Rebutting A Catholic's Claim

A friend passed this article to me and asked if I could rebut it, so here goes.

What If Protestants Are Right About the Eucharist?

Contrary to this so-called proof against Protestants, by the author of this article, there are some problems.

Here is a paragraph from the article:

In his letter, Ignatius warns the Smyrnaeans to “keep aloof from” the heretical Gnostics “because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 7). Notice that Ignatius doesn’t feel the need to convince his readers of the truth of the Real Presence. For him, it’s enough to say that since the Gnostics reject the Real Presence, we should not even “speak of them either in private or in public.”

Ignatius, who lived in the early 2nd century and was traditionally identified as a disciple of the Apostle John, does NOT say the elements are the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ (“real presence”). The implication since the Last Supper is that the elements are representative of, symbolic of, the flesh and blood of Christ.  

The article’s author then brings in a 4th century Christian to justify the “Real Presence”:

This is the way that Christians approached the Eucharist throughout the first few centuries of the Church. It was not just that a theologian here or there taught the Real Presence, but that it was the Christian position on the topic. In a series of lessons given to catechumens about to enter the Church, St. Cyril of Jerusalem reminded them that “you have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lecture 22). Cyril is comfortable assuming that even those not yet baptized know enough about Christianity to realize that Christians believe in the Real Presence.

Even this can be doubtful that he mean literally bread and wine, just that while it tastes like bread and wine, they are to remember that they represent Christ’s flesh and blood.

Let’s remember Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, doesn’t even hint that the elements are actually, literally flesh and blood—he said he is passing on what he learned from Christ himself and describes the last supper. How much earlier can you get in Christian history?

Theophilus of Alexandria, in correcting what was commonly misunderstood about Christians, stated that it was “barbarous” to think they “eat human flesh.”(Theophilus to Autolycus, III.4)

Then there is Irenaeus, another 2nd century bishop.’

For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol. I, Irenæus, Fragments, XIII).

This excerpt from Church Historian Philip Schaff's work called History of the Church, Volume II, paragraph 69 points out what was really happening in the early church:

The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.

(Cited by Jesse at Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Re-Sacrifice Of Christ?, which I highly recommend for reading)

If the Last Supper was in actuality a Mass, as claimed by Rome, then how could Jesus be sitting there with the elements at the same time saying the elements were his actual body and actual blood? Do you think the disciples understood Jesus to be speaking literally, since the Law prohibited the eating of blood? 

If the Last Supper was indeed a sacrifice of Christ, then we have an illogical situation of Christ sacrificing himself before he was sacrificed on the cross. Additionally, if each Mass is a sacrifice of Christ, then we have a direct contradiction of the Bible which says that Christ was sacrificed once for all time, and that this eliminated the need for continual sacrifices.

And if the human body of Christ is located in heaven at the Father’s right hand, how can it be at the same time in millions of places in Masses all over the world? Isn’t it more likely that Jesus was using the bread and wine figuratively so as to provide Christians with symbols to celebrate with as a memorial?

Was the current idea of the elements being the “Real Presence” being developed in the mid-to-late 4th century? 

Yes, but that goes against everything the early church taught about it.