W
Wannano
Guest
You and me both.
Commenter
source of post #20 tangent, and hundreds of other tangents on CAF, and In Real Life.
- Status
S
susanlo
Guest
You also provide quotes from Philip Schaff:
“Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: ‘They have drunk the blood of CHRIST, and have shed their OWN blood for Christ.’ He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a SAVING VIRTUE TO THE CONSECRATED ELEMENTS.” (pg 500, HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH by Philip Schaff (Volume 3 – Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity)
“Ambrose speaks once of the flesh of Christ ‘which we today ADORE in the mysteries,’ and Augustine, of an ADORATION [at least “in the wider sense” of bowing the knee in respect] preceding the participation of the flesh of Christ [footnotes #2 and #3 gives the original Latin from these Fathers].” (pg 502, HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH by Philip Schaff (Volume 3 – Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity)
Here is the full text: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html
Here are larger parts of the quotes:
“Augustine, in other respects so decidedly catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation.1021 He was the first to make a clear distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace, which are equally essential to the conception of the sacrament. He maintains the figurative character of the words of institution, and of the discourse of Jesus, on the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the sixth chapter of John; with Tertullian, he calls the bread and wine “figurae” “or “signa corporis et sanguinis Christi” (but certainly not mere figures), and insists on a distinction between “that which is visibly received in the sacrament, and that which is spiritually eaten and drunk,” or between a carnal, visible manducation of the sacrament, and a spiritual eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood……………Augustine at all events lays chief stress on the spiritual participation. “Why preparest thou the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.”1023 He claims for the sacrament religious reverence, but not a superstitious dread, as if it were a miracle of magical effect.1024 He also expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, which had already come into use in support of the materializing view, and has since been further developed by Lutheran divines in support of the theory of consubstantiation. “The body with which Christ rose,” says he, “He took to heaven, which must be in a place … We must guard against such a conception of His divinity as destroys the reality of His flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth.” “I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven, as it was upon earth when he ascended to heaven.”1025 Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: “They have drunk the blood of Christ, and have shed their own blood for Christ.” He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.”
And
“Chrysostom says: “The wise men adored Christ in the manger; we see him not in the manger, but on the altar, and should pay him still greater homage.”1031 Theodoret, in the passage already cited, likewise uses the term προσκύνεῖν, but at the same time expressly asserts the continuance of the substance of the elements. Ambrose speaks once of the flesh of Christ “which we to-day adore in the mysteries,”1032 and Augustine, of an adoration preceding the participation of the flesh of Christ.1033
In all these passages we must, no doubt, take the term proskunei’n and adorare in the wider sense, and distinguish the bowing of the knee, which was so frequent, especially in the East, as a mere mark of respect, from proper adoration. The old liturgies contain no direction for any such act of adoration as became prevalent in the Latin church, with the elevation of the host, after the triumph of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the twelfth century.”
To be continued….
S
susanlo
Guest
I haven’t read anything from Darwell Stone London, but I will look him up.
I think most experts note that Augustine’s views on the Eucharist are complex, but he did not support the conversion theories (later termed transubstantiation) of Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose that were being introduced around Augustine’s time.
What is involved in adoration? I am not familiar with adoration, but I have a friend who goes and she just prays in the church. What is the difference between adoration and bowing, kissing and praying in front of a crucifix or other religious statue? These statues I believe are meant to be symbols and not actual physical presence of Jesus or Mary, right? What is different between Adoration of the Eucharist and bowing to a crucifix or Mary statue or praying in the presence of a statue?
C
commenter
Guest
re: adoration
by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a Francisan who also was an expert on St. Augustine:
In the Presence of Our Lord, Our Sunday Visitor, 1997
Praying In The Presence Of Our Lord: Prayers For Eucharistic Adoration, Our Sunday Visitor, 1999
Fr. Benedict had his doctorate in Psychology from Columbia U.
S
susanlo
Guest
Many churches that believe that the communion elements are symbols refer to the elements as bread and body. The church I was raised in has a communion reading that uses terms such as remembrance, but then it continues: “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ.” and “The cup which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ.” I could totally see someone isolating these quotes and stating that this church believes in transubstantiation too because of these phrases. This is why it is always important to see the whole context and not snippets of quotes.
Often, the early church writers would continue to refer to the elements as bread and wine after the thanksgiving (or consecration) was given.
“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” - Justin Martyr First Apology
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
I think that when someone reads multiple actual writings, and not short snippets, they can begin to understand the beliefs about the Eucharist held by the various writers of the early centuries. There may be some compelling reasons to believe in transubstantiation or real presence. Believing in transubstantiation because everybody understood and taught this concept in the first 500-1000 years is not a very good reason to do so. There are a wide variation of acceptable beliefs seen in the early centuries. Pretending everyone thought one way by selectively cherry-picking cropped quotes is not honest and actually removes credibility from the position they are trying to prove.
C
commenter
Guest
Think of Moses taking his shoes off, by the Burning Bush. Recall the Ark of the Covenant, or the Holy of Holies. Sure, God is present everywhere, but He can be present in a special way, in some places.
Or, consider how some saints, deeply respected by many Protestants, regarded Adoration. A highly respected intellectual, such as Thomas Aquinas, a different sort of man, Francis of Assisi; Teresa of Avila or Mother Teresa, or JP II. Don’t Protestants by the million flock to the Holy Land each year, to pray there? Why? If it were confirmed exactly where the Burning Bush was, do you think many Protestants would come to pray in that spot, even now?
Or, from another direction, consider what some Protestants and Anglicans have written about meditation and contemplation. That kind of insight might shed some light on what some aspects of Adoration might mean for Catholics, and some other Christians.
Yes, you can and should pray in all places. Adoration - in the Real Presence - is another context for prayer, just as singing can be.
S
susanlo
Guest
Thank you for the explanation. I think that I can understand and appreciate showing honor, reverence and adoration to objects in certain ways in certain circumstances. Different Christians have different ideas about where the line is crossed into idolatry. Maybe individuals can have different limits within themselves depending on where there heart is.
I have a hard time understanding how Augustine saying that people should show honor, reverence or adoration to bread by bowing the knee must mean that the substance of the bread had physically changed. I feel many Christians show honor and adoration by kissing icons, placing the wreath on Mary at the May crowning, kneeling at statues, etc. I don’t know exactly where Augustine was in terms of kissing icons, etc., but how could honoring a ‘symbol’ of Jesus by bowing a knee be different than honoring a symbol of Mary with a wreath? We can’s say advocating for bowing a knee at a symbol of Jesus is idolatry, but crowning a statue is not idolatry. I think that Augustine believed that there was a spiritual presence in the elements and that the bread became holy, but not in a physical conversion way. So I can understand that he believed it should be revered.
I think about the next few weeks when we will all be watching the Olympics and seeing flags being raised while national anthems are played. There will be a tremendous amount of emotion and meaning as well as saluting and honoring of the flags. There can be tremendous amount of significance despite the fact that these are only mere symbols of the actual country.
D
Duane1966
Guest
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Notice that worship is intrinsic to adoration. St. Augustine clearly says the Eucharist must be adored. If he does not believe the bread has transubstantiated, he is commanding idolatry. Either he is an idolater, or he believes the bread has changed, and become God, in a sacramental way. Which is why he commands adoration of it.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I can’t. Because even in isolation, none of your quotes state that there is a change in the bread which is broken, or the blood which is blessed. Every quote I provided from the fathers, flat out says a change has taken place. And if they believe a change took place, which every one of my quotes states, then that is the concept of transubstantiation.
True, the accidents stay visually the same. But you are yet to show me a passage where the early church writers deny a change takes place. So with the passages you have provided, no one can say one way or the other what that early church writer believed. Fortunately, we have other writings. And in at least one of those other writings, EVERY church writer you quoted clearly states a change DOES take place.
If it remained just bread, why bring it to the absent? Does your church do that? As the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes (notice what he says about Justin Martyr):
The authors of the site I linked to, calledtocommunion, are all converts from the Reformed tradition. They have all read the writings of the early Church extensively. Almost all of them said it was when they read the fathers extensively, is when they knew they could not remain Reformed. I have also read multiple actual writings, and nowhere in those writings will you find an early church writer denying the real presence. And again, all of them at some point, in at least one of their writings, when on the subject of the Eucharist, states that a change takes place.
Why isn’t it?
I do see variation, but I do not see where the early Church found them acceptable. Please show me the writings on this variation of beliefs, and show me the writings where the Church says they are acceptable. Every writing you have shown so far, has not shown a denial. Every writing I have shown so far shows that particular writing is incompatible with anything else but the concept of transubstantiation.
I am not pretending. Are you pretending that there was diversity, when your quotes show no denial, while my quotes show affirmation?
S
susanlo
Guest
I have read a lot of the various writings from the early centuries that have been claimed to either show belief or lack of belief in the real presence. In the early centuries many referred to the elements as both bread/wine and body/blood. They don’t speak of a specific change that converts the substance of the elements. Justin Martyr in his First Apology speaks of “transmutation” which is referring to the way the person is nourished from the food. This isn’t referring to a transmutation of the elements. Ignatius speaks of heretics denying that the bread and wine is the body and blood of the Jesus – however these particular heretics (docetists) actually denied that Jesus ever had a body and therefore denied that He ever had a physical body nailed to a cross. This was obviously more complicated than the fact that they denied a change in substance occurred. These heretics were denying that the bread could even represent a body – which Jesus never had. I think it is hard to take much for certain as to the exact understanding of change in the elements in these earliest years.
Then Clement of Alexandria, who is often very abstract in his writing style, makes statements such as “…Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise…” This writing is very abstract and hard to tell exactly what he is meaning literally and what is symbolic. But in another writing he clearly shows that Jesus called wine blood and then drank the wine which he had called blood: “He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And** He blessed the wine**, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’"
The Instructor 1:6
newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
The Instructor, 2:2
newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm
Tertullian then uses language referring to the elements as figures and a non-literal understanding. Most all put him in the symbolic understanding group. Cyprian, Origen and Eusebuis all speak in a figurative sense about the Eucharist in multiple passages.
Eusebius:
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_10_book8.htm
Demonstratio Evangelica Book 8
But later in the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem and then Ambrose are noted to be speaking of an actual change in substance of the elements. The Anglican author, JND Kelly, you quoted earlier calls Cyril of Jerusalem the “pioneer of the conversion doctrine” on page 441. archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n453/mode/2up
However around this time Theodoret in his Dialogue does deny a change in substance. Here is a part of the Dialogue I quoted earlier where Orthodoxos is discussing Christ’s nature with heretic Eranistes.
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm
S
susanlo
Guest
I provided a quote earlier where Augustine says that John 6:53 is figurative.
This seems like a rather clear denial of transubstantiation. He is writing after or at the same time of the introduction by Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose of the conversion doctrine. Earlier in this same writing he articulates:
9:13 & 16:24
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
It seems that the idea of a change in substance at the time of consecration was beginning to become common by those like Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose, yet denied by Theodoret and Augustine. Augustine was probably aware of what others were teaching at his time. Eventually the idea of transubstantiation became the accepted understanding. However, in many of these early writings a figurative, symbolic and spiritual understanding was clearly accepted as these teachings were never questioned, and these teachers were never condemned as heretics. Even Tertullian who was accused of being a heretic for his association with Montanism, was never questioned about his understanding of the Eucharist.
S
susanlo
Guest
Yes. Why wouldn’t they take communion to the sick? As a nurse I have seen many different denominations provide communion at the hospital and at home for those unable to attend church.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Correct, but look what he says right after that. Here is the whole quote:
Let’s break the quote down, the subject is the food / Eucharist:
1.)* For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation,*
A.) He says it is not common bread, and that the bread is in like manner Jesus.
B.) Since he says in like manner, if he is being figurative about the bread, than in like manner would mean he thinks Jesus is figurative.
C.) But we know he says Jesus was made flesh by the word of God, so in like manner here means he believes the bread is flesh.
2.) *so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." *
The subject is the food/ Eucharist. We see three things here.
A.) We see food blessed by His word, and we know that the word gave Jesus flesh.
B.) We see the food nourishes and changes us.
C.) Not only does the food nourish us but also that the food: *** is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." ***
To summarize in that one passage Justin says:
1.) It is not common bread, because it has been blessed by the Word.
2.) Jesus really had flesh.
3.) That bread is Jesus’ flesh.
Since the blessing is what changes the bread, and makes it in Justin’s own words no longer common, and in his own words says it is Jesus flesh, then Justin’s passage here describes transubstantiation perfectly.
Here is his full quote:
Remember he is writing to Christians, and he is not just talking about the Docetists, for he specifically says those who hold heterodox opinions, so in a way he is talking to all Christians through all the centuries, and what does he tell them to take note of, and why is he criticizing those who hold heterodox opinions? He criticizes them for specifically this: they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,
to be continued…
D
Duane1966
Guest
part 2.
First Kelly:
And here is where the confusion comes in. The words symbol and figurative today, do not mean what it meant in the early Church, as attested to by two leading Protestant historians of the last century, notice that they both address specifically the points you brought up about Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Taken from this site: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num29.htm
First Kelly:
D
Duane1966
Guest
conclusion.
Now Stone:
And this is easy to see that St. Augustine believes in the concept of transubstantiation, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist. Adoration is a form of worship. Unless St. Augustine believes the Eucharist has fully changed and become God, he would be commanding idolatry.
Now Stone:
So now we know from two leading Protestant scholars that the word figure in the early Church is not how we use figurative today, but more nearly to actual and distinctive nature. This now puts St. Augustine’s passage in a new light.
And this is easy to see that St. Augustine believes in the concept of transubstantiation, when he commands adoration of the Eucharist. Adoration is a form of worship. Unless St. Augustine believes the Eucharist has fully changed and become God, he would be commanding idolatry.
M
mattp0625
Guest
While I can find information regarding all the disagreements and the history of the Church of England, I cannot find information regarding the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the Anglican claim to apostolic succession. I suspect King Henry was involved in the “continuity”. Did bishops freely convert or were they coerced to ordain others against their will? Can anyone help?
P
Padres1969
Guest
Many of the bishops did freely change allegiance from Rome to London. For example the Bishop of Lincoln, John Longland, who was consecrated as a Roman Catholic and was Henry’s confessor sided with the Church of England when it broke from Rome. Others changed allegiance with some coercion like Archbishop Warham of Canterbury. Unfortunately I don’t have a source that lists every English bishop’s position on the matter.
M
mattp0625
Guest
I came across something called the Appointment of Bishops Act of 1533. The act included punishments if and when the church did not support the king’s choice of bishop.
P
Padres1969
Guest
True, but by then as I recall Henry had already been excommunicated by Rome and he was solidly in control of the Church in England.
- Status