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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MartinJordan said:
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
Click to expand...
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. **And the blood of the Lord is twofold. ** 1)For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; 2) and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man.1) And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; 2)while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.”

Note: Emphasis and numbers mine

Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins,** and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment**. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.“

Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth. Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.
 
Harpazo said:
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
Click to expand...
yes, there were others before him , like Linus, and Cletus…

Although there is not much written about them compared to Clement.
 
tester said:
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. **And the blood of the Lord is twofold. ** 1)For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; 2) and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man.1) And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; 2)while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.”

Note: Emphasis and numbers mine

Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins,** and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment**. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.“

Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth. Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.
Click to expand...
Tester, did you get the above from one-fold.com/?page_id=58 ?

MJ
 
Hesychios said:
I don’t believe either one wrote anything.

If they have, could you provide a reference for my files?
Click to expand...
there is nothing I believe except for second hand accounts by other church historians like St. Irenaeus and Eusebius. I haven’t found anything at least. Maybe someone else might have…

Linus and Clement are 2 names that St. Paul mentions in his epistles however…

one day someone might find something… Excerpts from those 2 popes would be great…From what I have heard Linus did most of his ministry while Peter was alive, and thus sometimes that is why the lists of Popes sometimes are not identical with other lists.
 
tester said:
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
Click to expand...
Tester, there are a few of problems with your argument.
  1. It is clear that other christian writings of this time demonstrate belief that the bread is the flesh and wine is the blood. So even if clement believed in a symbolic only eucharist, then at best it would just show that he was erring. Following your logic, one can just as easily point to gnostics and say that early christians didn’t believe Christ came in the flesh.
  2. Since Clement believe that one is nourished through the eucharist, it would follow that he did not believe in a symbolic only eucharist. Any argument you make for a symbolic only eucharist is self defeating. You have to admit that Clement believed one is truly fed through the eucharist.
  3. Clement is known for allegorizing scripture. Just because he allegorized it does not mean he didn’t attribute a literal meaning to it. As an example from your above quote: “The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit.” Shall we now imagine that Clement was teaching that when Christ died on the cross that His flesh was just a metaphor only?
 
*Clement of Alexandria (150 - 216 A.D.)

Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…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 nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)*

The one thing I have noticed is: Clement of Alexandria (I got him and Clement of Rome mixed up) - must have had a different understanding when he used the word figure or symbol, because of what he said above, and all of the following ECF’s that were either his contemporary, or preceded him, believed as the CC believes today, and surely would have challenged Clement:

"ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)

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 Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

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. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)

DIDACHE or TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES (c. 140 A.D.)

On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: “In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am a Great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles.” (14:1-2)"*
 
"ST. IRENAEUS (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]
. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…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 to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup 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…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)

Likewise, in 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…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries… We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground… (The Crown 3:3-4)

A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)

ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish…how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)"
 
tester said:
yes as referenced in my previous post
(i know I should reference it EVERY time i use, sorry I missed that, I’ll be more careful)
Click to expand...
Hi, Tester!

Just wondering what happened to our discussion on another thread?

I would very much like to continue, as I think that the question I posed is quite trenchant, and, truly, *cannot *be answered by a Protestant who does not believe in the authority of the Church and in Sacred Tradition.

The question (see post sequence below) is: who determined that criteria for authorship in Scripture required 1) miracles attributed to them 2) one must have been an apostle?
tester said:
It was “common knowledge” that Paul wrote Ephesians…
Paul had authority beacuse of his miracles and the eyewitnesses to his miracles:

Paul as an apostle of Christ wrote scripture.
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
Ok. But who decided that the criteria for authorship of Scripture is that
  1. he had to work miracles
  2. he had to be an apostle?
And, do the other authors of Scripture fit that criteria?

I think…no. :hmmm:

Did Mark work miracles?
What about Matthew?
And David?
Click to expand...
Sorry to usurp the thread, folks! Just needed to get tester’s attention to an unanswered (unanswerable by Protestants??) question.

Tester, if you choose to decline the invitation to continue (we’ll return to previous thread), so be it. 🙂
 
tester said:
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).
Click to expand...
Yes, to be sure He’s there among all Christians gathered in His name. But not physically. Not, as you say, carnally. Unless the Eucharist is there.

Then, He is present truly, substantially, carnally, physically.

And, who could argue that the latter is better than the former? 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Sorry to usurp the thread, folks! Just needed to get tester’s attention to an unanswered (unanswerable by Protestants??) question.

Tester, if you choose to decline the invitation to continue (we’ll return to previous thread), so be it. 🙂
Click to expand...
after 6000 postings one would think PRmerger would know about private messages
 
tester said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Is being in our midst enough, for us, and for Jesus? NO

Jesus was in the presence of humanity, in our midst literally, for 33 years. Was that enough for Him, and did He think that was enough for US? NO.

Jesus established the Eucharist precisely because it’s NOT good enough to just be in OUR midst. And He was very specific about that.

Jesus didn’t say, if I am in your presence/midst you will have life in you, and I will raise you on the last day? He said we need to consume Him, body and blood. Jn 6:50… in the Eucharist which He established. The Eucharist is essential.
 
steve_b said:
Is being in our midst enough, for us, and for Jesus? NO

Jesus was in the presence of humanity, in our midst literally, for 33 years. Was that enough for Him, and did He think that was enough for US? NO.

Jesus established the Eucharist precisely because it’s NOT good enough to just be in OUR midst. And He was very specific about that.

Jesus didn’t say, if I am in your presence/midst you will have life in you, and I will raise you on the last day? He said we need to consume Him, body and blood. Jn 6:50… in the Eucharist which He established. The Eucharist is essential.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And is a husband and wife being “in each other’s midsts” enough?

Or is the marital embrace the most intimate form of union and being “in each other’s midsts” a far second in comparison?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top