Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[Contarini]

Are you talking Tradition or tradition.

By definition I’m talking “Tradition”–that’s what I meant by “relevant detail.” But obviously neither your Communion or any other can simply label whatever you choose “tradition” and thus declare it irrelevant. That’s cheating. Anyone can make the case for identity with the early Church on such a basis–though for some that would mean making the list of “basics” very short!

Note: I don’t mean that the Tradition/tradition distinction is cheating. I mean that using it to simply rule out of court any points on which your belief and practice differ from that of the early Church–in the context of a discussion among Christians regarding our relative continuity or discontinuity with the early Church–is cheating.

Some details have changed over the centuries. We now have the mass in the vernacular instead of in Latin.
We take communion standing up, rather than kneeling.

Well, both of those are actually attempts to return to the practice of the early Church, particularly the second (but the first too–Latin was, after all, initially adopted because it was the vernacular!). The fact that you regard the medieval/early modern practice as the ancient one itself says something about the problems with your understanding of tradition (and maybe even of Tradition).

Some might argue that having Mass in a language “understanded of the people” (to quote a sixteenth-century Anglican text) is pretty basic, and that the early Church would have had huge problems with the idea of celebrating Mass in a language unintelligible to the people. Witness the fact that the Mass was celebrated in Latin once the Church in the West came to be made up largely of Latin-speakers instead of Greek-speakers (there were a lot of Greek-speakers throughout the Empire, many of them freed slaves, and these seem to have been the early nucleus for the Church in Rome and other parts of the Western Empire). The idea that you should go on celebrating Mass in a language no longer understood by the people arguably reflected not just a natural liturgical conservatism but also the view that the Mass was a propitiatory sacrifice offered uniquely by the priest (in persona Christi) to the Father, rather than being the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by the entire worshiping community in union with the one sacrifice of Christ. We could of course argue about the terms in which I’ve just stated this. Clearly St. John Chrysostom and other fourth-century Fathers spoke of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. And clearly St. Ignatius was already making comparisons between Christian presbyters and OT priests in the early 2nd century. So arguably what happened was a narrowing of focus rather than the emergence of a genuinely new idea. But the point I’m making is precisely that we *could *argue about it. It’s not self-evident that the willingness to celebrate Mass in a language no longer understood by the people was doctrinally irrelevant, or that the doctrine it reflected was that of the earlier Church.

The same is true to a much lesser extent of the standing/kneeling issue. I do see this as an adiaphoron–in fact I like both postures and see value in both. But again, the switch to kneeling reception in the High Middle Ages (at least I think that’s when it happened–I know that this is when kneeling became the posture during the Eucharistic Prayer) arguably reflected significant changes in medieval piety.

The basics remain the same:

• Authority of Church in Rome

BIBLE
Matthew 16:18
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Nothing about Rome here.

• St. Irenaeus

As you may know, it’s not clear in the Latin that Irenaeus is referring to the Church rather than the city; the phrase “superior origin” is actually “potiorem principatum” which is more literally “greater primacy” and may quite likely refer to the authority and influence of the *city *of Rome; and the Latin “convenire” which your translation reads “agree” may also mean “come together.” So Irenaeus may simply be saying that Christians from all over the world come to Rome and so it’s the best place to look for apostolic tradition. I think he’s saying more than that. But again, the point is that learned people have looked at this text and read it in different ways.I’m not going to argue with you about apostolic succession, because while we can argue that there are some differences in how the early Church saw it and how different Christian churches see it today, the basic concept is clearly there (I think Roman primacy is too, but not necessarily infallibility or some of the other things on which your Communion insists with regard to Rome; and as I said many learned people disagree with me on Roman primacy).

I’m an Anglican, so accepting apostolic succession does not bother me! The only point where I’d question apostolic succession would be the claim that sacramental validity depends on it. That doesn’t seem to be something the Fathers are addressing. (Ignatius does speak of a non-episcopal or non-episcopally authorized Eucharist as not being “bebaia,” which could be translated as “valid”–but I think what he means by it is more like what Catholics today would mean by “licit”).

And the bigger point is: why are there only two basics, and why these two?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

continued

• The Real Presence

**

• BIBLE

**

• John 6:49-62 (Discourse on the Bread of Life)

• I am the bread of life.

• 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
• 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
• 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
• 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
• 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
• 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
• 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.
• 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
• 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
• 60 20 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?
• LUKE 22
• 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
• 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
• Matthew 26
• 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

**

• Ignatius of Antioch Letter to Smyrneans

---

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.** But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils**.

Sorry–you do have a third!

But nothing you have quoted indicates that the early Church believed in transubstantiation, which is the doctrine peculiar to your Communion. The Real Presence is certainly not something I would question, although some Protestants do point out that other early Fathers (Tertullian, Origen, even Augustine) spoke of the Presence as symbolic. (In my opinion this doesn’t contradict the affirmations of the Real Presence–I don’t think they were speaking as reductionistically as modern Protestants often do–but the evidence of Augustine in particular does question whether his position could possibly fit the later category of transubstantiation.)

If all I had to do was subscribe to the Real Presence as taught by Ignatius I’d be in communion with your Church by nightfall!

Edwin

 

[CWBetts]

Sorry–you do have a third!

But nothing you have quoted indicates that the early Church believed in transubstantiation, which is the doctrine peculiar to your Communion. The Real Presence is certainly not something I would question, although some Protestants do point out that other early Fathers (Tertullian, Origen, even Augustine) spoke of the Presence as symbolic. (In my opinion this doesn’t contradict the affirmations of the Real Presence–I don’t think they were speaking as reductionistically as modern Protestants often do–but the evidence of Augustine in particular does question whether his position could possibly fit the later category of transubstantiation.)

If all I had to do was subscribe to the Real Presence as taught by Ignatius I’d be in communion with your Church by nightfall!

Edwin

The Real Presence as Ignatius taught is PRECISELY what we believe. All “Transubstantiation” is, is a metaphysical explanation as to what is really going on. Perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to attatch that word to it, but it is what was believed all along.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

The Real Presence as Ignatius taught is PRECISELY what we believe. All “Transubstantiation” is, is a metaphysical explanation as to what is really going on. Perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to attatch that word to it, but it is what was believed all along.

But how can any term explain the unexplainable. This is where Im very drawn by the Orthodox approach to some things - some things are simply a mystery. Period. And they can never and will never be able to be explained by the mere brain processing power of mortals.

 

[CWBetts]

But how can any term explain the unexplainable. This is where Im very drawn by the Orthodox approach to some things - some things are simply a mystery. Period. And they can never and will never be able to be explained by the mere brain processing power of mortals.

I didn’t say St. Thomas FULLY explained it. He just provided a way of looking at it utilizing Aristotelian philosophy.

 

[greggy53]

But how can any term explain the unexplainable. This is where Im very drawn by the Orthodox approach to some things - some things are simply a mystery. Period. And they can never and will never be able to be explained by the mere brain processing power of mortals.

I think you are confusing unexplainable with understandable. We cannot completely understand many mysteries of the faith. But the Church has and does offer adequate if not complete explanations for the things we believe. Otherwise we could never really be certain of anything.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I didn’t say St. Thomas FULLY explained it. He just provided a way of looking at it utilizing Aristotelian philosophy.

OK, given you could drive a bus through the holes in my knowledge of Aristotelian philosophy, I’ll take your word for it

 

[Annie77]

The so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the Old Testament. They were books that existed only in Greek manuscripts. There was no corresponding Hebrew because they were composed in Greek.

Both Christians and Jews accepted the Septuagint as scripture, including the 7 books in question, until the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 CE. At that time, the Jews chose to exclude the Greek-only books and create a canon comprising only those texts that were translated from Hebrew originals. That was partly a move to distinguish themselves from the Christians. Christians continued to use the Septuagint as it was.

Jerome noted the difference when he made the Vulgate (Latin translation). He was translated from the oldest manuscripts he could find and he was aware that those 7 books were composed in Greek, where the rest were Hebrew. He proposed that the books should be included in the canon because they were edifying but should not be the sole basis for any doctrine. He says this in his preface. That is the origin of the idea of a deuterocanon–books that are edifying but not quite at the same level as the rest. A canonical book can be the sole basis for a doctrine, for example.

During the Protestant Reformation, Reformers who were trying to retrieve the roots of Christianity before corruption and also differentiate themselves from the Roman Catholic Church followed the Jewish custom of excluding the books. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions continued to include them.

Protestants often assume that the origin of RC doctrines they don’t accept can be found in the apocrypha. I know I was taught that as a child. They don’t believe like us, they have extra books in their bible, that must be the explanation. Actually, it really doesn’t work like that.

 

[CWBetts]

The so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the Old Testament. They were books that existed only in Greek manuscripts. There was no corresponding Hebrew because they were composed in Greek.

Both Christians and Jews accepted the Septuagint as scripture, including the 7 books in question, until the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 CE. At that time, the Jews chose to exclude the Greek-only books and create a canon comprising only those texts that were translated from Hebrew originals. That was partly a move to distinguish themselves from the Christians. Christians continued to use the Septuagint as it was.

Jerome noted the difference when he made the Vulgate (Latin translation). He was translated from the oldest manuscripts he could find and he was aware that those 7 books were composed in Greek, where the rest were Hebrew. He proposed that the books should be included in the canon because they were edifying but should not be the sole basis for any doctrine. He says this in his preface. That is the origin of the idea of a deuterocanon–books that are edifying but not quite at the same level as the rest. A canonical book can be the sole basis for a doctrine, for example.

During the Protestant Reformation, Reformers who were trying to retrieve the roots of Christianity before corruption and also differentiate themselves from the Roman Catholic Church followed the Jewish custom of excluding the books. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions continued to include them.

Protestants often assume that the origin of RC doctrines they don’t accept can be found in the apocrypha. I know I was taught that as a child. They don’t believe like us, they have extra books in their bible, that must be the explanation. Actually, it really doesn’t work like that.

Can you explain the fact that the longer versions of Daniel were found at Quamran, which predates any other copies by centuries.

 

[greggy53]

The so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the Old Testament. They were books that existed only in Greek manuscripts. There was no corresponding Hebrew because they were composed in Greek.

Both Christians and Jews accepted the Septuagint as scripture, including the 7 books in question, until the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 CE. At that time, the Jews chose to exclude the Greek-only books and create a canon comprising only those texts that were translated from Hebrew originals. That was partly a move to distinguish themselves from the Christians. Christians continued to use the Septuagint as it was.

Jerome noted the difference when he made the Vulgate (Latin translation). He was translated from the oldest manuscripts he could find and he was aware that those 7 books were composed in Greek, where the rest were Hebrew. He proposed that the books should be included in the canon because they were edifying but should not be the sole basis for any doctrine. He says this in his preface. That is the origin of the idea of a deuterocanon–books that are edifying but not quite at the same level as the rest. A canonical book can be the sole basis for a doctrine, for example.

During the Protestant Reformation, Reformers who were trying to retrieve the roots of Christianity before corruption and also differentiate themselves from the Roman Catholic Church followed the Jewish custom of excluding the books. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions continued to include them.

Protestants often assume that the origin of RC doctrines they don’t accept can be found in the apocrypha. I know I was taught that as a child. They don’t believe like us, they have extra books in their bible, that must be the explanation. Actually, it really doesn’t work like that.

You mean 90 AD

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think you are confusing unexplainable with understandable. We cannot completely understand many mysteries of the faith. But the Church has and does offer adequate if not complete explanations for the things we believe. Otherwise we could never really be certain of anything.

I think the Western Church is reflective of Western thought which based on Aristotelian philosophy. (Translate, we have a lot of theologians who like to argue). The Eastern mindset is more focused on embracing the mystery.

 

[qui_est_ce]

)

If all I had to do was subscribe to the Real Presence as taught by Ignatius I’d be in communion with your Church by nightfall!

Edwin

Welcome!

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

* The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

* The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

* The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

* In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

* The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

* The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

* In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

* In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

* The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

WHO REPORT

1. The immunological study shows that the Flesh and the Blood are definitely those of
   human being and the immuno-hematological test allows us to affirm that both belong to
   the same blood group AB, the same group as that of the man of the Shroud (of Turin) and
   the blood group typical of the populations in the Middle East.
2. The proteins contained in the Blood have the normal distribution, in the identical
   percentage as that of the serum-protein pattern of normal fresh blood.
3. There were no traces of the salts or other preservative substances used in antiquity to
   mummify corpses.
   This report was published in various international scientific journals and
   attracted a great interest in the whole world, so much so that in 1973,
   the Superior Council of the World Health Organization appropriately
   appointed a commission of scientists who carried out more than 500
   examinations on the Relics from the Miracle. The commission
   confirmed the results of the analyses carried out by Professor Linoli. In
   addition, the scientific commission declared that the Flesh and the
   Blood of the Miracle of Lanciano are just the same as they would be if
   they had been taken that very day from a living being. In the extract
   summarizing the scientific investigations of the World Health
   Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN), published in
   December of 1976 in New York and Geneva, it was declared that
   “science, aware of its limitations, is forced to admit the impossibility of
   giving an explanation.”

 

[greggy53]

I think the Western Church is reflective of Western thought which based on Aristotelian philosophy. (Translate, we have a lot of theologians who like to argue). The Eastern mindset is more focused on embracing the mystery.

It has been my observation that much of Eastern Mysticism is not based on any logic at all, and therefore indefensible. On the other hand Christianity is based on certain knowable truths, and the fact that we can really be certain that certain things are true, or false. The Eastern mind set makes no such assumption that I am aware of. That makes it hard to argue for in my opinion because no one can ever really be certain of anything.

 

[CWBetts]

It has been my observation that much of Eastern Mysticism is not based on any logic at all, and therefore indefensible. On the other hand Christianity is based on certain knowable truths, and the fact that we can really be certain that certain things are true, or false. The Eastern mind set makes no such assumption that I am aware of. That makes it hard to argue for in my opinion because no one can ever really be certain of anything.

He was making reference to the Eastern Church, not Eastern mysticism

 

[Contarini]

The Real Presence as Ignatius taught is PRECISELY what we believe. All “Transubstantiation” is, is a metaphysical explanation as to what is really going on. Perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to attatch that word to it, but it is what was believed all along.

That’s just not historically defensible.

Until the 13th century it was very common–indeed it was probably the dominant view–to maintain that when an unbeliever received the consecrated elements, they received only bread and wine, because the presence of Christ is sacramental and a sacrament can be received only by faith.

I know that you all probably think that Gary Macy is a vile liberal heretic (if you’ve ever heard of him). And I agree that he overstates the case for a plurality of views of the Real Presence in his general argument in *The Banquet’s Wisdom. *But he is an expert on medieval sacramental theology. And you can’t just dismiss historical evidence by saying that the historian is a liberal heretic.

As you probably know, Augustine said a number of things (going beyond the manducatio infidelium issue) which are not easily reconcilable with the later doctrine of transubstantiation. It can be done, but it’s very hard work.

Edwin

 

[CWBetts]

That’s just not historically defensible.

Until the 13th century it was very common–indeed it was probably the dominant view–to maintain that when an unbeliever received the consecrated elements, they received only bread and wine, because the presence of Christ is sacramental and a sacrament can be received only by faith.

I know that you all probably think that Gary Macy is a vile liberal heretic (if you’ve ever heard of him). And I agree that he overstates the case for a plurality of views of the Real Presence in his general argument in *The Banquet’s Wisdom. *But he is an expert on medieval sacramental theology. And you can’t just dismiss historical evidence by saying that the historian is a liberal heretic.

As you probably know, Augustine said a number of things (going beyond the manducatio infidelium issue) which are not easily reconcilable with the later doctrine of transubstantiation. It can be done, but it’s very hard work.

Edwin

You have proven to me that you are ignorant of the teachings of the Early Fathers on the real presence. Go get some reading done, and then we can discuss it. Until then you will just be blathering personal opinion.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, at least if they were honest about it they would admit that these were Orthodox church Councils and Fathers.

Yes and those very same bishops were Catholic and submitted the results of the councils to the bishop of Rome for approval.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Until the 13th century it was very common–indeed it was probably the dominant view–to maintain that when an unbeliever received the consecrated elements, they received only bread and wine, because the presence of Christ is sacramental and a sacrament can be received only by faith.

It may have been, but it was never doctrinally embraced.

As you probably know, Augustine said a number of things (going beyond the manducatio infidelium issue) which are not easily reconcilable with the later doctrine of transubstantiation. It can be done, but it’s very hard work.

Edwin

Augustine was a theologian philosopher, not the Magesterium. Some of his views were incorporated into Church Doctrine, others we may believe or disbelieve as long as they don’t conflict with Church Teaching.

The important thing to remember is the Early Church Fathers were describing whtat the Church taught. They are not Scripture, but they relate what the first Christians in the Catholic Church were doing. St Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. For example, St. Ignatius gave his opinion on the unbelievers and the Eucharist. The premise is that the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[greggy53]

You have proven to me that you are ignorant of the teachings of the Early Fathers on the real presence. Go get some reading done, and then we can discuss it. Until then you will just be blathering personal opinion.

I don’t believe Contarini is ignorant at all. He eloquently builds a case for the differences between real presence and transubstantiation. From where I sit I believe he’s trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but it suites his purpose very well. He is articulate and informed. You on the other hand are being rather rude.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t believe Contarini is ignorant at all. He eloquently builds a case for the differences between real presence and transubstantiation. From where I sit I believe he’s trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but it suites his purpose very well. He is articulate and informed.

I agree. Contarini has helped me learn more about my faith through his questioning. From seeing his posts in other threads over the years, I think he sincerely seeks the truth.