When it comes to defending the doctrine of Creation against Theistic Evolutionists, my primary arguments stem from scripture. Although I could, and sometimes do go to other early sources to defend the doctrine of Creation against old earth and Evolutionary views, I never really need to. The Bible is the foundation and source of my views on origins, and therefore I leave it to opponents of it to abandon God's word and draw from man.
The same is true for Catholicism. Although I could defend my views from early Christian sources, and occasionally do, I do not need to, because I have the earliest Christian source. Not only is it the earliest, it is also the authoritative source. When the Bible and another source disagree, the Bible is right, the other source is wrong, and it's obvious who the Church should follow.
Just like Theistic Evolutionists, Catholics are forced by their unbiblical views to seek extra-Biblical sources to defend those views. Any Biblical case will be met with statements about Church history. For example, the following is a comment I received from a Catholic: "Funny because Ignatius of Antioch from year 100ad specifically mentions the belief in the Eucharist real presence. So does Justin Martyr, and a ton of other ancient Church father's."
In the original post (which you can find in article form here), I made an entirely Biblical case against transubstantiation. I pointed out that Jesus uses other figures of speech that not even the Catholic Church is so loopy as to claim are literal. I showed that the Jews considered consuming blood unclean. I showed how seriously Peter took this command when God commanded him to eat unclean animals, and Peter not only refused, but also stated he had never eaten anything unclean. I pointed out that Peter was present at the Jerusalem Council, from which the final ruling included abstaining from blood, with no exceptions listed. Finally, I pointed out that the purpose of the Lord's Supper is explicitly stated as being done in remembrance of Christ, and in proclamation of His death until He comes. Not once did I stray from the scriptures to defend my view, and my final conclusion was "The Catholic Church is filled to the brim with obvious lies like this, and anyone with a Bible can prove it."
But of course, the Catholic quoted above left the Biblical case untouched, instead trying to make his own case from "a ton of other ancient Church father's" (Church Father, by the way, being a misnomer, as you cannot father that which precedes you). I didn't have to leave the Bible, he did. In fact, not only did he stray from the Bible, he all but explicitly justified opposing it. This is because his views are not supported by the Bible, mine are.
But just because I do not need to leave the scriptures to defend my views doesn't mean I can't leave the scriptures to defend my views. This is because, contrary to the claims of the Catholic Church, there are plenty of references to the symbolic nature of the Lord's Supper throughout history, even among the Church "Fathers". What did the early Church believe about the Lord's Supper?
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."
- Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
I wanted to reiterate this point. There ought not be a distinction between the early Church and the earliest Church. The Bible is the first Christian source, and it is the authoritative source. You cannot get earlier, and you cannot get more authoritative. Therefore, the fact that the Bible explicitly describes the purpose of the Lord's Supper as being one of remembrance and proclamation, never as a literal transformation of the bread and cup into the flesh and blood of Jesus when consecrated by a priest, is irrefutable proof that the early Church did not interpret it this way.
"Thou, Lord Almighty, didst create all things for thy Name's sake, and didst give food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to thee, but us hast thou blessed with spiritual food and drink and eternal light through thy Child."
- The Didache
The Didache is a debated work, believed to have been written between 70 A.D. and 140 A.D., and is claimed by some to be the work of the Apostles themselves. It seems to be some kind of instruction book for primitive churches. Clearly, it distinguishes between the physical food and drink that nourishes the flesh, and the spiritual food and drink that nourishes the spirit.
"But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word."
- Clement of Alexandria (1).
The irony of this quote is that it directly follows a common quote Catholics use to defend their views. This example shows that even when Catholics try to defend their views from Church history, they often do so with the same eisegetic attitude they apply to the Bible. Transubstantiation is not gleaned from the context as a whole, but rather is assumed at the outset and forced onto selected quotes.
"They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."
- Tertullian of Carthage (2)
This extract from Tertullian's "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" sounds almost as if it was written by a modern Protestant to address the modern Catholic interpretation of John 6. Whereas Catholics interpret it as Jesus quite literally telling the crowds "you gotta eat me", Tertullian interprets it as we must "devour Him with the ear". He points out that Christ said this is a spiritual teaching, and even went as far as to point out that Jesus said "the flesh profits nothing". While many Protestants do use this quote, I personally tend to leave it out of my own cases, since I don't believe it will convince many Catholics. Yet, here, even Tertullian points to it to say "Jesus is saying it's not literal".
"Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh".
- Also Tertullian (3)
This is a significant quote, as not only does it show Tertullian claiming that the bread and cup are symbols, but it also demonstrates the refutation of an ancient heresy; that of Docetism. Docetism posits that the body Jesus had was either spiritual, or that it was of a celestial substance, and thus He was a phantom, not truly human. The argument from the Lord's Supper is especially effective against this false doctrine. A symbol must symbolise something, otherwise it is useless as a symbol. Thus, the institution of the Lord's Supper demonstrates the reality of Christ's body, and it can truly be said that Christians "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" when we partake of this symbol.
The early Church was vehemently opposed to the heresy of Docetism, which it should be noted was in existence even while the scriptures were still being written (e.g. 2 John 1:7), utterly eliminating any argument from historicity (unless Catholics want to claim Docetism is totally valid). Unfortunately, it is often responses to Docetism, like this one, that are taken as a defence of Transubstantiation.
Of course, it should be noted that if this was the case, one could not claim that the view that the Lord's Supper is symbolic is a comparatively new view. If the Church Fathers really were responding to those who believed the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic, the view must have existed, because you cannot respond to a view that does not exist.
"We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist."
- Origen of Alexandria (4)
One of Catholicism's cleverest tricks is to apply Catholic meanings to older words. Indeed, the very word "catholic" originally just meant "universal". Eucharist is another such word. It actually means "thanksgiving". Here we have Origen literally saying we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which he called the Eucharist. Clearly, Origen believed the Eucharist is a symbolic method of showing gratitude to God.
It is worth noting that some Catholics have tried to dismiss Origen's view on the Eucharist because he believed Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden wasn't taking the forbidden fruit, but really, having sex. This is a dodgy argument, for two reasons. First, even if you want to completely dismiss Origen as a valid source, his view on the Eucharist at the very least shows such views did exist, both prior to the Reformation, and actually close to the time of the Apostles. Second, if you want to dismiss Origen for this admittedly strange view of Eden, you must also dismiss Church "Fathers" like Jerome for the same reason.
"But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth."
- Augustine of Hippo (5)
Just as Tertullian, Augustine clearly interprets John 6 as being a spiritual teaching, rather than a literal one, taking the opposite interpretation to every Catholic I have ever heard bring up John 6. Augustine seems to be a frequent figure quoted in support of heresies which it doesn't seem he would ever have supported, and I did have one Catholic reject the word of Origen, a church "father", because he was not a canonised saint, so I decided to throw in Saint Augustine just to block that kind of defence, just in case.
I could go on. If I had the patience, I probably would. But I think I have demonstrated my point. The early Church were not so unanimously opposed to the belief that the Lord's Supper is symbolic as Catholics would claim, neither did they all insist on the real presence. And the same can be demonstrated about every view the Catholics rush to Church history to defend. I just chose to use the Eucharist as my example because it is the topic that inspired the original meme. The early Church were not unanimous in their apparent defence of Catholic doctrines, and frequently opposed them, just as they frequently opposed each other, and even themselves.
Now here's the main point: It doesn't matter! When I attack the Eucharist, I don't quote Augustine, I quote Paul. When I attack infant Baptism, I don't quote Tertullian, I quote Luke. When I attack the emphasis on tradition, I don't quote Martin Luther, I quote Matthew. Whatever doctrine I am seeking to defend, the Bible is my primary, secondary and tertiary source. Could I defend my views with the early Church? Sure, I just did. But how many Catholics are going to accept the case above? Presumably, not one (although it can be hoped). When the early Church disagrees with the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church becomes suddenly aware that these people were not inspired, not infallible and not authoritative. The difference is, Christians are always aware of this fact, whether a historical figure agreed with our particular view or not. Scripture is authoritative, inspired and infallible, the Church "fathers" were not. If a Catholic must refer to a source that is not the Bible to compensate for the fact that the Bible does not agree with them, they have already lost.
References
1. Clement of Alexandria - The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6
2. Tertullian of Carthage - On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37
3. Tertullian of Carthage - Against Marcion, book 4, Chapter 40
4. Origen of Alexandria - Against Celsus, book 8, chapter 57
5. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms