Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[Contarini]

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.

That is just your way of avoiding the issues I have raised. “You disagree with me therefore you must be ignorant” is pretty much an admission of defeat. If you had solid arguments, you would be presenting them. If you had read the Fathers yourself, you would be citing them.

If you are not acquainted with the passages in Augustine that apparently clash with later Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, then you are the one who needs to do some reading. (See the Tractates on John, Tractates 26-27, esp. 26.18 on the manducatio infidelium, and De Doctrina Christiana 3.16, which states more explicitly that the “eating” of Christ’s flesh is figurative). These are well-known passages in Protestant/Catholic debate. They do not pose insuperable difficulties to the Catholic position. (Or, for that matter, to mine–I hold a much stronger view of the Real Presence than the one Augustine appears to be teaching in De Doctr. Chr. 3.16.) Augustine spoke in a more “Catholic” way elsewhere, and one can use those passages to interpret these. And, as qui est ce pointed out, Augustine was just one (though very great) theologian, and was not infallible.

However, these passages do give the lie to the claim that the early Church was simply identical with contemporary Catholicism (defining Catholicism as you do, in terms of the Roman Communion) with regard to Eucharistic theology. A passage like De Doctr. Chr. 3.16 would not be considered orthodox today. There is no evidence I know of anyone in the early Church objecting to it, probably because the matter simply hadn’t become a subject of controversy yet. Similarly, Christian theologians before the Council of Nicea said things about the relationship of the Son to the Father which would not be considered orthodox later. Therefore, one cannot say that the fourth-century Church was identical in Christology to the second-century Church. Instead, one should say that there is *continuity. *What I’m objecting to is the confusion between identity and continuity.

For a good Catholic attempt to explain Augustine’s position on this matter, see the lengthy quotation from Fr. James T. O’Connor found in this blog post. Note that Fr. O’Connor recognizes that St. Augustine’s words present difficulties for Catholics. His interpretation of the passages in question is in keeping with a Reformed “spiritual presence” position (found in Calvin, Wesley, and many other Protestant theologians). However, Fr. O’Connor goes on to point to other passages which speak of the Eucharist in a more “realistic” manner, which the Reformed would reject. Clearly for Augustine these two ways of speaking were not mutually opposed, as they became later.

If anything, that means that we Anglicans could claim Augustine on this point! But then, the semi-Arians could have claimed most of the pre-Nicene theologians. Doctrinal development has to be taken seriously. My problem, again, with the original claim of identity is that it *doesn’t *take doctrinal development seriously.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It may have been, but it was never doctrinally embraced.
Augustine was a theologian philosopher, not the Magesterium. . . . .
The important thing to remember is the Early Church Fathers were describing whtat the Church taught.

For the purpose of this present discussion, that second sentence nullifies the first two.

I am not arguing about whether the Catholic position is true. (I honestly don’t know.) I am not arguing that the Catholic position is inconsistent or contradictory (I don’t think it is). If I were, then your distinction between a theologian and the Magisterium would be relevant. But I’m not. What we are talking about is whether the early Church was simply identical to the Catholic Church today. As I’ve said before, obviously if you select the “relevant” criteria carefully you can make a case for such identity. But that’s what I referred to earlier as “cheating.” You essentially write the rules so that you “win.” Any evidence against you doesn’t count. When Ignatius or Ambrose or Cyril of Jerusalem says something that sounds like later Catholic teaching, they are “describing what the Church taught.” But when Augustine or Tertullian or Origen says something that points to a possibly different view, they don’t count.

If Ignatius is describing what the Church taught, then so is Augustine.

If anything, the evidence may point to an earlier, very simple realism about the Eucharist, which was modified by later theologians/philosophers (to use your term) who were trying to make the Christian position seem more rational and avoid the accusation of cannibalism. In Augustine’s time this rationalizing tendency could coexist with more realistic language (in Augustine’s own writings and more clearly in those of his mentor Ambrose). Centuries later, in the debate between Radbertus and Ratramnus, these two impulses clashed. In the condemnation of Berengar in the 11th century, the more realistic view triumphed definitively (within the Catholic tradition, I mean!). This view was further elaborated and systematized by Aquinas, eliminating the longstanding view that unbelievers do not receive the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood (until it was revived by the Reformed, of course).

That would be my rough history of Eucharistic theology as I understand it. And in many ways it parallels the development of Trinitarian and Christological doctrine. I don’t think Catholics have anything to fear from a serious look at history. That’s why I find it so frustrating when Catholics flee from history to take shelter in untenable claims like “the early Church was just the same as the Catholic Church today.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

I respectfully submit that I am not the one making a mountain out of this. I am not the one whose Communion requires a very precise belief in a certain form of the Real Presence as a condition for communion. We Anglicans are happy to accept a wide range of views on the Real Presence. That may not be a good thing, but we aren’t making mountains out of molehills.

I agree that this is a fine point. But if your Communion considers it a church-dividing issue *today, *then it is highly relevant for a discussion of whether your Communion is simply identical to the Catholic Church of the early centuries.

Edwin

 

[SonofMonica]

I respectfully submit that I am not the one making a mountain out of this. I am not the one whose Communion requires a very precise belief in a certain form of the Real Presence as a condition for communion. We Anglicans are happy to accept a wide range of views on the Real Presence. That may not be a good thing, but we aren’t making mountains out of molehills.

I agree that this is a fine point. But if your Communion considers it a church-dividing issue *today, *then it is highly relevant for a discussion of whether your Communion is simply identical to the Catholic Church of the early centuries.

Edwin

Edwin, first of all I would like to add myself to the list of those who appreciate your contributions to this board. I find your questions often challenging, and while they’ve not cast any real doubt or apprehension on my own swim across the Tiber, they’ve certainly encouraged me to do my own research.

As for the Real Presence, I would submit that Trent doesn’t so much require positive belief in Transubstantiation as much as it prohibits the denial of it (If anyone sayeth… let him be anathema…). The distinction seems, to me, to be important, as Eastern Catholics, in line with the Orthodox patrimony from whence they come, don’t really affirmatively express their belief in the Real Presence in terms of transubstantiation, and will readily admit as much. However, they would be the first to tell you that they cannot deny it or deem it heretical, as they remain in obedience to the Pope and recognize the binding nature of the councils of the Church. We must remember that theology is a human language taking a stab at the reality of the divine, and there are different ways of expressing the truth; but we can never deny the truth, especially as expressed through the mind of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, first of all I would like to add myself to the list of those who appreciate your contributions to this board. I find your questions often challenging, and while they’ve not cast any real doubt or apprehension on my own swim across the Tiber, they’ve certainly encouraged me to do my own research.

As for the Real Presence, I would submit that Trent doesn’t so much require positive belief in Transubstantiation as much as it prohibits the denial of it (If anyone sayeth… let him be anathema…). The distinction seems, to me, to be important, as Eastern Catholics, in line with the Orthodox patrimony from whence they come, don’t really affirmatively express their belief in the Real Presence in terms of transubstantiation, and will readily admit as much. However, they would be the first to tell you that they cannot deny it or deem it heretical, as they remain in obedience to the Pope and recognize the binding nature of the councils of the Church. We must remember that theology is a human language taking a stab at the reality of the divine, and there are different ways of expressing the truth; but we can never deny the truth, especially as expressed through the mind of the Church.

Yes, I agree with this. (I am currently teaching St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Theological Orations as part of my Early Christianity course, and he has some very good things to say about the role and limits of theological discourse.)

But I think I am right in saying that one cannot deny the manducatio infidelium and be a Catholic in good standing (officially; of course many people do). And Augustine and many other theologians before the 13th century did deny it. Again, this isn’t necessarily an argument against the Catholic position, only against the claim that Catholicism today is identical to the Catholicism of the early Church.

I think a lot of the problem is that people want to make an absolute instead of a relative argument. They want to be able to say “the Catholic Church is obviously the same now as it was then.” A much stronger argument is “given the various churches that claim continuity with the early Church, the claims of the Catholic Church are by far the strongest.” I would generally agree with that argument–I would agree with it without qualification if we are just talking about the Western churches.

Edwin

 

[greggy53]

…However, these passages do give the lie to the claim that the early Church was simply identical with contemporary Catholicism (defining Catholicism as you do, in terms of the Roman Communion) with regard to Eucharistic theology. A passage like De Doctr. Chr. 3.16 would not be considered orthodox today. There is no evidence I know of anyone in the early Church objecting to it, probably because the matter simply hadn’t become a subject of controversy yet. Similarly, Christian theologians before the Council of Nicea said things about the relationship of the Son to the Father which would not be considered orthodox later. Therefore, one cannot say that the fourth-century Church was identical in Christology to the second-century Church. Instead, one should say that there is *continuity. *What I’m objecting to is the confusion between identity and continuity. Edwin

I believe that the Church has taught consistently about the definition and nature of the Eucharist since Biblical times. For example 1st Cor 10,16

“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

When taken as simply as St Paul said it here it is plain to see that the Church’s teaching today is identical to what is was 2000 years ago. The fact that one can find inconsistencies within the writings of the doctors of the Church written over centuries should not be a surprise to anyone, nor does it mean that the Churches teaching is inconsistent. The Catholic Church has coherently taught the meaning and nature of the Eucharist since our Lord offered the first sacrifice of the Mass at the last supper. Your motive here I think is to gain for yourself, or obtain from us Catholics some acceptance of an Anglican definition of Communion. The problem is unless your bread and wine are consecrated by an ordained Catholic priest we don’t believe you are receiving the Eucharist at all! It’s not an argument over “real presence” verses transubstantiation, but of “real presence” versus“no presence” at all.

 

[SonofMonica]

Yes, I agree with this. (I am currently teaching St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Theological Orations as part of my Early Christianity course, and he has some very good things to say about the role and limits of theological discourse.)

But I think I am right in saying that one cannot deny the manducatio infidelium and be a Catholic in good standing (officially; of course many people do). And Augustine and many other theologians before the 13th century did deny it. Again, this isn’t necessarily an argument against the Catholic position, only against the claim that Catholicism today is identical to the Catholicism of the early Church.

I think a lot of the problem is that people want to make an absolute instead of a relative argument. They want to be able to say “the Catholic Church is obviously the same now as it was then.” A much stronger argument is “given the various churches that claim continuity with the early Church, the claims of the Catholic Church are by far the strongest.” I would generally agree with that argument–I would agree with it without qualification if we are just talking about the Western churches.

Edwin

I would expect no more agreement from you than what you’ve already expressed. Very nicely stated, especially in light of the fact that the Catholic Church believes in the development and refinement of doctrine and practice over time. God bless you, brother.

 

[SonofMonica]

The problem is unless your bread and wine are consecrated by an ordained Catholic priest we don’t believe you are receiving the Eucharist at all! It’s not an argument over “real presence” verses transubstantiation, but of “real presence” versus“no presence” at all.

I don’t think this accurately represents Catholic teaching at all. It doesn’t take into account the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist, for one. Nor does it take into account the teachings of the real presence as expressed by Eastern Catholics who neither teach nor deny transubstantiation as a practical matter. I’m not encouraging you to deny AC, but there’s no reason to foist the statements above upon Edwin. He more than understands the Catholic position that Anglican clergymen do not possess holy orders. He also understands that the Catholic position is for practical purposes wholly unrelated to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, I agree with this. (I am currently teaching St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Theological Orations as part of my Early Christianity course, and he has some very good things to say about the role and limits of theological discourse.)

Obviously I can’t compete with your level of knowledge. But knowledge and understanding/Truth are not the same thing. I believe Jesus said if we had the faith of a mustard seed, the mountains would obey us.

But I think I am right in saying that one cannot deny the manducatio infidelium and be a Catholic in good standing (officially; of course many people do). And Augustine and many other theologians before the 13th century did deny it. Again, this isn’t necessarily an argument against the Catholic position, only against the claim that Catholicism today is identical to the Catholicism of the early Church.

Edwin

I would argue it is the same Holy Catholic Church, that began as a tiny mustard seed and grew into the biggest of trees.

It is the same Church. It grew as our understanding grew. The outward appearances in performing the Sacraments are different, (we don’t kneel at the Communions Rail), but the beliefs are the same. There is no need of doctrine until an established belief is challenged. The Real Presence in the Eucharist was challenged by some Reformers, Trent addressed these challenges. People throughout history had doubts about the Real Presence, but that doesn’t negate that was the Teaching of Holy Mother Church.

 

[greggy53]

I don’t think this accurately represents Catholic teaching at all. It doesn’t take into account the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist, for one. Nor does it take into account the teachings of the real presence as expressed by Eastern Catholics who neither teach nor deny transubstantiation as a practical matter. I’m not encouraging you to deny AC, but there’s no reason to foist the statements above upon Edwin. He more than understands the Catholic position that Anglican clergymen do not possess holy orders. He also understands that the Catholic position is for practical purposes wholly unrelated to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I didn’t mention Orthodox, there are other threads for that. Eastern Catholics are Catholics, and have from what I have been taught have a valid consecration. I was also taught that Anglicans do not have a valid consecration. Therefore I don’t see the point in an Anglican’s perceived differences between Catholic definitions of the Holy Eucharist other than perhaps an attempt to equate Anglican communion with Catholic. Which I object to.

 

[greggy53]

I respectfully submit that I am not the one making a mountain out of this. I am not the one whose Communion requires a very precise belief in a certain form of the Real Presence as a condition for communion. We Anglicans are happy to accept a wide range of views on the Real Presence. That may not be a good thing, but we aren’t making mountains out of molehills.

I agree that this is a fine point. But if your Communion considers it a church-dividing issue *today, *then it is highly relevant for a discussion of whether your Communion is simply identical to the Catholic Church of the early centuries.

Edwin

I don’t think it (Catholic communion) is a church dividing issue so much between Catholic and Anglican…It is certainly not a dividing issue among Catholics. It is one aspect of Christianity that we must accept if we wish to remain, or become Catholic. . I do believe our current beliefs about the Eucharist are exactly what they were 2000 years ago. As you agree that the issue is “a fine point” I will withdraw my statement about mountains and mole hills.

 

[Hesychios]

…Augustine was a theologian philosopher, not the Magesterium.

The ‘Magisterium’ of the west has proven to be a moving target, a mercurial thing.

The important thing to remember is the Early Church Fathers were describing whtat the Church taught.

Not necessarily. Often we can only infer, or take them as a sampling of opinion.

They are not Scripture, but they relate what the first Christians … were doing.

I can agree with this.

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.

The hope is that he wasn’t inventing new belief, but actually expressed his tutor’s belief on the subject. We cannot prove it, we can only hopefully assume.

The closer we can get to the Apostles, the better chance we have of getting it right.

God help us.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not necessarily. Often we can only infer, or take them as a sampling of opinion. I can agree with this. The hope is that he wasn’t inventing new belief, but actually expressed his tutor’s belief on the subject. We cannot prove it, we can only hopefully assume.

Are you saying St. Ignatius’ teaching on the Eucharist could be heretical? What about the other Early Church Fathers who agree with him on the Eucharist? Is St. Ignatius’ message in conflict with what is in the Bible as taught be Jesus, especially John 6?

The closer we can get to the Apostles, the better chance we have of getting it right.

I would say a student of St. John is pretty close.