A
Atreyu
Guest
Is any of this stuff that you read available online, do you know?
- Status
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Not changing, just afirming…here is Origen
Origen didn’t believe in transubstantiation. He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ:
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)
Origen didn’t believe in transubstantiation. He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn’t profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ:
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)
T
Truthstalker
Guest
The Institutes are. I don’t know about anything else. Try a search.
I have this nifty CD of all of Calvin’s writings that has a lot of Augustines’s stuff also that cost $7.00. Readily available commercially.
A
Atreyu
Guest
I just read this full chapter here. My understanding of this passage is that Origen was trying to explain that you must have faith (in the Real Presence perhaps?) in order for receiving the Eucharist to be efficacious. He is also saying that it is the consecration itself - not the bread - that is of a benefit to him who eats not unworthily (“it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him”).
I wonder, Martin, what you make of the following statement in your quoted passage of Origen’s:
But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever
Isn’t this saying that those who eat the “true meat” of the Word Himself who became flesh, shall assuredly live forever? This sounds literal to me. Origen is then explaining how you must actually be eating worthily in order to receive the benefits of the Eucharist. Well, that was my understanding, anyway.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Anyone whom believes in our Lord and Saviour (Word/Logos) and hungers for him, will be fed by and through him. Not literal at all… the literal thought of that is actually “head shaking” and I grew up believing in a true presense.
A
Atreyu
Guest
Via what agent? The Eucharist, right? That’s what the fathers would have us believe, as far as I can determine.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Anyway, the passage refers to “true meat”. Is this another instance (ie other than the passage in John 6) where a reference to Christ’s body being “true food” is to be taken symbolically only? I wonder, exactly what language would a church father have needed to use to convince modern Protestants that they believed in a literal Eucharist?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I found Augustine’s commentary on Ps 99 here:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XCIX.html
Interestingly enough, if you keep reading past the end of the passage quoted above in the thread, Augustine looks a lot less like he believes in the real flesh and blood in the Eucharist and more like it is symbolic.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XCIX.html
Interestingly enough, if you keep reading past the end of the passage quoted above in the thread, Augustine looks a lot less like he believes in the real flesh and blood in the Eucharist and more like it is symbolic.
A
Atreyu
Guest
How so? Do you mean where he says:
This is the vision of Daniel which I am relating. This stone which was cut from the hill without hands increased, and “became,” he saith, “a great mountain, and filled the whole face of the earth.” Let us worship on that great mountain, if we desire to be heard. Heretics s do not worship on that mountain, because it hath filled the whole earth; they have stuck fist on part of it, and have lost the whole. If they acknowledge the Catholic Church, they will worship on this hill with us. For we already see how that stone that was cut from the mountain without hands hath increased, and how great tracts of earth it hath prevailed over, and unto what nations it hath extended. What is the mountain whence the stone was hewn without hands? The Jewish kingdom, in the first place; since they worshipped one God. Thence was hewn the stone, our Lord Jesus Christ.
. . . That stone then was born of the mountain without hands: it increased, and by its increase broke all the kingdoms of the earth. It hath become a great mountain, and hath filled the whole face of the earth. This is the Catholic Church, in whose communion rejoice that ye are. But they who are not in her communion, since they worship and praise God apart from this same mountain, are not heard unto eternal life; although they may be heard unto certain temporal things. Let them not flatter themselves, because God heareth them in some things: for He heareth Pagans also in some things. Do not the Pagans cry unto God, and it raineth? Wherefore? Because He maketh His sun to rise over the good and the bad, and sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust. Boast not therefore, Pagan, that when thou criest unto God, God sendeth rain, for He sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust. He hath heard thee in temporal things: He heareth thee not in things eternal, unless thou hast worshipped in His holy hill. “Worship Him upon His holy hill: for the Lord our God is holy.”
(my emphasis).
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I have to say, this thread is getting much better (my silly quips aside).
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
What on his green earth does this have to do with real presence?
6
6glargento
Guest
he’s refering to the “accidents”
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
The Roman bishop Gelasius rejected transubstantiation:
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” (cited in Philip Schaff, 95)
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” (cited in Philip Schaff, 95)
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Theodoret
“For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before.” - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)
“For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before.” - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
**
Clement of Alexandria refers to Jesus drinking wine at the Last Supper, citing Matthew 26:29, and he refers to the Last Supper as an example of how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking wine:**
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: ‘For the Son of man,’ He says, ‘came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.’” (The Instructor, 2:2
Clement of Alexandria refers to Jesus drinking wine at the Last Supper, citing Matthew 26:29, and he refers to the Last Supper as an example of how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking wine:**
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: ‘For the Son of man,’ He says, ‘came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.’” (The Instructor, 2:2
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
**When you get done with these we can move on to how the ECF’s felt about the veneration of images next, sound fun? **
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Let me suggest you break these things out into separate threads to focus thought on one question at a time. I go so far as to go one author a thread or even a passage a thread so we can focus. Some threads go all over the place and never settle anything.
A
Atreyu
Guest
I concur. It would take days for me to write a refutation of all that he has given in this thread since my last post…
6
6glargento
Guest
he also 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. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; 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. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; 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.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
6
6glargento
Guest
lets see what he really had to say about it
‘In eating the elements of the Bridegroom and drinking His blood, we accomplish a marriage union.’ The Eucharist, then becomes the marriage relationship through which the Bridegroom, Christ, espouses the Church as His Bride, thus transforming a human community into the Church of God."
(Introducing The Orthodox Church, p. 134, by Anthony M. Coniaris)
yep sure sounds like he believed it to truly be the body and blood of the lord
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
First, the practice of defining the eucharist in terms of *substance *and accident didn’t exist during Pope St. Gelasius’ time. So, saying that he rejected transubstantiation because he used the words substance or nature would be anachronistic because he probably did not mean the words in those ways. He probably meant it in terms of the Eucharist retaining the physical properties of bread and wine, while becoming truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
- Status