Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 26:26 ¶ While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 26:26 ¶ Now as they were eating Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." [Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25] |
Bible Question:
My question concerns transubstantiation -- the Catholic view that the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Christ. I know that this has been discussed before on this forum. My question specifically is, according to Catholic sources (catholic.org), the early Church Fathers believed that the communion elements were literally the body and blood. These men lived within several generations of Christ and were apparently leaders of the church and the learned men of their time. How is that they could be so wrong? Can it really be that the church was completely wrong from, say, the year 100 until the year 1500 when the Reformation occurred? Below are some quotes from these Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch (year: 110 AD) "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr (year: 151 AD) "We call this food Eucharist....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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Origen (year: 248 AD) "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). Cyril of Jerusalem (year: 350 AD) "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "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 the 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 find it hard to dismiss these quotes as mere Catholic rhetoric, given that some of these writings are from the 2nd century, only 80 years after the death and resurrection! They had the same Scriptures we have. How we can say they were all completely wrong. Please help! Thanks, reilly |
Bible Answer: Greetings Reilly! The early church fathers were not inspired writers of Scripture. So, simply put, they could be just as wrong as people today who have the Bible and misinterpret it. :-) In fact, false doctrines started in the early church even before the last book of the Bible was completed! :-( I'm not going to delve into this particular topic specifically, but my approach to the early fathers is that they are informative only, not authoritative. In fact, when I have read many of their writings, I have been struck by the lack of quality in much of them in contrast to Scripture. To me, their writings are another excellent indication of the doctrine of innerrancy! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |