Hey well recently I've been looking into RC vs Protestantism.
1) Is it true when Catholics say historical Christianity, backs them up on the bread and wine not being merely purely symbolical? and that only when the reformation happened did this idea of it being symbolical come into the equation. e.g. those who learned from the apostles and church Fathers, had more RC views?
As an aside, please pardon me for giving vent to a
pet peeve of mine, but I don't think we ought to grant Romanists the very indescriptive title of "Catholic." I don't know of any group more "uncatholic" in spirit and in creed than Romanists who make such exclusive claims for their communion. In short, I don't see anything "catholic" about a Romanist. Moreover, you can always count on Roman apologists (such as Hahn) to twist the facts of history in order to try to make them conform to later Roman dogma. In fact, there is no language of the ancient writers of the church that is not subject to the death of a thousand qualifications when manipulated by the hands of Roman apologists. Besides, not all of the Reformers regarded the bread and wine as purely symbolical, but it is certain that their views were often representative of men in the early church before them. I'll offer just a few examples...
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying,
This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.
ANF, Vol. 3, Against Marcion, 4.40.
Augustine (354-430): “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.
To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
Augustine (354-430): Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him.
For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.
NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 26, §1.
Augustine (354-430): The Lord did not hesitate to say, this is my body,
since he would give a sign of his body. See Turretin, Vol. 3, p. 479. See also John Daillé,
A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 109.
Latin text: Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere,
Hoc est corpus meum; cum signum daret corporis sui.
Contra Adimantum Manichaei Discipulum, Liber Unus, Caput XII, §3, PL 42:144.
Augustine (354-430): Not in vain then was the voice of the. Physician as He hung upon the tree. For in order that He might die for us because the Word could not die, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” He hung upon the Cross, but in the flesh. There was the meanness, which the Jews despised; there the dearness, by which the Jews were delivered. For for them was it said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And that voice was not in vain. He died, was buried, rose again, having passed forty days with His disciples, He ascended into heaven, He sent the Holy Ghost on them, who waited for the promise. They were filled with the Holy Ghost, whom they had received, and began to speak with the tongues of all nations. Then the Jews who were present, amazed that unlearned and ignorant men, whom they had known as brought up among them with one tongue, should in the Name of Christ speak in all tongues, were in astonishment, and learnt from Peter’s words whence this gift came. He gave it, who hung upon the tree. He gave it, who was derided as He hung upon the tree, that from His seat in heaven He might give the Holy Spirit. They of whom He had said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” heard, believed. They believed, were baptized, and their conversion was effected. What conversion?
In faith they drank the Blood of Christ, which in fury they had shed. NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 30, §5.
Jerome (347-420) on Psalm 147: We read the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Gospel is the body of Christ. I believe the Holy Scriptures to be his doctrine, and when he says, He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood, although this may be understood of the mystery,
yet the word of the Scriptures and the divine doctrine is more truly the body of Christ and his blood. If at any time we go to the mystery, whoever is faithful understands that if he falls into sin he is in danger;
so if at any time we hear the word of God, and the word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and his blood poured into our ears, and we are thinking of something else, how great is the danger we incur. George Finch,
A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
Latin text: Legimus sanctas Scripturas. Ego corpus Jesu, Evangelium puto: sanctas Scripturas, puto doctrinam ejus. Et quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem meam, et biberit sanguinem meum: licet et in mysterio possit intelligi: tamen verius corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Si quando imus ad mysterium, qui fidelis est, intelligit, si in maculam ceciderit, periclitatur. Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei, et caro Christi, et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, in quantum periculum incurrimus!
Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXLVII, PL 26:1258-1259.
Jerome (347-420): Moreover, forasmuch as the flesh of the Lord is true meat, and his blood is true drink anagogically, we have only this good in this life,
if we eat his flesh and drink his blood not only in the mystery, but also in the reading of the Scriptures. George Finch,
A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
Latin text: Porro, quia caro Domini verus est cibus, et sanguis ejus verus est potus, juxta
anagwghn, hoc solum habemus in praesenti saeculo bonum, si vescamur carne ejus cruoreque potemur, non solum in mysterio (Eucharistia), sed etiam in Scripturarum lectione.
Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, Cap. 3, PL 23:1039.
Jerome (347-420): He did not offer water, but wine, as a type of his blood. George Finch,
A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
Latin Text: In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum.
In Seq. Libros Adversus Jovinianum, Liber Secundus, §5, PL 23:291.
Ambrose (c. 339-97): In eating and drinking the things which are offered for us, we signify the flesh and the blood. You receive the sacrament as a similitude;
it is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. You drink the likeness of his precious blood. George Finch,
A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 222.
De Sacramentis, Liber Quartus, Caput IV, §20, PL 16:443.
Moreover, one of their own popes actually denied the concept of transubstantiation, as Turretin and others pointed out very often...
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature;
and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin,
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne,
Patrologiae Latinae,
Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).
See also Vol. XXIX, 1997 of the journal
Studia Patristica, an article written by Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., titled "The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View" who affirmed Gelasius' denial of transubstantiation.
Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (notice, a Jesuit scholar) stated: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in
Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466), commenting on Psalm 110:4: Christ, sprung from Judah according to the flesh, now serves as priest, not himself offering anything but acting as head of the offerers: he calls the Church his body, and in it he as man serves as priest, and as God receives the offerings.
The Church offers the symbols of his body and blood, sanctifying all the dough through the firstfruits.
FC, Vol. 102, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms 73-150, Psalm 110 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), p. 212.
2) How do protestants respond to the Scott Hahn's interpretation that there is a sheol in the OT which where the wicked and the saved went, and this is "hades" in the NT seperated from gehenna. and so this he claims (according to him the church fathers agree) that the 1 cor 3:10 is talking about hades where Christians will be basically purified and hades=purgatory.
Rather than accept the assertions of Hahn, I recommend for your perusal the book by Jacques Le Goff,
The Birth of Purgatory, trans, Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984). He explores the historical development of this doctrine/myth, and argues, I think convincingly, that the doctrine of Purgatory did not appear in the Latin theology of the West before the late 12th century. Here's an excerpt addressing your question in a few paragraphs...
Jacques Le Goff: What was the nature of this purgation? The overwhelming majority of writers held that it consisted of some sort of fire, largely on the authority of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. But some held that there were various instruments of purgation and spoke of “purgatorial punishments” (poenae purgatoriae). Who was worthy of being subjected to such examination, which, however painful it might be, was an assurance of salvation? As we have seen, from the time of Augustine and Gregory the Great, it was believed that the only souls worthy of this “second chance” were those who had only “slight sins” to expiate or who, having repented, had not had time before dying to do peance on earth. When did purgation occur? After Augustine it was generally believed that it would take place in the period between death and resurrection. But it might extend beyond this period in one direction or the other. In Augustine’s own view, trials endured here below, earthly tribulations, could be the first stages of purgation. Others believed that purgation took place at the moment of the Last Judgment and generally held that the “day” of judgment would last long enough so that purgation would be more than a mere formality.
Where was this purgation supposed to take place? Here opinions were so much varied as ambiguous. Most authors said nothing in particular on the subject. Some thought that a dwelling place was set aside to receive souls for this purpose. Gregory the Great suggested in his anecdotes that purgation occurs in the place where the sin was committed. Authors of imaginary journeys to the other world were not sure where to locate the purgatorial fire. They were torn between situating it in the upper regions of hell, hence in some sort of underground valley, and placing it, as Bede suggested, on a mountain.
All in all, there was much hesitation about the nature of this intermediary place. Although almost everyone agreed that some sort of fire, distinct from the eternal fire of Gehenna, played a role, few tried to locate that fire, or if they did were quite vague about it. Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 134.
So much, then, for the claims of Mr. Hahn regarding "historical" exegesis.
Blessings,
DTK
-----Added 3/16/2009 at 12:35:58 EST-----
ok hold the phone here...
Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again... Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistle to the Smyreans)
"Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God." (Epistle to the Philadelphians)
It would seem they are right?
You need to be cautious about how you interpret the language of the Early Church Fathers. For example, Ignatius also wrote...
Ignatius (@ 110 AD): You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and
regain your strength in faith (which is the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is the blood of Jesus Christ). See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans.,
The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, 2nd. ed., The Letters of Ignatius, To the Trallians, Chapter 8 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 163.
People like Ignatius didn't always mean our Lord's literal body and blood.
DTK
