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so. . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid„ 22:6,9).

    I had before me the evidence that Christians, even the Christians during the supposed Golden Age of Christianity, believed in a Eucharist with the real presence of Christ (I will tell you right now; if you think for one second there was a group of separate Christians who believed in a symbolic Eucharist good luck finding them. In fact you won’t find any Christian literature that consistently points to a figurative Eucharist that is older then 400 years). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has firmly held and believed in the real presence. After discovering my symbolism of the Eucharist was wrong, and in fact one of the first heresies the church fought, I knew I had to investigate other areas. Yeah, the Catholics got this area right, but they couldn’t be right about something else. Could they?

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

Who recommended?