Clement of Rome and claim that he believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist

[joe370]

Clement of Rome is the first Apostolic Father of the Church, and many claim that he believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist; my question is…

How could Clement, a contemporary of Ignatius and predecessor of Irenaeus, and pupil of John, Peter and Paul, have a polar opposite view of the Eucharist, (as some suggest) - in light of the fact that Ignatius of Antioch (Irenaeus was a next generation bishop) - was also taught directly by the apostle Jon, and believed what the Catholic Church teaches and believes today, regarding the Eucharist? Did these 2 men have different beliefs? Doesn’t seem likely.

Ignatius of Antioch was one of the disciples of the apostle John (98 and 117) - He said: “Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .”

Irenaeus (2nd century) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, and a disciple of Polycarp. He said, about the Eucharist:** “Exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist.” Clearly he was taught this by Polycarp, so Polycarp must have believed it too.**

Something doesn’t add up here. A little help from either catholics or non-catholics.

Thanks…

 

[SyCarl]

As far as I am aware, the only writing of Clement we have that is genuine is his first letter to the Corintians. I don’t believe he addresses the Eucharist at all in that letter.

 

[JonNC]

Clement of Rome is the first Apostolic Father of the Church, and many claim that he believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist; my question is…

Joe,
Do you have a link to some of these that make this claim, or at least what evidence they provide for this opinion?

Jon

 

[Harpazo]

Clement of Rome is the first Apostolic Father of the Church, and many claim that he believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist; my question is…

How could Clement, a contemporary of Ignatius and predecessor of Irenaeus, and pupil of John, Peter and Paul, have a polar opposite view of the Eucharist, (as some suggest) - in light of the fact that Ignatius of Antioch (Irenaeus was a next generation bishop) - was also taught directly by the apostle Jon, and believed what the Catholic Church teaches and believes today, regarding the Eucharist? Did these 2 men have different beliefs? Doesn’t seem likely.

Ignatius of Antioch was one of the disciples of the apostle John (98 and 117) - He said: “Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .”

Irenaeus (2nd century) was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, and a disciple of Polycarp. He said, about the Eucharist:** “Exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist.” Clearly he was taught this by Polycarp, so Polycarp must have believed it too.**

Something doesn’t add up here. A little help from either catholics or non-catholics.

Thanks…

I’m pretty sure St. Clement is not the first Apostolic father. There were others before him.

Secondly, have you read St. Clement’s writings to confirm or deny the claim? Here’s a link with some of his writings.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[joe370]

Joe,
Do you have a link to some of these that make this claim, or at least what evidence they provide for this opinion?

Jon

William Webster and James white and the list goes on…

the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html

Excerpt:

Clement of Alexandria (150-211/216 A.D.) also called the bread and wine symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and taught that the communicant received not the physical but the spiritual life of Christ.8 Origen (185-253/254 A.D.), likewise, speaks in distinctively spiritual and allegorical terms when referring to the eucharist.

Of course he doesn’t seem to realize that the CC agrees with him regarding spiritual terms: “My words are spirit and life.” John 6

I disagree with him (them) - but it is true that men like Tertullian and Clement of Rome spoke of the Eucharistic bread as a ‘figure’ of the body of Christ, and yet they still say things like:

Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.

Tertullian…

“Eat my flesh)” [Jesus] 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 (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Clement…

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times.** He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services,** and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate **those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” **

Clement…

“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.”

Clement…

 

[SyCarl]

William Webster and James white and the list goes on…

the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html

Excerpt:

Of course he doesn’t seem to realize that the CC agrees with him regarding spiritual terms: “My words are spirit and life.” John 6

I disagree with him (them) - but it is true that men like Tertullian and Clement of Rome spoke of the Eucharistic bread as a ‘figure’ of the body of Christ, and yet they still say things like:

Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.

Tertullian…

“Eat my flesh)” [Jesus] 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 (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Clement…

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times.** He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services,** and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate **those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” **

Clement…

“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.”

Clement…

You are mistaking Clement of Rome with Clenent of Alexandria. They are two different people. The quotes in your post are from the latter, not Clement of Rome.

 

[joe370]

You are mistaking Clement of Rome with Clenent of Alexandria. They are two different people. The quotes in your post are from the latter, not Clement of Rome.

You know what, you are right. My OP is addressing the wrong Clement but the question is still applicable, only Clement of Alexandria came much later. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[steve_b]

Clement of Rome is the first Apostolic Father of the Church, and many claim that he believed in a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist; my question is…

How could Clement, a contemporary of Ignatius and predecessor of Irenaeus, and pupil of John, Peter and Paul, have a polar opposite view of the Eucharist, (as some suggest) - in light of the fact that Ignatius of Antioch (Irenaeus was a next generation bishop) - was also taught directly by the apostle Jon, and believed what the Catholic Church teaches and believes today, regarding the Eucharist? Did these 2 men have different beliefs? Doesn’t seem likely.

Clement had 1 epistle to the Corinthians, that is validly atributed to him. The other writings and 20 homilies are all spurious. In his epistle to the Corinthians, he never mentions the Eucharist.

newadvent.org/fathers/

I read ahead in the thread, and apparantly you got your information about Clement from William Webster and James White.

Joe, those guys are venemously anti Catholic. Notorious for getting things wrong.

 

[steve_b]

William Webster and James white and the list goes on…

the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html

Here’s a quote from that site re: the Didache

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, as it is sometimes called, is included in the collection of works known as the Apostolic Fathers, and is one of the oldest documents from the immediate post-apostolic age that we possess. It is an early manual of Church discipline dated from between the late first century and 140 A.D., and it simply refers to the Lord’s Supper as spiritual food and drink. There is no indication that the elements are transformed in anyway

Here’s the Didache newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

• Does Webster misrepresent the Didache? Yes.

The Didache, makes points regarding the Eucharist, just not the points Webster thinks it should make. All that means is that the Didache is NOT the document to use to defend OR refute Webster’s topic. He shouldn’t have used it. But it IS good to use for other topics regarding the Eucharist

For example

Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

What then, are the points the Didache stresses in these 2 chapters regarding the Eucharist?

1. • A person must have knowledge of what Jesus taught before receiving the Eucharist
   • a person must be baptized 1st
   • The Eucharist is holy, and not to be given to the unbaptized and ignorant
   • The Church is one
   • the Eucharist is celebrated each Lord’s day after one goes to confession
   • The Eucharist is a sacrifice
   • There is no open Eucharist. People seperated from us are NOT allowed to receive. They must be reconciled first. To do otherwise, would profane the sacrifice for THAT person who is seperated
   Therefore, one could use the Didache for other issues regarding the Eucharist, just not the issue Webster tries to make. How many people would actually look up in the Didache to see if Webster is using it correctly? I’d say very few. Most people would be happy just to copy him or quote him assuming he’s correct.
   
   He and White, are so consumed with trying to disprove the teaching of the Catholic Church, they have lost objectivity.

 

[tester]

Joe,
Do you have a link to some of these that make this claim, or at least what evidence they provide for this opinion?

Jon

onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The formatting on the web page is “off”
a different browser or compatibility mode may help
or copy and paste into a word doc

I doubt if it will change any one’s mind after 2000 years ,
BUT Joe370, if you really want to know what the “other side” is looking at , check out that link and remember CONTEXT is everything.

Points are being made in paragraphs not sentences.

ex: "because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, "

Who are “they” ?

 

[jphilapy]

He and White, are so consumed with trying to disprove the teaching of the Catholic Church, they have lost objectivity.

When we take all the fathers together we definitely have a picture of catholic teaching. The problem is, protestants like to **imagine **that the early church was as divided as the protestant church and the teaching from church to church was as diverse as protestantism. But no protestant today can make the claims about the doctrinal unity of the protestant church that the early fathers made regarding the doctrinal unity of the church of their day. If you went to Rome, to Corinth, to africa, to asia whatever, they were all teaching the same eucharist. The only ones teaching a different one were the divided heretics.

 

[jphilapy]

onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The formatting on the web page is “off”
a different browser or compatibility mode may help
or copy and paste into a word doc

I doubt if it will change any one’s mind after 2000 years ,
BUT Joe370, if you really want to know what the “other side” is looking at , check out that link and remember CONTEXT is everything.

Points are being made in paragraphs not sentences.

ex: "because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, "

Who are “they” ?

They would be the gnostics who didn’t believe that Christ came in the flesh and so denied that the eucharist was the flesh of Christ.

 

[steve_b]

onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The formatting on the web page is “off”
a different browser or compatibility mode may help
or copy and paste into a word doc

I doubt if it will change any one’s mind after 2000 years ,
BUT Joe370, if you really want to know what the “other side” is looking at , check out that link and remember CONTEXT is everything.

Points are being made in paragraphs not sentences.

ex: "because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, "

Who are “they” ?

Ignatius would call them who have such strange doctrines, Heretics. The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

 

[tester]

They would be the gnostics who didn’t believe that Christ came in the flesh and so denied that the eucharist was the flesh of Christ.

Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection.

Ignatius wrote:

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 the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.

The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.

, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, *“This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (*Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

 

[tester]

and just a note on definitions before we get way off base:

Many (not all) Protestants, who consider the bread and wine as strictly symbolical, also believe in the real presence of the Lord among them. Jesus said: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Surely Christ is present in the congregation of His people, as He promises, especially during the celebration of the Supper. His presence is real even though it is spiritual and not carnal.

When Catholics speak of the real presence they may mean “transubstantiation.”

 

[jphilapy]

Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection.

Ignatius wrote:

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 the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.

The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.

He said they didn’t confess the Eucharist is the flesh. How much more clear can it be? The Eucharist is the flesh that suffered on the cross and was resurrected. Instead of taking Ignatius at his word you put words into his mouth seeking to explain him according to your opinion.

 

[steve_b]

When we take all the fathers together we definitely have a picture of catholic teaching. The problem is, protestants like to **imagine **that the early church was as divided as the protestant church and the teaching from church to church was as diverse as protestantism. But no protestant today can make the claims about the doctrinal unity of the protestant church that the early fathers made regarding the doctrinal unity of the church of their day. If you went to Rome, to Corinth, to africa, to asia whatever, they were all teaching the same eucharist. The only ones teaching a different one were the divided heretics.

True.

John Cardinal Newnman, a convert from Protestantism, (Anglicanism to be specific), wrote, to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.

I see you’re a catechumen. Prayers ascending. Will you be fully with us this Easter?

 

[tester]

He said they didn’t confess the Eucharist is the flesh. How much more clear can it be? The Eucharist is the flesh that suffered on the cross and was resurrected. Instead of taking Ignatius at his word you put words into his mouth seeking to explain him according to your opinion.

ok now can you apply the same standards below?

Clement of Alexandria

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… 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, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle

How much more clear can it be?

 

[jphilapy]

, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, **He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. **

Tertullian is clear, if Christ body was not a real body, but only a phantom body, then it was bread that Christ gave. But since Christ body was not a phantom body, then it was not bread that he gave.

To say something is a figure does not just mean that it is a metaphor or symbol. It can also mean similarity. In the context above, I don’t see how it is a metaphor.

 

[MartinJordan]

Although I hardly get involved in these kind of discussions, I’d like to add something that St. Clement of Alexandria mentioned in -“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 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.”

Note: Emphasis mine