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

[pneuma07]

You are right, the adoration part isn’t very Calvinistic.

as you may recall from my previous references to this section from Pelikan, I think Pelikan goes too far in seeing a RP w/i the early church. He claims that Ignatius comes close to describing a process of substantial change, but I see nothing in Ignatius that even begins to describe a process. Further, in so doing, he pegs Ignatius at the extreme realistic end of the spectrum. As indicated from the blog I linked, I think there is a good argument that we don’t know where to place Ignatius, (let alone placing him at thge one extreme and claiming that he comes close to describing a process of substantial change). The important thing that I wanted to draw from this passage from Pelikan is the wide variety of beliefs that the early church possessed regarding the Eucharist. Pelikan describes a wide spectrum spanning realistic to nearly pure symbolic.
What Pelikan describes is a range of beliefs and not a uniform belief…and if he claims that the range can be properly placed under the RBP umbrella, then I respectfully disagree. The range of beliefs is consistent with the RBP being a innovation. I don’t know that it works that well with the “Development Model” and it puts the lie to the monolithic model. I would be interested to hear from you on this point…is the apparently wide range really not that wide? Are they all RBP at heart, but merely stressing different aspects? To what degree would you say your answer is free from presumptions?
This is to be expected considering which tradition Pelikan came from…he can see the near symbolic view possessed by some of the ECFs, but still wants to say that they should be included in the RP umbrella. (Actually this may not be the case b/c his wording at that point is imprecise. He states that between the two excluded extremes existed the doctrine of the RP. “Excluded” would mean that at one end Origen and Clement were outside the doctrine on the RP (this makes sense) and at the other end Justin and Ignatius were outside the doctrine on the RP (this makes no sense given what he claims for them)…it really isn’t Pelikan’s best passage, but it is the one that states the variety of Eucharistic views in the early church and I guess I’ll continue to use it until I find a better one.
.

Thanks for the questions. We never know the degree of presumptions in our own statements. -… Each of us sees through his own lens or lenses. We see a lot of biblical prophecies fitting with Jesus ben Joseph where our elder brothers, the Jews, do not.
As for Pelikan he tells us “the Church had the belief” ( ie RP), not a wide spectrum of beliefs. Ante-nicene CFs in his opinion were RP, with the only possible exception of Clement and Origen, masters of allegorical interpretations. Describing a change in substance does not create an extra group at all. We’d just be speaking about those ECFs whose Eucharistic obiter dicta include such a description.
None of them would write a treatise or even a letter on Eucharist. What we are to judge from, then, are more or less obiter dicta . From them you and I cannot even agree on some ECFs being RP or NRP…
Therefore I cannot and shall not pretend I understand precise nuances in each CF’s Eucharistic thought. Which IMHO we could see as contributions to the Church’s thought. The most plausible guess IMHO is inferring, with Pelikan, that there was an essential consensus around a not so defined doctrine, which was considered central to the life of the Church. Towards it no major challenge was perceived, no dangerous shift detected.

I would personally add nothing substantial to Pelikan’s words “The church had the belief (singular), which, following the future controversies in different context, would be précised.”

This sentence is far clearer than the one you initially quoted.

Yes, IMHO a person from the RBP camp has no choice but to adhere to a concept of development…it is the best (only?) way to salvage the claim that the doctrine is apostolic in the face of the range of views. Is it also your impression that the trend amongst scholars is to see an ever greater diversity?

What I mainly object to here is a subtle suggestion about development being something artificially constructed in order to “salvage” anything. Should I get that the position you at present follow is “NRP without development” ?

My humble impression is that conversions among those who go deeper into early Church history happen generally from Protestantisms to the Apostolic Church. Here the significant evidence you could provide is that of a wave of RP scholars who, because of their historic researches, go the opposite way. .

I think that is a good way of putting it, a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross by a re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper

And since the Last Supper was a “pre-enactment” of the Calvary, we have a re-enactment of the Calvary by way of its pre-enactment.

 

[pneuma07]

Sorry, I can neither affirm nor deny the claim…I just don’t know enough to form an opinion.

That’s fine.

Something along the lines of, “Take this bread and eat. I have changed it into my body.” would have been nice. Something along the lines of, “Take this bread and eat. I have changed it into my body and my body is now present in what appears to be bread to the same extent as my body is present in this room.” would have been better…alas, mere seconds (in an eternity) is all that it would have taken to clarify it either way.
thanks, I do hope that we can help each other

I bet someone would succeed in building a merely symbolic reading in any formulation. …
We could also probably say a much longer formulation than “This body-my” would not fit within the dramatic solemnity of the moment.

That said, I concurr we can regret the lack of explanations in any of the four tales of the Institutions.
Your words amount to a powerful attack against the doctrine ( or theory or whatever we should call it) of the “Perspicuity of Scripture”.

In the 50s to 80s AD, when the tales were written down, their formulations must have been however clear enough, within the Church. And, of course, within the picture of the deposit of the faith whose preservation was committed by the Apostles to those following them in the leadership.
I wonder whether it is for us the soundest approach that we judge by means of “frustratingly unspecified” passages whether those in charge of the preservation of the deposit let eventually a momentous novelty come in.
The underlying question being: is a “frustratingly unspecified” text all that God left us through His Revelation ?

 

[pneuma07]

thanks, I do hope that we can help each other

So do I.

fine yes, but it is very important that one actually has confessed ones sins, and is right with the Lord and has not just made a show of it…the Protestant denominations that I frequent all make a point of stressing this requirement and giving plenty of time to get the job done

Fine. You know that for this the Church has the sacrament of Reconciliation
Do you frequent several distinct denominations ?

That is not a bad way of saying it…I look at the Didache and I feel at home.

I like to stop debating for some minutes and just appreciate and enjoy we do share this feeling.

This is a repeat of the words in Matt 7:6. My NIV’s notation reads: Teaching should be given in accordance with the spiritual capacity of the learners. This reflects how many understand that teaching. The Lord’s Supper, like any righteous action could be properly called holy and allowing someone outside of the body of Christ participate in the Lord’s Supper could be rightly called giving that which is holy to dogs.

Your accepting a dimension of holiness is fine. Just, wait a minute: do we give actions ?
And isn’t it less convoluted in your opinion , understanding that we give a holy Thing, by permitting to eat or drink of the Eucharist to unbaptized people ?

I believe most make the requirement to be membership in the body (which is understood to be achieved through belief)

In my humble impression there is a spectrum of strikingly different requirements.

What makes it holy is its association with the proclamation of the Lord’s death. Once it is no longer serving that function, it merely reverts to being common bread and wine.

What about the ancient practice to send the Eucharist to those who could not join the assembly ?

and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. Justin, First Apology, 67

( which BTW belongs to the mentioned spectrum of practices of the different NRP faith communities in our days ).

We may also consider
All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or
other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ, to be eaten by
those who believe, and not to be scorned. Apostolic tradition chapter 37

IMHO it all depends on what one sees as the nature of the Lord’s Supper b/c that, in turn determines what one views as falling into form and what one sees as falling into substance. From my perspective it would be scandalous to offer only one element and not the other. It is merely half a Lord’s Supper and not a proper whole. I view such a thing as a change of substance and not mere form. Some of what you view as form, I view as substance and vice versa.

Again, the same could be said of the RBP side. With reference to the Didache, does your Church:
a) Give thanks for the cup first and the bread second?
b) follow the prayer for the cup as set out in the Didache?
c) follow the prayer for the bread as set out in the Didache?
d) follow the prayer at the end as set out in the Didache?
e) use a single loaf of bread and actually break the bread into pieces
f) everyone is given both the wine and the bread

Let me comment briefly on the argument according to which every single liturgical variation is substance or form , depending just relativistically from one’s POV.

1. It is believed that since early times a plurality of liturgies were developed. The existence of a plurality of rites within the Church has been an accepted reality since those times, which can be considered a richness within the unity of faith. That also allows then for a diachronic variety, according to historical circumstances and sizes of the congregations.
2. This plurality has to do with parts of the How you celebrate. Not the very conception of the nature of divine service.
3. There is an underlying assumption that we have, or should have, a body which is a referee about what does constitute legitimate plurality, to be judged if necessary by duly appointed learned liturgists . A “do it yourself” liturgical vision is not IMHO a viable one. Not more than a doctrinal one.

 

[pneuma07]

again it is not the ** choice** that is insurmountable, but it is an alleged change in a physical thing w/o any physical change in the thing that would require some effort to grasp.

.

The Church is with you, if you state that how the Eucharist takes place is not understandable by us…

Agreed. I trust O’Connor would have also noted that the blood was obtained through the sacrificial death of calves (in the instance of the 1st covenant). From there O’Connor must have noted that at the Last Supper Christ had still not died and had not provided his blood. Therefore, at the Last Supper, Christ must have provided a symbol of his necessary actual blood that would be later shed at the cross to introduce and seal the New Covenant.

I do trust with you that Murphy O’Connor could note the above.
You may also note that we could not have an analogy with Exodus 24 , if people of the New Covenant did not experience a distribution of the blood of the victims… The people were not to be mere observers in Exodus 24. . But there was nothing similar on the Calvary.
By analogy with that ancient Covenant, if the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the people of Israel sealed their covenant with God, so would a distribution of the holy blood of Christ seal the NC. All the more if it is not sprinkled on but taken in. God’s seal being no longer on those involved in the Covenant, but in them. The real blood distributed by Jesus in the Upper Room.

The author of Hebrews explains how this was done through a sacrifice of the body of Jesus once for all. There is no sacrifice for the New Covenant until the cross.

Amen to the first sentence.
By remembering how the Old Covenant was sealed, then you can consider by yourself whether it makes sense or not that we see the Last Supper as a pre-enactment of the Calvary, where what was distributed WAS His blood.

I don’t see a reason to read a second Lord’s Supper into “breaking bread”. I note that they were kept from recognizing him (v. 16) As such, that they recognized him had to do with God opening their eyes at that particular time and not with breaking bread in and of itself

Let’s say then that Jesus decided that their eyes would suddenly be opened at the moment of His breaking the bread, leaving aside the conclusions.

 

[pneuma07]

Please note that I would lump Syria in with Asia Minor and I didn’t say Asia Minor before Syria
.

Fine. And that means the proposed corruption was possibly very early. From what scholars can we see expositions of this proposal about a possibly early corruption moving from Syria and Asia Minor ?

IMHO you are trying to make way too much out of such a fine distinction. For Ignatius it was that anyone separated from the bishop was separated from the church and that a Eucharist or a baptism or anything done outside of the church was not valid. This is about a monarchical bishop and not about a RBP.

I think you mean that I might note how a Catholic understanding fits with a realistic interpretation of Iggy’s words…and I might also note how a Anabaptist understanding of the Lord’s Supper fits with a figurative interpretation of Iggy’s words.

I respectfully maintain that this distinction, about what I am allowed to do vs what I am able to is not a fine one, and can help us a lot here. This is about not being able to consecrate the eucharistic elements wiithout bishops. The bishops were able to do that and entitle to do that, in Ignatius’ teaching.
Since the Apostles had been the ones originally in charge with “touto poiein” since the Last Supper, we could suspect the bishops were their successors in this role of sanctification.

Tis amazing that Christians of all stripes resorted to violence so readily…and in the name of the Lord no less. The only group that was able to keep blood off their hands was that group which rejected violence and stayed true to that rejection. I think the anabaptists came the closest by far.
True. Pity that some Catholic, Lutheran or Zwinglian didn’t read that passage and realize: “If any one of you (who were even briefly in a ruling position in those times ) is without sin, let him be the first to drown an Anabaptist”?

There is a large agreement here.

I am comfortable with others drawing the line at different spots than do I (within some boundaries of course). As indciated, I see quite a range of views in existence in the early church and so, quite a range of views (achieved by various line drawers) is not w/o precedent. Sure there will be some that draw the line too far away and, I guess, their early church counterpart would be the gnostics.

You then also draw your own boundaries, the boundaries of orthodoxy.
For sure there were forms of early chrstianities very far from what would come out as the mainstream, and not sharing the NT canon we today share: ebionites and Gnostics among others. ( even if we should also draw the very boundaries of Christianity ….).
I cannot see a picture of the primitive Church as encouraging people to draw lines and boundaries by themselves. Think just of Acts 15.

Did you leave out a Reading 3 for John? In any event, I doubt that any of your options would reflect my view. I would suggest looking at passages such as:

John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever…

Somewhere around Luke 24 the disciples probably figured it out and realized Christ had to give his body as a sacrifice (and pour out his blood in the process) to gain forgiveness of sin and eternal life for his followers. They would have then understood that when he talked about giving his body and eternal life in John 6, he was anticipating the cross and that at the institution he was also pointing ahead to the cross

I could say Amen to that.

Unless we have to say that the Institution is just that.
His death and suffering is foretold and somehow explained. As it is for example in John 12 too. Now the point of the Institution is also, and mainly….instituting something.

Many Protestantisms would tell us that an ordinance is established there. And we don’t just have “my body is ( going to be ) offered for you and many(all) …”, but “This is my body, which is offered…” Then the Institution does not give a mere foretelling of the crucifixion.

You proposed also that John 6 is about Sola Fide and a foretelling of crucifixion. I had observed in a previous thread that such a hard and peculiar language would not appear fully justified IMHO in the mentioned reading.

Now, what about ,* "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”. * as reconsidered by the Apostles in the light of the Institution. ?

The Lord distributed in the Upper Room what He was calling His Body and His blood. This for sure would not help a “just have faith” interpretation of John 6. IMHO.

IMHO it could not be the most powerful explanation that the extraordinary repeated and hard language in John 6, coupled with the language and the actions in the Upper Room means “whoever eats a MERE SYMBOL OF my flesh and drinks a MERE SYMBOL OF my blood has eternal life.
But He is not just saying. “I’m going to offer myself for you” in John 6 AND in the Upper Room IMHO, as per your present proposal.

Couldn’t it after all be that the RP view has more explanatory power about the relation John 6 – Institution ?

 

[pneuma07]

John 6 is about having faith, but the passages are all connected through Christ and the cross. John 6 looks to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

I hope I have already clarified this concern…if not please ask again. I think that was the last of your unanswered posts…your serve.
QUOTE]

The passage by Ignatius was:
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]).

I can follow your lead, that Iggy is going after John 6 here. It seems to me you are somehow coming to consider that John 6 has something to do with the Eucharidt, after all.
I f he does not just desire to have faith in Christ’s crucifixion, if what is compared to corruptible food is a food and a drink, then bread and blood appear on equal footing, pointing to a realistic consideration of the bread as flesh of Jesus Christ. Unless wo do postulate that he is obvious that he HAS to mean “ a mere symbol of his blood”. .

What about Ephesians 20 ?

 

[pneuma07]

“Realistic” langauage makes a lot of sense for no other reason that Christ used graphic words in his figures of speech over and over again. Some think Christ used “realistic” language when in fact he was utilizing a figure of speech. Likewise, the ECFs often followed Christ’s example and used what could be mistaken as “realistic” language…even though they were speaking figuratively. As Augustine would say, we should look past the carnal understanding to the spiritual meaning.

agreed and I would add:
3) they have departed so far from ancient manners of speech and thought, that such expressions would sound simply odd or meaningless, to them;
4) they are not inclined to go beyond what is actually said by Jesus with regard to this contested matter.

.

I am very surprised we agree on my point 1 above on modern NRP congregations 1) they have departed so far from Sacred Tradition, that such expressions would sound simply alien, or meaningless, to them.
By this I mean that post-Reformation communities have unfortunately, in diverse degrees, forgotten or changed parts of Jesus’ message received by them through the Apostolic Chruch. Whereas I guess you believe that they, in diverse degrees, succeded in restoring the message from the corruptions which had been growing for 14 centuries.
Probably I misunderstood somewhere.

This (IMHO) is where the example of Augustine comes into play. He is not about to abandon the use of graphic words wrt the Lord’s Supper b/c Christ used graphic words. Instead Augustine continues to use graphic words, but explains them in figurative ways. In that manner “eat my flesh” is interpreted as “share in my suffering”. Augustine specifically states that one should understand such graphic words figuratively and not literally (or spiritually and not carnally).

You’re back to
"If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. On Chrisrian Doctrine III, 19

I had shown that Augustine IMHO exemplifies there a famous error of perception happened within Scriptures.

Further, for Augustine there were a number of aspects to the Lord’s Supper. The congregation becomes the bread which is offered. The congregation is called the “body of Christ” and so to bring that point home, Augustine continued to use “the bread is the body of Christ” terminology b/c that is the biblical terminology. One does not abandon biblical terminology, but explains it figuratively and spiritually rather than literally or carnally.

I object to the equations figurative = spiritual literal = carnal as such.

IMHO it is according to the flesh that we …. don’t see flesh at the Lord’s Table…

Augustine precisely develops aspects of the catholic Eucharistic thought. He is quoted so often on Eucharistic issues. And even in the Catechism itself.
I get that you maintain that the Church cannot understand, and never could, what her own Doctor writes. Which, although very remarkable per se , is not so surprising since after all that is what you do of course about Scriptures.

Remember just that this is extremely anti-augustinian. If you told him that the Catholic Church is wrong in reading Scriptures, he’d reply that if it were so, then those would not be …Scriptures for him, in the first place.

Thanks,…my two girls are 14 & 18.

My much greener team is. 9 ( girl), almost 4 ( girl) and 2 (boy).
Could you pass me some wisdom about parenting teenagers in our time ?

God bless you

 

[Radical]

My main point here is that one should not be claiming that the plain and obvious meaning of the Institution is or was the NRP interpretation…

So what are you suggesting? …a truce?

The RBP side will not publicly declare that their view is the plain and obvious meaning of the Institution words or of John 6 and the NRP side will not publicly declare that their view is the plain and obvious meaning of the Institution words or of John 6. Each will still be free to declare among themselves that theirs is the plain and obvious meaning (if such a meaning exists).

That is probably about as much as can be achieved…I would like to see the RBP side also acknowledge that theirs is not a “literal” understanding (for reasons stated many times before), but that is probably too much to ask.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

=

Radical;6769064]I suspect that the author has examined the historic evidence (and like so many other scholars), has found the alleged unanimous consent to be something that wasn’t ever really present. When one is free to entertain the idea that the “unanimous faith in the true presence of Jesus body, blood in the Eucharist” did not exist as alleged, then it is quite easy to see the historical problems with that allegation.

his reasoning is sound…it seems that you have either failed to or refused to grasp the author’s logic

I have to agree with you Radical, what are we doing listening to an unbelievers logic of 5 different opinions of the True Presence in the Eucharist?

When the Catholic Saints, Martyrs all speak this same language Catholics have been practicing and teaching for 2000 years now.

So let us take a change of pace and see what the scriptures have to say themselves about the true presence of Jesus body and blood in his Eucharist = thanksgiving, followed by more disciples after the Apostles of Jesus, who speak the same language as the sciptures and as Catholics do today, not with opinions, but with faith and Truth.

Again faith in the True presence of Jesus Christ is unanimous since Jesus instituted the Eucharist during the last supper.

Here is St. Paul placing a curse on those who do not discern the body and blood in the Eucharist.

I Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26
**For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. **27
**Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

1Corinthians 10: 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, **we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. **

John 6: 55** For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.**
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? .
64 **But there are some of you who do not believe.” **

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

1Corinthians 15:36 **You fool!! **What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but **God gives it a body as he chooses, **and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 **Not all flesh is the same, **but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Luke 24:30
And it happened that, **while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. **31
**With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **
32
Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”
33
So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them
34
who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”
35
**Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. ]

Luke 12: 8 **I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God. **

Acts; 2: 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. 42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

1 John 4: 1 **Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. **
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,
3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.
4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

**ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS **succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2) 180 a.d

"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. **These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ." **-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. **“For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, **are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.” -“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

cont;**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
**“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]). **

Council of Nicaea I:"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325])

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 **[A.D. 350]). **

Council of Ephesus:
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius A.D. 431]).

**ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA **of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year **200 A.D., **
“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”, -“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”, -“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante **202 A.D… **,

St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes., “‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine.** But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”, **-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,

 

[KathleenGee]

I do not see here the teaching of St. Justin the Martyr who died around 133 AD…who was asked to explain what happened at the Mass…sorry if I missed seeing it here on this thread.

What people are missing here is that not only tongues of fire descended on the apostles and Mary but over a 100 others. The faith of the Church also involved its believers. The Apostles could not go forward until their faith was confirmed, or strengthened, through the Holy Spirit, and they were able to communicate the Good News to people of other languages who understood them.

This is significant because when people made an act of faith to believe in Jesus, they were also filled with His Spirit to believe…that the Holy Spirit was working through believers throughout the world to reinforce the Sacred Meal, inspite of the many different regions and cultures. So in a primitive church, that was just beginning, we have to look beyond a few teachers, we have to look at the common faith of the people upheld by the Holy Spirit.

For St. Justin to describe the liturgy in how it was practiced in most parts of the world – within 40 years of the death of St. John the Evangelist – is quite definitive. Furthermore, considering the times people lived in regarding the enslavement by ancient Rome, all the more people would believe in an incarnated presence of God among them. Many lived their faith privately for several hundred years in fear of being identified and killed. Then the Dark Ages’ plundering of the Roman Empire by barbarians and Islam also stifled the development of faith.

I don’t have my sources at hand, but there were some issues with the Didache…

But the true faith in the Eucharist has always been central to the universal faith. And it will always be opposed, and the implementation of faith in this world will always be persecuted and parts wiped out.

 

[Radical]

As for Pelikan he tells us “the Church had the belief” ( ie RP), not a wide spectrum of beliefs.

Actually, I think he indicates both. The belief (imho) is described in this sentence that we quoted earlier: “Yet the adoraration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” Yes, Pelikan believed that there was something that could be identified as a belief in a “real presence”, but given his description of it, that presence was something that encompassed a real presence that wasn’t a Real Bodily Presence. The belief as described by Pelikan was so imprecise that its adherents could hold to a variety of views including one that would understand the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be little more than symbolic (ie Clement and Origen).

Ante-nicene CFs in his opinion were RP, with the only possible exception of Clement and Origen, masters of allegorical interpretations. Describing a change in substance does not create an extra group at all. We’d just be speaking about those ECFs whose Eucharistic obiter dicta include such a description.

It seems that we have now gotten to the point of analyzing the finer details of Pelikan’s understanding of the finer details of the ECFs understanding of presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper.

None of them would write a treatise or even a letter on Eucharist. What we are to judge from, then, are more or less obiter dicta . From them you and I cannot even agree on some ECFs being RP or NRP…
Therefore I cannot and shall not pretend I understand precise nuances in each CF’s Eucharistic thought. Which IMHO we could see as contributions to the Church’s thought. The most plausible guess IMHO is inferring, with Pelikan, that there was an essential consensus around a not so defined doctrine, which was considered central to the life of the Church. Towards it no major challenge was perceived, no dangerous shift detected.

I think you are right in observing that much of what we can glean wrt early Eucahristic thought is derived from obiter dicta…With respect to an “essential consensus around a not so defined doctrine,” I would liken that to a claim that the church in the early fourth century possessed an essential consensus around a not so defined doctrine of the divinity of Christ. The consensus was that Jesus was divine, but from that starting point, there were the two extremes; one viewing Jesus as created and the other viewing Jesus as the same substance as the Father. With one extreme view “divine” was significantly qualified and meant something very different from the other extreme “divine”.

My humble impression is that conversions among those who go deeper into early Church history happen generally from Protestantisms to the Apostolic Church.

That wasn’t the direction of my question, but given your answer I’ll make two points. First, most all denominations fancy themselves to be the successors of the apostles through correct doctrine or through “apostolic succession”…so, in one sense, most all conversions are claimed to be a conversion to the apostolic church

Here the significant evidence you could provide is that of a wave of RP scholars who, because of their historic researches, go the opposite way.

second, if one converts from NRP to RBP then one must leave the NRP denomination and join one of the RBP denominations…on the other hand, if a Catholic (such as Garry Wills) looks at the early church and comes to the realization that the RBP is a innovation, it is not necessary for him to leave his RBP denomination as the RBP denominations don’t seem particularly diligent in enforcing adherence to their doctrine.
To clarify what I meant by my question, I’ll return to this quote from Pelikan: *“Yet the adoraration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence within the church.” *
Pelikan wrote that in 1971. About 20 years later Paul Bradshaw did a pretty good job of arguing that we know much, much less about the liturgical practices of the first three centuries of Christianity than we once thought that we did…and that what we do know points to more variety. I think that this is the trend of scholarship and that it would weaken even further the claim to any sort of consensus.

 

[Radical]

I bet someone would succeed in building a merely symbolic reading in any formulation. …

You are too optimistic…we of the NRP view are not nearly as creative as the RBP bunch. None of us would succeed in building a merely symbolic reading in Trent’s formulations.

We could also probably say a much longer formulation than “This body-my” would not fit within the dramatic solemnity of the moment.

agreed…it was obvious to all that the bread remained bread and that he was speaking figuratively and so the brevity fit nicely within the dramatic solemnity of the moment. (nice phrasing btw)

Your words amount to a powerful attack against the doctrine ( or theory or whatever we should call it) of the “Perspicuity of Scripture”.

not so much of an attack at all when it is understood that Jesus is speaking figuratively…then there isn’t any more of a missing explanation than for “I am the true vine” and the like. It is the RBPers that must go gone to explain how the thing is at all possible.

In the 50s to 80s AD, when the tales were written down, their formulations must have been however clear enough, within the Church. And, of course, within the picture of the deposit of the faith whose preservation was committed by the Apostles to those following them in the leadership.
I wonder whether it is for us the soundest approach that we judge by means of “frustratingly unspecified” passages whether those in charge of the preservation of the deposit let eventually a momentous novelty come in.

well, I don’t think either of us (or our respective schools of thought) judge merely utilizing “frustratingly imprecise” passages. In your previous post you mentioned NRPers studying history and becoming RPers. I doubt few, if any, of such converts would have made the change on scripture alone. I suspect (that in almost every case) two non-scriptural things are required: a) an conviction that the earliest ECFs were decidedly RBP, b) a conviction that the ECFs would not have introduced novelty (or if they did, they would be divinely guided)…unlike such converts, I think that a study of history shows that neither a) nor b) should be believed.

The underlying question being: is a “frustratingly unspecified” text all that God left us through His Revelation ? :shrug

I would simply reword your question as “are the “frustratingly imprecise” texts all that we have left that can be said to reliably reflect His Revelation?”

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry I intruded.

 

[Josh316]

Look, here’s the deal. We could argue back and forth about interpretations all day long and that would get us no where. The botton line is that whenever Jesus was speaking figurtively, such as in His parables, the apostles may not have understood the meaning behind the parable but they at least understood that it was a parable. Now in the gospel of John let us not only look at what is said but what transpired afterwards. After some onlookers hear Jesus talking of His body and blood and them being true food and drink they say “how can this man give us his body to eat and his blood to drink?” (I’m paraphrasing) And instead of Jesus saying “How is it that you misunderstand me?” or “Hang on and wait for the meaning” He says, Amen(Truly) I say to you my flesh is TRUE food and my blood is TRUE drink." Or you can use the aramaic word Toca (spelling?) which incidently means to gnaw or chew and is always taken literally because their is no figurtive or symbolic translation of that word just as their is no word for maybe in parts of Africa, and Jesus uses this word in the last supper when speaking of EATING His body.

 

[KathleenGee]

We Catholics are given directives all the time. The Holy Spirit is the means of drawing on our life in Christ. Our faith is a journey, we are moving as a body of Christ towards Him…He is carrying us together in common faith. We don’t realize that reality, but it is true.

It is not a matter to constantly disbelieve or scrutinize with doubts. Rather, we relate to faith in the Lord and let the Holy Spirit process administrative guidance.

I think one of the problems of protestantism is the difficulty in accepting God working through ecclesiastics who are consecrated in truth and spirit. They teach but it is the Holy Spirit Who synthesizes, Who is our ‘movement’.

 

[Radical]

Sorry I intruded.

No need to apologize…I tend not to respond to you, not out of a lack of respect for what you have to say (as I greatly admire and respect your sincerity and commitment), but b/c we are on very different pages. You often express your heart (a valid thing to do), but I am pursuing a more scholarly (and hopefully objective) analysis in face of claims that the history of the early church demonstrates the validity of the RBP view. Pneuma07 has always been an able presenter of the Catholic position and hopefully we are actually achieving something that could be called “scholarly” w/o doing too much damage to the word.

Cheers and may God bless you.

 

[KathleenGee]

Understood.

But also I do believe there are enough early witnesses…and you have to watch out for intellectual Christianity because it often bypasses the simple things.

We hear things like directives…absorb them, but continue in the Spirit. And time in the Spirit works to constantly build a universal church. Of course, that is of those who sincerely take their faith to heart.

So an early church commentator, teacher, or father may say a few phrases that are incomplete, or not in the universal spirit…but the Holy Spirit expresses basic truths of Church in Christ…and other members compensate that which is incomplete…so you can’t take just one or two people.

I also think if we draw on certain teaching orders too much, then you are not going to get necessarily a universal spirit of the Church. So where do you go to get the explanation of the faith without personal drawbacks…afterall we are all parts of one body…what defines then our faith are the councils and these are condensed into our universal catechism. The Catechism draws on the ancient and past teachers and through the Holy Spirit, the Word of God in the Church is spoken.

It is hard for me to express…but if we get to individualistic and just depend on our own singular way of looking at thinking, no matter the obviously painstaking search we have for the truth, it will be incomplete and can lead to pride. There is much Catholic Church within itself regarding spiritual intellectual pride.

This is a very interesting and educating thread as well. I have witnessed such inclinations and some go off into political realities.

 

[Radical]

Do you frequent several distinct denominations ?

Yes, I keep in touch with and worship with a range of friends and family (RCs included)

I like to stop debating for some minutes and just appreciate and enjoy we do share this feeling.

for all we do share…this should really be more common, except that we focus on our differences.

Your accepting a dimension of holiness is fine. Just, wait a minute: do we give actions ?
And isn’t it less convoluted in your opinion , understanding that we give a holy Thing, by permitting to eat or drink of the Eucharist to unbaptized people ?

Sorry, I don’t understand the question.

What about the ancient practice to send the Eucharist to those who could not join the assembly ?

Wills (in Papal Sin) attributes that custom to a belief in the bread as a sign of the unity of believers.

Let me comment briefly on the argument according to which every single liturgical variation is substance or form, depending just relativistically from one’s POV.

1. It is believed that since early times a plurality of liturgies were developed. The existence of a plurality of rites within the Church has been an accepted reality since those times, which can be considered a richness within the unity of faith. That also allows then for a diachronic variety, according to historical circumstances and sizes of the congregations.
2. This plurality has to do with parts of the How you celebrate. Not the very conception of the nature of divine service.

its seems that here you are merely asserting that the early church variations went to form and not substance, but that seems to be merely begging the question.

1. There is an underlying assumption that we have, or should have, a body which is a referee about what does constitute legitimate plurality, to be judged if necessary by duly appointed learned liturgists. A “do it yourself” liturgical vision is not IMHO a viable one. Not more than a doctrinal one.

In order to agree with your assessment I would have to first believe that there is a trustworthy body out there somewhere that could serve as a referee…there are quite a few bodies that want to claim that they should be the referee, but I haven’t seen one that has demonstrated that it should be trusted

You may also note that we could not have an analogy with Exodus 24 , if people of the New Covenant did not experience a distribution of the blood of the victims… The people were not to be mere observers in Exodus 24. . But there was nothing similar on the Calvary.
By analogy with that ancient Covenant, if the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the people of Israel sealed their covenant with God, so would a distribution of the holy blood of Christ seal the NC. All the more if it is not sprinkled on but taken in. God’s seal being no longer on those involved in the Covenant, but in them. The real blood distributed by Jesus in the Upper Room.

Well according to Hebrews 10:22 it is our hearts that are sprinkled…with that benefit there doesn’t seem to be a need to ingest blood (which, of course, which doesn’t seem consistent with the OT prohibition against consuming blood)