He wrote: “The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is, without question, one of the most absurd doctrines ever imposed on a trusting public… Roman Catholic errors are inevitably human innovations that were inserted into the church during the early centuries.
This teaching on the Eucharist follows this pattern. “In the first century, as described in the New Testament, Holy Communion was a meal of fellowship eaten as a memorial to the death of Christ and a symbol of unity among Christians both with each other and with Christ. “In the second century it began to shift toward a ceremony, in which Christ was present in some undefined form.
This was not yet the eventual Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation which was a development of the Middle Ages but it was a beginning in this unfortunate direction. “By the third century the idea of sacrifice began to intrude, whereby Christ’s body and blood were mysteriously produced by an ordained priest for the gratification and benefit of both the living and the dead.”
Oh, really?!?! Look what the first century Christians taught…. For the rest of my article, click HERE.
This Post Has 5 Comments
Years ago I took a series of lectures by a Catholic professor on the subject of the Eucharist. He explained that the Jewish meaning of memory used in the last meal was a "dynamic form". This means that while we are participating in our mass we join every mass before and present. I see that as both mystery and and wonderful privilege
STEVE TAY HERE: That is true. When the Jews celebrate Passover it takes them back to the original Passover and they believe they are present there.
Sadly, you can still hear the anti Catholic attacks and misconceptions daily on Swaggart’s Tv network.
Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t make you correct. He should stick to preaching Jesus as Lord and Savior and not speak about Catholicism, which he obviously knows nothing about.
He clearly never read anything by Justin Martyr where he describes a Sunday “service.” It sounds just like what we Catholics do to this day.
Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
John6:48 I am that bread of life.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
However, what was Christ's interpretation?
John6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Just like the Samaritan woman at the well (John4:10), Jesus offered her living water to drink. The water wasn't from the well, or any physical place to draw water from. Also, when Jesus told his disciples that he had meat to eat (John4:34), he clearly stated that his meat was to do the will of the Father. Likewise here in John6, Jesus states in V63 that the flesh profits nothing, but that his words are spirit and they are life.
It would be much harder to argue about the Mass if the Roman Catholic church had said that it was a true sacrifice in the spirit, but transubstantiation is simply ruled out by Christ's own words.
Sincerely.
STEVE RAY HERE: John, thanks for writing and for your irenic tone. Many people want to argue and are very nasty but you were polite. Thanks for that.
I used to believe the same way you do and teach the same thing. However, I came back around to understanding what the very first Christians taught. No one viewed this is simply being symbolic until after the protest-ant break away. I would suggest you go back and read the very first writings of the very first Christians, before there was ever a New Testament when they still had the words of the apostles ringing in the ears. They believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that it was a sacrifice.
I talk about this in some detail in my book Crossing The Tiber and also in my talk on Defending the Eucharist. If you live in the United States I’d be happy to send you a copy of those if you’re truly interested, but if you are closed to this absolutely, then will just leave it here.
If you are interested send me your mailing address to sray@me.com.
Comments are closed.