An Exegetical Refutation of the Protestant Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1)

[pneuma07]

Well, what comes first? Christ’s words came first and the question then becomes: is he communicating a heavenly reality involving a RP or is he communicating with a figure of speech. We shouldn’t be driven by an assumption that everything is a heavenly reality unless specifically denied and we shouldn’t be driven by an assumption that God does not create heavenly realities….and as indicated before, given that heavenly realities are not the norm, the plain, ordinary and/or literal meaning is not one that specifies a heavenly reality.

I allow the possibility, but given the circumstances, the words used and the context I believe that the likelihood that Jesus was using a figure of speech far exceeds the likelihood that he was communicating a heavenly reality.

The gospel explains that the disciples often did not catch Jesus’s meaning, however, the gospel gives the reader what he needs to know to catch Jesus’s meaning. Often the clarification is provided in the passage itself and sometimes it is found elsewhere. Where in the synoptics do we have a clarification that Jesus’s was communicating a heavenly reality at the Last Supper? W/o that clarification we should explore what the disciples would have understood, b/c if Jesus didn’t clarify the misunderstanding, then either the disciples got it right or their misunderstanding was not important.

No, what I am saying is that it is against the common sense (of the disciples) to interpret “this is my body” as communicating a heavenly reality that relies on a unknown and unfathomed manner of existence instead of understanding it as a figure of speech…they would need something to pull them to the “heavenly reality” meaning

Hi Radical !
My daughter received her first Holy Communion just this month you know.

Coming back from this experience I 'd like to put :twocents: about some of the many observations you are proposing to Triune Unity.

Here you’re stating basically if I’m correct that it was quite obvious to the Apostles that the Institution had to be understood in a merely symbolic dimension. Common sense, after all.
Far from surprising, I consider this position of yours as coherent and , I dare say, quite necessary in a Non Real Presence vision.

And it has to be extended besides the time of the institution, after Resurrection, after Pentecost, after the end of the compilation of synoptic Gospels.
If, in fact, any doubt had ever come from the Last Supper to let’s say 80 AD, that the Institution could be taken as not merely symbolic, at least one of the scriptural tales would include a few words to easily dispel that grave possible misunderstanding.

As for a RP view it is not just a mirror of the above. It openly acknowledges that NRP is the common sense way. What it does not accept, is that the merely symbolic understanding was obvious to the Apostles within their not so … common, indeed unique, experience alongside the Lord before, and after, the Institution.

It is IMHO through this unique experience that this tenet entered Christianity and the world. Jesus made the unthinkable believable. An unthinkable which is always challenged from the world, from within Christianity, from within the Apostolic Church, probably from within each of us, through the millennia.

I cannot see comparable strength and coherence in the alternative discourse NRP seems to offer. That RP was unthinkable and unheard in primitive Christianity. Nevertheless later it entered Christianity and became very attractive, and therefore mainstream. Nevertheless later on it became rather repulsive, and therefore people would leave it, whenever not compelled to keep it.

 

[pneuma07]

I replied with:

*Protestant? Would that be a Protestant from a communion which holds to a RP?..and if so, then what would be his bias? In any event, I’ll see your Kelly and raise you a Pelikan and a Van der Meer. Pelikan, in his first volume of The Christian Tradition writes:

Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence .

So here we have a very respected and established scholar who understood that early Eucharistic views were very diverse with one extreme being close to a purely symbolic view. What does one need to believe in order to hold to something which is just less than a purely symbolic view? Is it that the bread is viewed as a symbol, but that it is understood that the symbol and the act possess the power to unify the participants in the body of Christ (aka the church)?

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, writes:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

If Pelikan and van der Meer are correct, then it would seem that Africa (from Alexandria to Carthage), to a large degree, wasn’t on board with this real bodily presence stuff that you want to project back onto the early Church. Now if a RP mass was always the centre piece of Christian worship form Christ onwards, it is rather odd that the earliest ECFs weren’t all on board. As we learn more and more about the earliest church it becomes clearer that a considerable variety existed amongst the orthodox wrt things such as the Eucharist. That variety is consistent with the RP view as being a product of the imagination of the pious.*

I would strongly suggest that, amongst historians, the “monolithic view” is fast losing favor …except of course, it will always be favored by those committed to validating the claim of a consensus of ECFs.

Upon reading more then once Pelikan’s quotation, it does look as supporting TU’s position rather then a NRP history.

no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence .

Isn’t he in plain words telling us RP is what we find in the thrust of the ECFs ?

(And, BTW, it aappears to go de facto against the second quotation, which therefore we cannot sum together. . ).

A monolithic picture is IMHO more a strawman than what is proposed by RP scholarship, which is more a RP umbrella covering the bulk of ECFs.
Just as the said quotation states.
Moreover, NRP is particularly at odds with Pelikan’s view about Iggy, as you later explain.

I still don’t see a re-enactment specified

What about Luke 22:19 ?
τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

 

[pneuma07]

No, I think we are agreed that presuppositions should be avoided if at all possible …often it seems that a more liberal outlook is adopted which might cause a Catholic scholar (for example) to reinterpret the passages to acknowledge that they need not refer to a real presence or cause him to conclude that their advocation of a real presence is the result of later interpolations made after Greek influences took hold within the Church…at least that is the way it looks to me.

For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles that to believe in them. ……For some inconceivable cause a “broad” or a “liberal” clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the number of miracles. …. (G.k. Chesterton in Orthodoxy)
In this sense it is undoubtedly liberal of us to dismiss RP.

understood, but this brings into focus my point. All the other miracles are preformed within nature…the Word becomes flesh by taking on our (natural) form. Water (a natural thing) becomes wine (another natural thing). Jesus’s (natural) body walked on (another natural thing) water. A dead body becomes a live body…with miracles God achieves within nature what nature can’t do on its own. When we come to the claim of a RP, however, we seem to have taken a step outside of nature into another realm (one might term it a heavenly reality…for lack of a better term). I am not saying that God can’t take a step outside of nature into another realm, but I am saying that the disciples’ experience with miracles wouldn’t have predisposed them to accept “this is my body” as a miracle outside of nature (b/c they hadn’t experienced such) instead of accepting it as a figure of speech (something that they had heard a lot of).
I trust that above clarifies the distinction that I want to make between the miracles.
There is a reason we are having this debate wrt the RP and not the Inc or the HU. When one reads the gospels one reads reports of a conception, a birth of a male child, and a good bit of interaction (physical and verbal) between Jesus and others and between Jesus and his environment. I am not aware of any one who would think that those reports would be better understood as figures of speech. We also have reports that Jesus was God and that he came down from heaven. Given those reports some sort of incarnation and some sort of union seems absolutely necessary…it is not left to doubt that an incarnation and a union happened. With respect to the synoptic gospels and regarding the RP all we have is “this is my body”. Scripture does not report any interaction between this alleged “heavenly reality body” and Jesus or between it and some other person or between it and the enivironment. Now that is a heck of large theological pyramid to build atop one phrase…a phrase that can be understood as a figure. .

You appear to underline that we can consider two different sort of miracles: those under our experience, and those outside it. The former help the faith, the latter require it. ( see Hebrews 11:1).
Through faith we can believe what we do not see.
Our Yes to the first kind of miracles ( M1) help to build our faith. Our Yes to the second kind (M2) is a fruit of faith. We are also offered a classic example of a M2 ( remission of sins) coupled with a M1 ( get up and walk). Resurrection being we could probably say a category in itself.

If M1 are considerable as auxiliary to faith, they are also called “signs”, then they are auxiliary, preparation, to the acceptance of M2, which are a content of faith.

that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, He said to the man who was paralyzed, I say to you, rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home

Where we probably part way with many NRP brothers, is in considering that those who had experienced all those M1s such resuscitations, who came to accept the fundamental M2, heart of Christianity we probably concurr, that is Incarnation, for those I mean we have to believe thatit is granted that the supposed M2 most likely expressed by two Aramaic words corresponding to “this body-my” is… obviously unthinkable.
The general context, three years plus the future events, does not tell us at all, IMHO, that “this body-my” could not mean what would come to be called Real Presence to the Twelve.

This was not an impossible interpretation.
And what we know is that the Institution had immediately been perceived as a central point.
That is told by Luke 24, the passage about the Supper in Emmaus taking place on Easter evening.
In those tragic days the Apostles had already shared the event of the Instition, and stressed it so much that for two disciples in Emmaus when He

took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him.

Must I believe that a mere symbolism could not wait a few days, the very days of the Passion, to be taught, and in such an impressive way, by the Apostles ?

Now, equivocation could be easily avoided, had the Lord chosen among the aramaic verbs for “to represent”. Just one word more could be enough ! “This represents body-my”.

I’d want to underline that there is no symmetry on the other side. No simple third word could avoid NRP, had that been the obvious common sense understanding. “This actually body-my” would just open the way to unending possible disputations on the meaning of this “actually”.
To summarize my points here:

1. the message of the Institution was not obviously NRP, even allowing for any degree of appeal to common sense, because of the unique general context
2. it could easily be formulated in obvious NRP way
3. It was perceived as a central one from the very days of the Passion of the Lord.

 

[pneuma07]

This is all about how one spins it. I might point out that the memorialist view can be found in the early church and it survived until secular gov’t granted the church hierarchy the ability to quash any dissension. The Lord’s Supper became a tool to keep the masses in line, for with the doctrine of a RP the bishops controlled something that the faithful could get nowhere else and that was vital for salvation. (Quite a useful doctrine, that). With freedom from repression by the hierarchy and with access to scripture the church proper (ie not the hierarchy) could finally free themselves from the additions made by pious imaginations and return to a purer gospel. The quick growth (despite severe persecution by the RPers) demonstrates the degree to which Jane and Joe in the pew already new that something was seriously amiss. As for numbers, those of the RP view are in the minority amongst those who identify themselves as Christian…now granted, among the devout Christians the RPers might still be a majority (hard to say, we haven’t got numbers in from China yet etc.) but given how the balance is shifting, it would seem to be only a matter of time

The “control by the bishop” on the eucharist was advocated by that whom you portray as a (very likely) NRP ie Ignatius around 100 AD.
Which does not look exactly a late instrumental development.

Who had been given by the Lord the task to “do this” ?
Couldn’t it maybe be that Iggy, born probably in the 30s AD, knew that there exist … a peculiar relation between bishops and Apostles ?

If, anyway, we wanted to have fun on allegedly instrumental developments, the Reformers would IMHO be a fertile ground. If you think of that, the charge of instrumentality against the Apostolic Church, is the most instrumental thing for anybody wanting to found one’s new faith community outside and against the Apostolic Church.

This is the exact same objection I had with mikeledes…Yes, it says, “this is my body”. You think a reason to insert “representing” is required and I think a reason to find (in those words) a “heavenly reality by way of a real bodily presence” is required

.

As I tried to show, there is no symmetry between what is required to have evidence that the sentence is merely symbolic ( just a “represents”) and to have what you exactly would consider as evidence it is not.

 

[pneuma07]

TU…that word limit is gonna mess with this next post so I’ll have to split it…please try to view it as one.

Your numbers are off at both ends. I would be interested in seeing a list of the dozens of RPers from the 2nd and 3rd centuries…But do me this favor, when you make your list don’t just include everyone who mentions the Eucharist. Google “real presence early church fathers” and you’ll get sites that list the Didache (of all things). They think that these sorts of words from the Didache show a belief in the RP:

• “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”*

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

I guess wrt the first they think the mention of “sacrifice” means that a bodily presence must be involved and I suppose that they aren’t aware that the ECFs consistently envisioned prayers as being a pure sacrifice. Wrt the second, it seems that they can’t envision that anything can be considered sacred unless a RP is involved…so, please do a better job with your list of “dozens” as I want to see only those who were “quite clear on the RP”. While I am mentioning my desire for only the clear ones, let’s consider this from Calvin (Inst. IV.17):

Now, if that had come from the pen of an ECF and you had nothing or little more, then I suspect you would label that ECF a clear RPer. Calvin, however, wasn’t and so what you need to do for your list of clear ones is to produce those ECFs that are actual, no “ifs, ands or buts” RPers…and not just using flowery words such as Calvin did in that quote. .

You know I can share much of what you are passionately explaining.

Let me anyway examine the paragraph step by step.
"On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks.
In 2010 do RP congregations assemble every Lord’s day to break bread ? Yes.
Do all NRP ? NO they do not . Otfen they have Lord’s Supper once a month, or even more seldom.
And even in those few days are they assembled …. in order to break the bread ?

Every one has to exchange the “sign of the peace” in every Mass. Probably you do the same in your denomination’s service. Dunno about all others.

Do all NRP congregations describe their breaking of the bread as a sacrifice ?

Do typical NRP supporters see the breaking of the bread as the fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy ? Or do they rather often find arguments precisely to deny that ?

If we answer the same, we can probably conclude that the quoted paragraph does not help the NRP view at all.

 

[pneuma07]

Let me give you a specific example. Ignatius is another ECF that the RPer sites typically list, but I am not prepared to concede that he belongs on your list. Here is my reasoning from another thread where these quotes from Ignatius were provided:

*“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]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).*

such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail.

Here is how I replied there (with a bit of editing):

Did you note that Iggy says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love? Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a RP. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail.

1. we can assume the passage you propose is Eucharistic .
   The context of Iggy’s texts seems to suggest that, with the paramount importance given the Eucharist, for example

• is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying,*
  in Ephesians 20
  ( if those words in their turn are not referred to Eucharistic bread, there would be major problems for a reformed reading of Ephesians 20). That passage, in itself, does not seem to help the NRP reading of Iggy.

1. It is IMHO fallacious pointing to whatever symbolism within an eucharistic speech as evidence (or even significant hint) that the context is NRP. Else , it could be shown the Catholic Church is NRP
2. If we have it as Eucharistic, the structure looks like this.
   Eucharistic Bread is His flesh , His Blood is Love

What does He want ? Bread and blood. Quite asymmetric statements, aren’t they ?

If, mind you, we keep to a merely symbolic connection between bread and flesh. Else we have that he wants the Lord’s flesh and blood.

 

[pneuma07]

The article I linked at the end of the last post is a very well written article…I encourage you to read it. The second to last paragraph reads:

I have developed five reasons why we might be able to say that Ignatius could have something short of real presence in mind in his letters. First, Ignatius presents too little information. … Fifth, and finally, a definite instance of real presence in Ignatius seems a bit early for such clear statements if we take the development of doctrines seriously. This is by no means a hard and fast rule, but if difficulty is encountered with the Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen. How can we be more certain of Ignatius who predates them? Those who argue for a realistic Ignatius deny both Bauer and any view of doctrinal development. Indeed, they imply a very advanced pristine orthodoxy very early in the history of the church. If they do not allow this for the doctrines of Trinity and atonement, why should they for the Eucharist?

!

I was aware of the interesting blog you quote. That reminds us of a battle-trained view about
Iggy being likely a NRP. The value of the arguments is various. In at least a case a petitio principii is proposed ( Iggy must be NRP because we know that RP is a late development) .

It could be probably interesting to go together into some depth with all conclusions you quote. I’d like nevertheless
to Propose another approach now.
In Smyrneans 8 we learn that a valid eucharist requires the authority of a bishop.
Why ?
I mean if you and I break the bread, read words of the Institutions, pray faithfully,
and distribute the broken bread, that cannot be a valid eucharist. No bishop, no eucharist according to Iggy…
But I am hardly able to imagine why a broken bread cannot be a mere symbol of His body …Without Episcopalian authority.

If I ever could meet Iggy, among other things I’d like to ask this one

“Many protestant brothers in our time
are NRP and tell me you are that way too, even if quite a lot of them dislike your word “eucharist” explaining it is unbiblical. You know I want to be taught by you, ad not the other way. But it seems to me they have a point in plainly disagreeing about the necessity of bishops to have valid mere symbols of His Body. I also wonder what you mean by “valid”. You basically teach us that should bishops disappear, then we could in due time have no more eucharist in the world. They have been celebrating Lord’s Suppers for centuries without any bishops, you know. They even teach that bishops, as you describe and prescribe them, are unbiblical.
I do not follow. They do have anyway a point IMHO, I repeat, believing that you do not need a bishop’s authority to have valid merely symbolic Lord’s Suppers. “

b/c they weren’t alone. Remember, Pelikan was describing a broad spectrum with Clement and Origen at one end. The other end would/could be the clear RPers…it wasn’t that everybody else was an RPer. Remember also that Van der Meer saw no RP in Augustine and I surely wouldn’t agree to you suggesting that Tertullian, Cyprian or Eusebius were RPers. So, with respect, I believe that your “dozens” is a gross inflation. Further, there were more than a mere two in the Non-RP camp. I hope the foregoing gives you a good idea as to why I view your pegging of the early situation as: dozens on the RP side vs. perhaps 2 on the symbolic side…as being exceedingly optimistic on your part

As I said, I am probably reading the famous quotation by Pelikan the wrong way.

 

[pneuma07]

yah, I think he was high at the time that he wrote it
regarding this claim that keeps resurfacing:

a) you already know that I wouldn’t agree that you present THE understanding of the church for the first few centuries.

b) around 1050 Berengar tried to provide a different understanding, but was forced to recant…a monopoly that is maintained by force and intimidation isn’t to be valued for its lack of challengers
.

I hope you don’t forget that “force and intimidation” between NRP and RP in the XVI century was not a one-sided game.

The problem IMHO is that you’d have to show the picture of RP as the ancient challenger, a very successful one, becoming eventually mainstream. After all, you present NRP as THE understanding of the church for the first century.

Well if you were saying that only his divine nature was present alongside the bread, a common every day element then there would be a consistency…but you are claiming a bodily presence along side the bread which is also bodily/physically present.
…and when he disappeared he was still considered to be bodily present?..or was it, if we can’t see him, then he isn’t bodily present?

Or you could say that the Logos who became flesh for us, made the bread become Logos

With Nicodemus Christ actually said things such as the Son of Man came from heaven and that God sent his Son into the world…if we are comparing and expecting something similar then somewhere, in one of the institution passages, we should find something such as: “This is my body. Although it can’t be seen, my body is miraculously present with the bread to be eaten by those who believe in me.” The metaphysics of the presence is not important…but at least we should find a claim to its presence on par with the detail of the claim that the Son was sent from heaven. It is a heck of a theological edifice to build on what looks like a figure of speech to so many

It is absolutely fair that you ask for more, you’d like more to believe that the Logos became bread.
I do not know how much more would suffice. I know that simple words like “represents” in the Institution tales would be enough to avoid the “theological building” you mention. They were not recorded. Rather misleading, one could say.

But IMHO matters are even more misleading than simply so.

Those who received the words of the Institutions, had also experienced this promise:

and the bread also which I will give (CC)for the life of the world is (CD)My flesh."
52(CE)Then the Jews (CF)began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of (CG)the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

The Lord now was saying He was precisely …. giving them His body …… to eat, by distributing what appears …… bread.

I guess I’ve written enough.

Hope this can help.

Looking forward to your insightful observations.

God bless you.

P7

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical !
My daughter received her first Holy Communion just this month you know.

excellent…many congrats!!!

Here you’re stating basically if I’m correct that it was quite obvious to the Apostles that the Institution had to be understood in a merely symbolic dimension. Common sense, after all.

yes, that and until someone told them about the possibility of a transsubstantial existence (or consubstantial) or any other “stantial” existence where something is Really Present w/o being really present, I don’t see that the idea would have occurred to them…a symbolic interpretation should be viewed (IMHO) as the default position. Since you mentioned your lovely daughter, allow me an analogy using a child and children’s toys. Take a six year old child and over a period of time play with the child by:

a) taking various everyday objects and pretending that they are cars or airplanes. For example grab a cup and announce that it is an airplane and “fly” it through the air as you run around holding the cup with your arm extended. Explain that you are pretending that it is a plane; and

b) have about fifty transformers that look like everyday objects but can be transformed into cars and planes like the actual toy by that name. Transform the apparent plate into a car behind a fussy sheet of glass in front of the child so that he can see that what was a plate is now a car (but he can’t see exactly how it is done),

c) Finally at the end of the time, take a loaf of bread and announce to the child, “This is my car.” Hand the loaf to the child so that the child can see that it hasn’t been transformed as were the objects used for (b) above.

It is my prediction that the child will think that what you are doing would fall into category (a)…that you are pretending that it is a car and that what you are doing would not fall into category (b) so that the bread has been actually transformed into a toy car and also that what you are doing would not fall into category (d) where the bread has been transformed into a toy car in a fashion not yet experienced by the child (and in a fashion very different than what was seen in the category (b) transformations).

I cannot see comparable strength and coherence in the alternative discourse NRP seems to offer. That RP was unthinkable and unheard in primitive Christianity. Nevertheless later it entered Christianity and became very attractive, and therefore mainstream. Nevertheless later on it became rather repulsive, and therefore people would leave it, whenever not compelled to keep it.

I wouldn’t describe the process quite that way. I would describe it thusly:

1. The RP was unthinkable and unheard in primitive Christianity;
2. as the pious dwelt on the activity of remembrance they convinced themselves that more was happening than just a profound symbol of Christ’s crucifixion. At first, the presence of Christ at the Supper was not distinct from the presence of Christ amongst the members of his church whenever they gathered. Gradually the presence became more distinct and more “substantial”. One could theorize that pagan rituals that saw the god being consumed contributed to this process or one could argue that this was merely the natural product of an inherent desire in people to add to their significant beliefs and/or have more extravagant rituals.
3. at a point in time the additions become so extreme that the more level-headed finally review the matter and realize what has happened. They try to return to the orignal state. I wouldn’t say that the RP is repulsive except to the extent that error is less than attractive.

Pneuma07 …you’ve given me quite a bit to chew on, and no doubt you’ll have more to say, but I’ll try to deal with at least a post/day of yours. God Bless you.

 

[larkin31]

excellent…many congrats!!!

yes, that and until someone told them about the possibility of a transsubstantial existence (or consubstantial) or any other “stantial” existence where something is Really Present w/o being really present, I don’t see that the idea would have occurred to them…a symbolic interpretation should be viewed (IMHO) as the default position. Since you mentioned your lovely daughter, allow me an analogy using a child and children’s toys. Take a six year old child and over a period of time play with the child by:

a) taking various everyday objects and pretending that they are cars or airplanes. For example grab a cup and announce that it is an airplane and “fly” it through the air as you run around holding the cup with your arm extended. Explain that you are pretending that it is a plane; and

b) have about fifty transformers that look like everyday objects but can be transformed into cars and planes like the actual toy by that name. Transform the apparent plate into a car behind a fussy sheet of glass in front of the child so that he can see that what was a plate is now a car (but he can’t see exactly how it is done),

c) Finally at the end of the time, take a loaf of bread and announce to the child, “This is my car.” Hand the loaf to the child so that the child can see that it hasn’t been transformed as were the objects used for (b) above.

It is my prediction that the child will think that what you are doing would fall into category (a)…that you are pretending that it is a car and that what you are doing would not fall into category (b) so that the bread has been actually transformed into a toy car and also that what you are doing would not fall into category (d) where the bread has been transformed into a toy car in a fashion not yet experienced by the child (and in a fashion very different than what was seen in the category (b) transformations).
I wouldn’t describe the process quite that way. I would describe it thusly:

1. The RP was unthinkable and unheard in primitive Christianity;
2. as the pious dwelt on the activity of remembrance they convinced themselves that more was happening than just a profound symbol of Christ’s crucifixion. At first, the presence of Christ at the Supper was not distinct from the presence of Christ amongst the members of his church whenever they gathered. Gradually the presence became more distinct and more “substantial”. One could theorize that pagan rituals that saw the god being consumed contributed to this process or one could argue that this was merely the natural product of an inherent desire in people to add to their significant beliefs and/or have more extravagant rituals.
3. at a point in time the additions become so extreme that the more level-headed finally review the matter and realize what has happened. They try to return to the orignal state. I wouldn’t say that the RP is repulsive except to the extent that error is less than attractive.

Pneuma07 …you’ve given me quite a bit to chew on, and no doubt you’ll have more to say, but I’ll try to deal with at least a post/day of yours. God Bless you.

and by the time of the Gospel of John, the writer is interested in the separation of quasi believers from full believers, between Jew and Gentile too. The most literal line concerning the Eucharist comes later and in the context of a writer more interested in the “winnowing” of the faithful.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

From a Catholic perspective from the Last supper, taking the Greek language is secondary. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to take the Aramaic language which Jesus used first along with the Hebrew mindset from these two great feast being celebrated here in the "feast of unleavened bread’ and the “Passover”. Taking this substance from the original language and belief system, then taking the Greek transcription would make better sense which supports the Catholic view.

Taking only the Greek out of context from the Aramaic translation and Hebrew belief system makes double meaning words from Greek questionable of the context from which Jesus spoke.

Even the Greek to Latin has to take into account of the mindset of the Words being spoken in the New Testament. To set the Greek “translation” on Greek words only without the substance (topic) attached to them from the original mindset of the author, can lead to many false interpretations.

That is why Sacred Tradition has to be taken with Sacred Scripture in order to arrive at the “Full” deposit of faith. If your Greek vocabulary is lacking Sacred Tradition, all you end up with is another’s interpretation of Greek words and not the original author (Jesus) who spoke them in a different language (Aramaic) with a Hebrew mindset, not Greek with a Greek mindset. I believe this is vital in interpreting the last supper or John 6’s account of the bread of life discourse.

Thus far, your Greek interpretation lacks the Hebrew mindset and Aramaic force of the Words translated into Greek.

F.Y.I

Happy interpreting

 

[Radical]

Upon reading more then once Pelikan’s quotation, it does look as supporting TU’s position rather then a NRP history.

no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence .

Isn’t he in plain words telling us RP is what we find in the thrust of the ECFs ?

Yes and no. He is telling us that the original “real presence” occupied a space within a broad spectrum of views. Later (on the next page) he adds that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was a “special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” The modern concept of a real bodily presence requires more than that…as the Calvinist view of a spiritual presence would easily fit within Pelikan’s description of a “special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” In fact, the Calvinistic view probably fits that description better than the transubstantial, b/c the transubstantial view requires a distinct bodily presence.

(And, BTW, it aappears to go de facto against the second quotation, which therefore we cannot sum together. . ).

I would suggest that you reconcile the two by understanding that Van der Meer is using “Real Presence” to mean the modern idea of Real Bodily Presence and Pelikan is using “Real Presence” to mean a “special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church” Pelikan’s term can include many “real presences” that are not “real bodily presences”.

A monolithic picture is IMHO more a strawman than what is proposed by RP scholarship, which is more a RP umbrella covering the bulk of ECFs.
Just as the said quotation states.

It seems to me that when hoping to defend the claim of a consensus wrt a real bodily presence the RP umbrella is stretched to include any special presence (whether that special presence actually contemplates a real bodily presence or not)…or said another way, unless a father denies a real bodily presence, he is included under the RP umbrella giving the impression that he actually endorsed a RBP.

What about Luke 22:19 ?

If that is the re-enactment that TU had in mind, then of course, I see it…but he said (IIRC) remembrance and re-enactment, so I thought he meant something else

 

[Radical]

The “control by the bishop” on the eucharist was advocated by that whom you portray as a (very likely) NRP ie Ignatius around 100 AD.

I didn’t think I was portraying Iggy as very likely NRP. I think he falls into the uncertain category

Couldn’t it maybe be that Iggy, born probably in the 30s AD, knew that there exist … a peculiar relation between bishops and Apostles ?

I’ll admit such is possible, I just don’t think it very likely

As I tried to show, there is no symmetry between what is required to have evidence that the sentence is merely symbolic ( just a “represents”) and to have what you exactly would consider as evidence it is not.

I am not sure what you are saying here. If it is that to clarify symbolism only one word is required and that to clarify a real bodily presence a handful or so of words would be required…I don’t see the few extra seconds that those extra words would have taken as being important.

You know I can share much of what you are passionately explaining.

thanks

Let me anyway examine the paragraph step by step.
"On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks.

I don’t know that it is certain that this is about the Eucharist, but let’s assume it is…it could very well be.

In 2010 do RP congregations assemble every Lord’s day to break bread ? Yes.
Do all NRP ? NO they do not . Otfen they have Lord’s Supper once a month, or even more seldom.
And even in those few days are they assembled …. in order to break the bread ?

frequency has to do with form and not substance (IMHO)…Catholics here don’t actually break bread or use one loaf whereas a percentage of Protestants do, but that again would be form and not substance

Every one has to exchange the “sign of the peace” in every Mass. Probably you do the same in your denomination’s service. Dunno about all others.

I don’t do it at all. I don’t see anything important that is acheived with that sign.

Do all NRP congregations describe their breaking of the bread as a sacrifice ?

It is my understanding that the sacrifice described in the Didache 14 was the act of worship/thanksgiving and that it wasn’t uncommon for the ancients to view all worship and good works as offerings or sacrifices to God. I suspect that, by using that understanding, a typical NRP congregation would describe its Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice, provided that they could be guaranteed that no one would think they were claiming it to be a sacrifice in the same way Catholics do.

Do typical NRP supporters see the breaking of the bread as the fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy ?

Probably not, but then it might just be that Didache 14 sees the sacrifice as the act of worship itself (see Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins p. 40 and following)

If we answer the same, we can probably conclude that the quoted paragraph does not help the NRP view at all.

That paragraph doesn’t favour either a NRP or a RBP. Didache 10 (which follows the giving of thanks for the wine first and then the bread) thanks God for the spiritual food and drink which is an idea very consistent with the NRP view. Catholics, will of course, point out that they too recognize the Eucharist as spiritual food and drink and so they feel justifed in placing the Didache under the RP umbrella, but that seems to be wishful thinking. What the Didache states is consistent with a NRP and what it states is only something that must be built upon to get to a RBP.

 

[pneuma07]

.

Pneuma07 …you’ve given me quite a bit to chew on, and no doubt you’ll have more to say, but I’ll try to deal with at least a post/day of yours. God Bless you.

Dear Radical,

hope there was some proteins there, and not just bones .

Thanks for the ongoing responses.

I’m trying to be disciplined, and shall answer only when you’re over. No hurry here.

Bless you

 

[Radical]

You appear to underline that we can consider two different sort of miracles: those under our experience, and those outside it. The former help the faith, the latter require it. ( see Hebrews 11:1).
Through faith we can believe what we do not see.
Our Yes to the first kind of miracles ( M1) help to build our faith. Our Yes to the second kind (M2) is a fruit of faith. We are also offered a classic example of a M2 ( remission of sins) coupled with a M1 ( get up and walk). Resurrection being we could probably say a category in itself.

If M1 are considerable as auxiliary to faith, they are also called “signs”, then they are auxiliary, preparation, to the acceptance of M2, which are a content of faith.

where I think that this example fails is that the “get up and walk” is what we would call an actual miracle. Something within nature is miraculously changed. Remission of sins, however, is not what I would call a miracle. It is a spiritual event and not an event within nature. If you wanted to argue that this shows that the disciples would be rather receptive to a spiritual presence in the Eucharist, then I would think that you have a point (as such would also be a spiritual event). To claim that his natural body is really present is to go beyond claiming a spiritual event.

And what we know is that the Institution had immediately been perceived as a central point.
That is told by Luke 24, the passage about the Supper in Emmaus taking place on Easter evening. In those tragic days the Apostles had already shared the event of the Instition, and stressed it so much that for two disciples in Emmaus when He

took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him.

Must I believe that a mere symbolism could not wait a few days, the very days of the Passion, to be taught, and in such an impressive way, by the Apostles ?

I don’t think Luke 24 descibes the Lord’s Supper. “Breaking bread” is a term that in used in Jewish sources to indicate the action of tearing bread and the rite which began a meal. Further, for the poor (and also quite possibly for those on the road) bread, salt and water was the whole meal. Jesus would have shared many such Jewish meals with his disciples where the meal would have began with breaking bread. (see Bradshaw, Eucharistic Origins pp 55-59) Luke 24 then describes the meal that those 3 travellers shared at the end of the day and the initial breaking of bread that they had (possibly) seen Jesus perform on a number of occasions opened their eyes to his identity.

 

[Radical]

I was aware of the interesting blog you quote. That reminds us of a battle-trained view about Iggy being likely a NRP. The value of the arguments is various. In at least a case a petitio principii is proposed ( Iggy must be NRP because we know that RP is a late development).

I didn’t think the blogger was claiming that Iggy was a NRP, but that, like me, he was saying that we can’t be sure about Iggy’s position b/c of what he said and how he said it. As for the RBP being a late development, I would be comfortable suggesting that it was earlier in Asia Minor and later in Alexandria and Carthage.

It could be probably interesting to go together into some depth with all conclusions you quote. I’d like nevertheless
to Propose another approach now.
In Smyrneans 8 we learn that a valid eucharist requires the authority of a bishop.
Why ?
I mean if you and I break the bread, read words of the Institutions, pray faithfully,
and distribute the broken bread, that cannot be a valid eucharist. No bishop, no eucharist according to Iggy…
But I am hardly able to imagine why a broken bread cannot be a mere symbol of His body …Without Episcopalian authority.

I note that Ignatius goes even farther than you point out. In Trallians 2 & 7 and in Magnesians 7 Iggy directs that it is essential that nothing be done w/o the bishop. If a bishop is required for everything (in Iggy’s opinion), then it is not surprising that a bishop is required for a valid Eucharist (with or without a RBP being involved).

I hope you don’t forget that “force and intimidation” between NRP and RP in the XVI century was not a one-sided game.

well, coming from the anabaptist tradition I understand that it was a pretty one-sided game from our perspective with both Catholic RPer’s and Lutheran RPer’s being rather nasty (can’t speak for the conduct of the Reformed)

The problem IMHO is that you’d have to show the picture of RP as the ancient challenger, a very successful one, becoming eventually mainstream. After all, you present NRP as THE understanding of the church for the first century.

As I have stated before, I do not think that it is all that unlikely that the pious would imagine something to be more than it is. It is not uncommon for one to see an author spend a whole chapter elaborating on what he has read into one verse. This, to me, is a natural inclination and anyone trying to argue against the elaboration finds himself labelled as arguing against the wondrous thing that God has (allegedly) done for us.

It is absolutely fair that you ask for more, you’d like more to believe that the Logos became bread.
I do not know how much more would suffice. I know that simple words like “represents” in the Institution tales would be enough to avoid the “theological building” you mention. They were not recorded. Rather misleading, one could say.

Yes, it is frustrating. I find the whole Godhead thing and the union of Christ’s natures as frustratingly unspecified as well. There is so much conflict that God could have averted if he had only clarified some more things.

But IMHO matters are even more misleading than simply so.

Those who received the words of the Institutions, had also experienced this promise:

and the bread also which I will give (CC)for the life of the world is (CD)My flesh."
52(CE)Then the Jews (CF)began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of (CG)the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

The Lord now was saying He was precisely …. giving them His body …… to eat, by distributing what appears …… bread.

I think we’ve covered this pretty extensively in the past. Your use of “precisely” is one problem, b/c from my point of view, by distributing what appears to be bread, is not precisely giving them His body. Another problem is that until the whole idea of a transubstantial existence was even developed, I don’t know how the disciples would have envisioned a fulfillment to John 6 other than by a figurative manner. IMHO, once they had the opportunity to reflect on it, they would have understood John 6 figuratively and that would have carried over to the Lord’s Supper.

I guess I’ve written enough.

never, and there was indeed some meat in there…I think I have one post to go yet.
God bless.

 

[Radical]

1. we can assume the passage you propose is Eucharistic .
   The context of Iggy’s texts seems to suggest that, with the paramount importance given the Eucharist, for example

• is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying,*
  in Ephesians 20
  ( if those words in their turn are not referred to Eucharistic bread, there would be major problems for a reformed reading of Ephesians 20). That passage, in itself, does not seem to help the NRP reading of Iggy.

Yes, it would seem that Ignatius connected the figurative language used at John 6 with the figurative language Christ used with the institution

1. It is IMHO fallacious pointing to whatever symbolism within an eucharistic speech as evidence (or even significant hint) that the context is NRP. Else , it could be shown the Catholic Church is NRP

that’s fair, but please keep in mind these two things: 1) I am not saying that we know Ignatius was NRP…instead I am saying that we can’t be sure where to place Ignatius on the NRP <-> RBP spectrum. 2) likewise a bit of graphic wording that appears within an eucharistic speech should not be treated as evidence (or even significant hint) that the context is RBP (particularly when figurative words are also within the passage). Else, it could be shown the Reformed Church is RBP (as per my previous example from Calvin)…

1. If we have it as Eucharistic, the structure looks like this.
   Eucharistic Bread is His flesh , His Blood is Love

What does He want ? Bread and blood. Quite asymmetric statements, aren’t they ?

Symmetry is not something one needs to pursue with figurative statements. In John 6:51 Christ identified the bread of God as his flesh, but he never identifed something as his blood. Ignatius follows John 6 in saying: “Bread of God is what I desire; that is, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David”. However, when he said “and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is, incorruptible love.” Ignatius doesn’t go with “wine”, because that identification wasn’t made in John 6. Instead, Ignatius freelanced and identified Christ’s blood as incorruptible love.

Your turn, Pneuma07…may God bless you and yours.

 

[KathleenGee]

I myself spent a quarter in Graduate School in Linguistics many years ago…and reading the background and perspective given by Gabriel of 12, I find the writings of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Ireneaus, St. Athanaeus, and others who were either appointed or worked in conjunction with the Apostles and their successors, is proof enough for myself that we do receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ…

When it comes to infallibility, many Catholics themselves are divided on the topic simply because there are so many conditions and contexts in which to apply that include the papal encyclicals…

What has kept the Church together is the sacred presence of God through the Holy Spirit…the common spirit we all recognize together…not so much on the writings and pronouncements of past popes and theologians…there is always this presence of God in human guidance that brings us to the center…and not to the edge of seeing how far this pope goes vs that one, or how this is to be done this year and then a few years from now we change and then something else is done…we don’t relate to our faith like that. We don’t relate to our faith as a set of rules…there are the old recent ones people joke about…but I am beginning to sense that protestants are carrying alot of baggage they think is there as a Catholic, when it isn’t…if you are active, sincere, learning, you are living off your faith in Christ – through the Church…I think you all pay more attention to the papacy than we do…you over relate.

Faith is simple…God is simple…

 

[pneuma07]

excellent…many congrats!!!

yes, that and until someone told them about the possibility of a transsubstantial existence (or consubstantial) or any other “stantial” existence where something is Really Present w/o being really present, I don’t see that the idea would have occurred to them…a symbolic interpretation should be viewed (IMHO) as the default position. Since you mentioned your lovely daughter, allow me an analogy using a child and children’s toys. Take a six year old child and over a period of time play with the child by:

a) taking various everyday objects and pretending that they are cars or airplanes. For example grab a cup and announce that it is an airplane and “fly” it through the air as you run around holding the cup with your arm extended. Explain that you are pretending that it is a plane; and

b) have about fifty transformers that look like everyday objects but can be transformed into cars and planes like the actual toy by that name. Transform the apparent plate into a car behind a fussy sheet of glass in front of the child so that he can see that what was a plate is now a car (but he can’t see exactly how it is done),

c) Finally at the end of the time, take a loaf of bread and announce to the child, “This is my car.” Hand the loaf to the child so that the child can see that it hasn’t been transformed as were the objects used for (b) above.

It is my prediction that the child will think that what you are doing would fall into category (a)…that you are pretending that it is a car and that what you are doing would not fall into category (b) so that the bread has been actually transformed into a toy car and also that what you are doing would not fall into category (d) where the bread has been transformed into a toy car in a fashion not yet experienced by the child (and in a fashion very different than what was seen in the category (b) transformations).
.

I’ll pass the congrats to that new RPer.

It would probably be an interesting experiment.
From my own little experience I can say that my daughter, who is 9 and ask me scores of questions on anything, and got a long instruction on that, never asked me how it is possible that she receives Jesus through a wafer. We could poll catechists about children’s FAQs on the Eucharist. You’ll say that children also believe Santa. … Other categories of people coming to agree with RP
are adults in RCIA. Some of them may know aristotelian thought, many don’t. ( I don’t know how exactly RP is introduced in RCIA courses, but we could ask, we are on CAF ! Neither do I get so well whether you are of the opinion that philosophical illustrations made and make RP easier or even more absurd )

My point is that there are several categories of people who come to accept RP even in our “liberal” century. Hence I cannot just assume the fact that in the First century it was unthinkable, as a simple presupposition.
In order to dispel doubts that this unthinkability is a projection by its proposers of their own mindsets, I need arguments to support the view that in First century a RP was in itself unthinkable.

PS It looks like this time I’m going to be probably quick in processing your thought. Next times I will likely be by far slower.

 

[pneuma07]

I wouldn’t describe the process quite that way. I would describe it thusly:

1. The RP was unthinkable and unheard in primitive Christianity;
2. as the pious dwelt on the activity of remembrance they convinced themselves that more was happening than just a profound symbol of Christ’s crucifixion. At first, the presence of Christ at the Supper was not distinct from the presence of Christ amongst the members of his church whenever they gathered. Gradually the presence became more distinct and more “substantial”. One could theorize that pagan rituals that saw the god being consumed contributed to this process or one could argue that this was merely the natural product of an inherent desire in people to add to their significant beliefs and/or have more extravagant rituals.
3. at a point in time the additions become so extreme that the more level-headed finally review the matter and realize what has happened. They try to return to the orignal state. I wouldn’t say that the RP is repulsive except to the extent that error is less than attractive.

.

1. see above
2. You precised that you do not exclude, for one, that Ignatius could be RP. But then we’re speaking of a guy who would live many in the apostolic age. An age when, in the proposed view, conceiving a RP was unthinkable. And he became one of the highest authorities in the sub-aposoltic Church,not to go unnoticed . He was certainly among the best trained.
3. I fail to see all these additions between say the V and the IX or XI century.

It was not IMHO additions generating controversies, but , on the contrary, controversies generating formulations of the belief. You’ll note moreover that even in the late Middle Ages, after what you’d call “extreme formulations”, it is far from truth that any guy smart and brave enough to attack the doctrines of the Church would be NRP. Think of mighty Hussitism for example ( with some exceptions).

Then we had, in this narattive, additions removed and the original state returned. Beginning in Zurich, I suppose. I am inclined to believe Zwingli did not call back original Christianity. He rather founded his own branch of MODERN Christianity.
That it was modern you can see from his early proposal to just abolish any Eucharistic moment in most divine services, no bread any more. The service becoming just what we’d call “Liturgy of the Word” . Was that the original state of the art ? ?
Just his particular branch I said. Soon those I can understand as among your spiritual forefathers appeared in Zurich. Zwingli refuted successfully that early Anabaptism. The zwinglian Council had then some of them re-baptised … by drowning them into the Limmat river.
With that action each of them, drowners and drowned, were staunchly affirming that the respective mutually incompatible persuasion was …… original Christianity.
That has not to do directly with NRP, but much with the restorationist mith.