Subject: christian tradition (new thread)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:57:41 -0700
From: vince garcia <>
logarza wrote:
> The DataRat wrote in message <37E32B04.3D30>...
> >"...a question for DataRat...If you believe
> >the RCC cannot trace its doctrines back
> >before the 2nd Century, how would you
> >explain the early Church Fathers referring
> >to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist?"
> >
> >You've yet to establish that "the early
> >church fathers" DID have a Romanist
> >understanding of the Eucharist.
> >
> >Prove THAT and we might be able
> >to discuss the issue.
> >
> >
> >The DataRat

> Attention, DataRat,
> 
> "Observe well those who who are heterodox in respect to the grace of Jesus
> Christ that has come to us...They abstain from the Eucharist and from
> prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of of
> Lord Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness,
> the Father raised..."( Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the
> Smyrneans,6:2,A.D.110)
> 
> "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it,
> except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in
> the the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and
> is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common
> drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made
> incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation,
> so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
> eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of
> which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of
> that incarnated Jesus."(Justin Martyr,First Apology,65,A.D.150)
> 
> Apparently, Ignatius and Justin Martyr believed in a "Romanist" view of the
> Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Additionally, they also
> believed, as "Romanists" do, in the Eucharist being a Sacrifice. Check it
> out...
> 
> Ignatius:"Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one
> Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one
> altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my
> fellow-servants, the deacons."(Philadelphia,4)
> 
> Justin Martyr:" Concerning the sacrifices once offered by you Jews,
> God...has spoken through Malachi the prophet:'I have no pleasure in you,'
> says the Lord,'and I do not accept your sacrifices from your hands, because
> from the rising of the sun to its setting my Name is great among the
> Gentiles. And in every place incense and a pure sacrifice are offered to my
> Name, because my Name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord, while you
> have profaned it.'(Malachi 1:10-12). Already, then, did he prophesy about
> those sacrifices that are offered to him in every place by us Gentiles,
> speaking, that is, about the Bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the
> Eucharist. And he added that his Name is glorified by us and profaned by
> you"(Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,41).
> 
> Am I missing something here? Please clarify.
> 
> Your Servant in Christ,
> FiP315

You aren't missing anything; you have accurately described the view of
some major early Christian writers who absolutely held to a
Transubstantiation-like view of the eucharist.

HOWEVER--that doesn't make them infallible. The Scripture always
supercedes the opinion of the post-Apostolic church fathers. I
personally believe in Luther's understanding of consubstantiation, but
it is abundantly clear that in some supernatural way the presence of
Christ is there in the elements. If you do wish to go all the way with
the idea of transubstantiation (and i have no great problem with those
who believe in that), do you believe that inside of us when we partake
of communion there is literally DNA matchable flesh and literally
type-whatever blood in our tummies?

v