B
- Status
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
The truth is always convenient. But as for unmerited? Balogna?
The Catholic Church has a definate criteria for what it considers an Early Church Father. One is not a Church Father if one has taught heresy and was in substantial disagreement with the other ECF’s (among other things). The Catholic Church also had its own critera for selecting the books of the first ever bible too - we rejected those works (over 300 competing texts in circulation) that did not agree 100% with what the Catholic Church was actually practising and teaching as part of its sacred tradition. Are you now going to say that the Catholic Church’s development of the bible and promulgation of it to all the world was unmerited too?
Careful you don’t paint yourself into a corner…Brian - this may bruise your perception of self but Christ’s Church does not answer to you personally. We answer only to God since we have the promise of infallability in all teachings of faith and morals - including properly interpreting scripture. Sorry but it again comes down to credible pedigree. You have yet to show any contradiction among any of the authentic Early Church Fathers with respect to real-presence - our original topic here.
The Catholic Church and the early Church fathers did not always make it a practise to criticize every wrong work of every other person who knew how to read and write. Only those who claimed to be representatives of the church and taught clear errors against establised belief and who had significant Christian following that was centered on erronious teaching or any who directly challenged the orthodox and traditional Church teaching were criticized. Origen in spite of having some apparent vocabulary that may have suggested a concept of transubstantiation (in current times) still had a tremendous reverence for Eucharist and believed in real-presence.
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. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Origen, 244 AD).
The truth is no ECF has ever denied the real-presence and you have not made the case for your position. You are now down a rabbit hole and attacking mere syntax of language and more modern teachings on transubstantiation that were not yet developed formal teachings in the early church. The fact remains - Real-Presence was an established held belief from the earliest Church times. Only those who spoke out against real-presence would be condemned as heretics - not those who spoke of some of the accidents/elements since this was a deeper theology not yet fully understood and taught. In fact there were no real heretics in all of Christendom against the belief of real-presence until the first actual denial of the Real Presence occurred around the year 1047. Berengarius of Tours denied it then later recanted in 1059 at the Council of Rome after being immediately called a heretic for so saying. Much to his credit, Berengarius publicly admitted his error and recanted his heretical statements in 1059 before the Council of Rome. It was not until The Protestant Revolt in the 16th century that Christendom saw its first unrepentant denial of the Real Presence. This heresy was strongly led by Zwingli of Zurich. But Martin Luther rebutted this false Protestant theology many times.
As for evidence of heresy of Oregin on Eucharist – this is a strawman and is intended to deflect from the current OP. You are trying to mix two entirely different concepts - real presence vice the understanding of the “accidents” in accord with most recent theology on transubstantiation vice consubstantiation. Again, for record, it would not be taken as heretical for Origin to speak in terms that may have suggested a consubstantial form of the consecrated bread and wine since the Church did not have a formal teaching in this area till much later in history. Remember this - the Christian Church as it was expanding and spreading the “good news” was also formalizing itself and trying to organize itself to be more effective and uniform in its teachings. The Church was assimilating all the deeper implications of the new Christian religion and developing its theology about Trinity, Christology etc. The ecclesial terminology took time to develop and harmonize among the various patriarchs and Sees - there was clearly some poetic license in the teachings and style of the homilist. Origin to my knowledge never denied real presence - so technically he was not heretical about Euchcarist. His errors were in Montanism.
In fact all of Origin’s teachings appear to be orthodox in the area of Eucharistic real-presence for the level of teaching that was held at large. Most of the common clergy/priests in the early church did not think beyond “the mystery” of real-presence to account for the particulars of appearance (a sentiment still held by our Orthodox brethren to this day). The Church did not promulgate the formal teaching of “transubstantiation” until much later anyway (based on an exposition of the held ECF beliefs and from theological and greater ecclesial vocabulary development). Again, we bump up against lack of uniform terminology here. The term “transubstantiation” and the concept of accidents/elements (the appearances of bread and wine to the senses) is first heard in the 11th-12th century and appears in formal documents in 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran.
BF
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
I did not disregard Clement – for pragmatic reasons I agreed to take him off the table in the dialog since it was not 100% clear what his position was given his allegorical style of writing. I went on to make the case with much comment that Clement was not speaking of symbolic presence but rather speaking of Christ symbolically in his language constructs. You have not made the case that he disbelieved in real-presence. Quite the contrary.
This is false. You have not shown that Clement taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically at all. What you have shown is that you don’t understand Clement’s style of allegorical writing. Just because Clement uses allegory writing does not mean that he believes that Jesus is not “really” present in Eucharist. In fact the case is that Clement does believe in real-presence – a fact confirmed by his reverence for the sacred body and blood.
You have not show any such thing Brian. You have not accounted for why Origen holds even the smallest particle of the consecrated bread and wine as sacred. This is a clear indication that Origen believed in real-presence. I did not spend a lot of time debating him because he is not considered a true ECF.
by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.
In Roman Catholic theology, "transubstantiation” means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses (accidents) remains as before. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.
This is a fairly abstract concept. Maybe you are having difficulty understanding?
BF
J
JoeT777
Guest
…we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, Augustine, (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, - John 6:60-72)
Sacraments are external and visible symbols of Divine graces, necessary to obtain a certain supernatural end. But, he says not “merely sacraments.” The sacrament of Communion isn’t only symbol consumed; instead the Eucharist is taken spiritually consuming us, transforming us from an individual apart to a member of the Body of Christ.
but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments. For at present Christ’s body is as it were mixed on the threshing-floor: (Ibid.)
To intellect comes to know but this isn’t the same as ‘knowing’ His nature, His spirit. Many people knew my grandmother, but only her family really knew her nature and spirit.
Likewise, he draws us to him, not weighted down with material things, but with quickened body and soul. His Sprit quickens us to him, to eat and drink symbolically to a spiritual end that restores and keeps the spirit, stirs it up, rousts it to holiness, and stimulates it to action. Augustine explains in his exposition on the Psalms 119; * “The body itself also, because it is of the earth, is reasonably understood by the word pavement; since, because it is still corruptible and weighs down the soul, Wisdom 9:15 we justly groan while in it, and say unto God, O quicken Thou me. For we shall not be without our bodies when we shall be for evermore with the Lord; 1 Thessalonians 4:17 but then because they will not be corruptible, nor will they weigh down our souls, if we view it strictly, we shall not cleave unto them, but they rather unto us, and we unto God…” *
But the Lord knows them that are His. (2 Timothy 2:19) If you know what you thresh, that the substance is there hidden, that the threshing has not consumed what the winnowing has purged; certain are we, brethren, that all of us who are in the Lord’s body, and abide in Him, that He also may abide in us, have of necessity to live among evil men in this world even unto the end. I do not say among those evil men who blaspheme Christ; for there are now few found who blaspheme with the tongue, but many who do so by their life. Among those, then, we must necessarily live even unto the end… (Ibid.)
“The Lord knows who are his; and let everyone depart from iniquity who names the name of the Lord;” The substance is spiritual, not metaphoric, thus the symbol is real, unlike any other where the real presence of Christ resides.
JoeT
Sacraments are external and visible symbols of Divine graces, necessary to obtain a certain supernatural end. But, he says not “merely sacraments.” The sacrament of Communion isn’t only symbol consumed; instead the Eucharist is taken spiritually consuming us, transforming us from an individual apart to a member of the Body of Christ.
but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments. For at present Christ’s body is as it were mixed on the threshing-floor: (Ibid.)
To intellect comes to know but this isn’t the same as ‘knowing’ His nature, His spirit. Many people knew my grandmother, but only her family really knew her nature and spirit.
Likewise, he draws us to him, not weighted down with material things, but with quickened body and soul. His Sprit quickens us to him, to eat and drink symbolically to a spiritual end that restores and keeps the spirit, stirs it up, rousts it to holiness, and stimulates it to action. Augustine explains in his exposition on the Psalms 119; * “The body itself also, because it is of the earth, is reasonably understood by the word pavement; since, because it is still corruptible and weighs down the soul, Wisdom 9:15 we justly groan while in it, and say unto God, O quicken Thou me. For we shall not be without our bodies when we shall be for evermore with the Lord; 1 Thessalonians 4:17 but then because they will not be corruptible, nor will they weigh down our souls, if we view it strictly, we shall not cleave unto them, but they rather unto us, and we unto God…” *
But the Lord knows them that are His. (2 Timothy 2:19) If you know what you thresh, that the substance is there hidden, that the threshing has not consumed what the winnowing has purged; certain are we, brethren, that all of us who are in the Lord’s body, and abide in Him, that He also may abide in us, have of necessity to live among evil men in this world even unto the end. I do not say among those evil men who blaspheme Christ; for there are now few found who blaspheme with the tongue, but many who do so by their life. Among those, then, we must necessarily live even unto the end… (Ibid.)
“The Lord knows who are his; and let everyone depart from iniquity who names the name of the Lord;” The substance is spiritual, not metaphoric, thus the symbol is real, unlike any other where the real presence of Christ resides.
JoeT
T
Tomb54
Guest
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
I wanted to record a thought here for future reference. The term “Real Presence” is not really a Catholic term but rather a Protestant term. It was constructed as a means for “high” Anglicans to attempt to retain their religion as “Catholic” as possible without having to violate any of the terms of the new Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. Article 28 specifically repudiates transubstantiation. So real-presence becomes a somewhat disingenuous phrase to permit those Protestants who were required as Protestants loyal to the crown to reject Catholic theology on Transubstantiation to “appear” as Catholic. But the term really is/was a euphemism for a spiritualized presence of Christ rather than a transubstantial real-presence in the Catholic sense of the sacramental offering at the Table of The Lord. In the Catholic sense of the phrase among modern Catholic laity it means real body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ present in the Eucharist. But it is safer to use the term “transubstantiation” to clarify. It is particularly ironic how the plain English words in just a few generations have become the exact opposite of the conventional semantics of the words and even more so that both Protestants and Catholic laity do not know the difference and often talk past each other.
More here: But What do We Mean by the “Real Presence!”
BF
More here: But What do We Mean by the “Real Presence!”
BF
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I asked you this question because what I stated is exactly the words Irenaeus used to describe the bread of the Eucharist. You are telling me that I lack understanding of your doctrine and essentially you are saying the same thing to Irenaeus.
"Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Irenaeus, A.H. 4:18:5)
It is clear that Irenaeus believed that the substance of the bread remained unchanged after it received the blessing. According to him the bread received a spiritual characteristic in addition to its nature. It became something more than common bread; it became the body of Christ, but obviously not in the literal sense.
It makes sense to me that he would consider the blessed bread and wine sacred, he believed it received a spiritual component once blessed. He did not, however, agree with your understanding that the bread and wine transubstantiated into the literal body and blood of Christ. In addition, the quote I provided was taken from what he himself composed, what you provided was not.
I am beginning to think you overlooked the quote I provided earlier. Here is the quote again; why you think he is NOT saying that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the bread of life discourse?
“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.”
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
This might be of interest, especially for those who keep insisting that early church evidence verifies the Catholic doctrine of real presence.
Tertullian:
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. **Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: The flesh profits nothing. Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it profits nothing itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit profits, for it imparts life. The flesh profits nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favors our belief: for by showing what profits, and what does not profit, He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the profit. Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for the hour, says He, is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. **Now, what is the dead but the flesh? And what is the voice of God but the Word? And what is the Word but the Spirit, who shall justly raise the flesh which He had once Himself become, and that too from death, which He Himself suffered, and from the grave, which He Himself once entered? **Then again, when He says, Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation, — none will after such words be able to interpret the dead that are in the graves as any other than the bodies of the flesh, because the graves themselves are nothing but the resting-place of corpses: for it is incontestable that even those who partake of the old man, that is to say, sinful men— in other words, those who are dead through their ignorance of God (whom our heretics, forsooth, foolishly insist on understanding by the word graves )— are plainly here spoken of as having to come from their graves for judgment. But how are graves to come forth from graves?” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
Tertullian:
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. **Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: The flesh profits nothing. Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it profits nothing itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit profits, for it imparts life. The flesh profits nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favors our belief: for by showing what profits, and what does not profit, He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the profit. Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for the hour, says He, is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. **Now, what is the dead but the flesh? And what is the voice of God but the Word? And what is the Word but the Spirit, who shall justly raise the flesh which He had once Himself become, and that too from death, which He Himself suffered, and from the grave, which He Himself once entered? **Then again, when He says, Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation, — none will after such words be able to interpret the dead that are in the graves as any other than the bodies of the flesh, because the graves themselves are nothing but the resting-place of corpses: for it is incontestable that even those who partake of the old man, that is to say, sinful men— in other words, those who are dead through their ignorance of God (whom our heretics, forsooth, foolishly insist on understanding by the word graves )— are plainly here spoken of as having to come from their graves for judgment. But how are graves to come forth from graves?” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
J
JoeT777
Guest
I’ve always understood ‘real presence’ to mean ‘transubstantiation’. Interesting; thanks for pointing out that it might be used for a bit of ‘double speak’.
JoeT
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
Brian, you seem to be trying to use your own rhetorical words of consecration and hand waving to transform the historical meanings and undisputed understandings among scholars of the ECFs teaching into something completely corrupt from what the church has believed from passed down tradition for 2,000 years. How many years have you studied the ECF’s Brian?
You are performing Eisegesis of what Irenaeus. Your conclusion is simply oxymoronic. How can the Eucharist be Christ’s Body – but only spiritually? That’s just nonsence and violates all semantic consistency and reason. A body is physical the soul is spiritual. You are inventing all new semantics as if redefing the english language to suit your argument. What part of “no longer common bread” do you not understand Brian? You can’t have it both ways and pick only the words you imagine that you can twist to your strange new interpretation. No longer common bread means its NOT BREAD ANYMORE period.
As well the the bit where he says “the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly” does NOT mean that the Eucharist has two natures!. What Irenaeus means is that the Eucharist EXISTS in two realities - on earth before God’s people on the Table of The Lord and in heaven before God’s throne with Christ as High Priest! This is WHAT Eucharist does - it brings us into communion with Jesus across time and space. READ the plain words Brian and look beyond the earthly things and look up to heaven where the Apostles and ECFs are trying to get our attention.
I see that you have moderated your prior position somewhat. You now seem to be offering a compromise by floating the idea that in Eucharist there is a real spiritual essence that is changed but that there is no physical change. But this is rejected as just more of the same old “once warmed over” Protestant fundamentalist theology that seeks to deny the historical ECF understandings of Eucharist and original Christian faith and apostolic traditions. The Church has always believed in a complete change of substance that is unique to Eucharist (body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus). The reverence in the ECF writings gives indisputable insight here. One does not worry about spilling/dropping symbolic blood/crumbs. As well the ECFs also made Eucharist available to the monks and ascetics to be worshiped and also shared it across bishoprics in Christian unity!
St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians rebuked the first generation Christians for making the Agape feast, which should have been a beautiful sign of unity, into an occasion of discord. He reminded them that the Eucharist is no ordinary food. It is actually the Body and Blood of Christ according to “the tradition which I handed on to you that came to me from the Lord Himself” (I Corinthians II: 23-26).
At the turn of the first century, Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom in Rome, had to warn the Christians not to be taken in by the Gnostics who denied the Real Presence. Ignatius said these people abstained from the Eucharist because they did not accept what true Christians believe, that in the Eucharist is the same Jesus Christ Who lived and died and rose from the dead for our salvation.
VI. THE EPISTLE TO THE SMYRNAEANS – Ignatus
Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly powers and the glory of the angels and the principalities both visible and invisible, except they believe in the blood of Christ [Who is God], have a judgment awaiting them. Let him that receiveth receive Let not office puff up any man. For faith and love are everything, and there is nothing better than these. Mark those who hold strange doctrine with regard to the grace of Jesus Christ, which came unto us, how opposed they are to the mind of God. They have no thought for love, nor for the widow, the orphan, the afflicted, the prisoner, the hungry nor the thirsty. **They withhold themselves from Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which in His loving-kindness the Father raised up. **
The early hermits reserved the Eucharist in their cells. From at least the middle of the third century, it was very general for the solitaries in the East, especially in Palestine and Egypt, to preserve the consecrated elements in the caves or hermitages where they lived.
Not only did they have the Sacrament with them in their cells, but
they carried it on their persons when they moved from one place to
another. This practice was sanctioned by the custom of the
, that certainly goes back to as early as 120 A.D. The
rite of was a particle of the Eucharistic bread
(sometimes dipped in the chalice) transported from the bishop of one
diocese to the bishop of another diocese. The latter would then
consume the species at his next solemn Mass as a token of unity
between the churches. It was called a not necessarily
because leavened bread was used but because the Eucharist symbolized
the leaven of unity which permeates and transforms Christians, so
that they become one with Christ.
Already in the second century, popes sent the Eucharist to other
bishops as a pledge of unity of faith; and, on occasion, bishops
would do the same for their priests.
More here: The History of Eucharistic Adoration Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church
Bottom Line - you again misinterpreted the ECFs.
BF
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
So sacred that Christians would worship it and pray to it?
I told you before, this statement is itself metaphorical within the taxonomy of how Clement of Alexandria thinks and reasons. Spanning across both the distance of centuries, cultures, languages and philosophies it is not safe to use this one data point to such a degree that you attempt nor is outweigh in either interpretation the many other ECFs who clearly teach the real presence in the Catholic full sense of understanding. In fact Clement is speaking here of the mystical nature of the Church itself – having the same principal of Christ in being both a body and a soul through the supernatural principals of faith and hope. This pairing of faith and hope (and charity) is pure Catholicism and leaves the Protestant perspective of “faith alone” with a corporate body but without a soul (and a fallen intellect deprived of the illumination of faith). Are you sure you want to continue down these lines of argument using Clement?
You completely missed Clement’s insistence of the mystical church formed by many members viz faith and hope that is inseparably bound to Christ’s principal of unity viz the divine flesh and blood that he associates with Eucharist.I cautioned you that Clement is linguistically and expressively complex and uses his own metaphorical style to communicate his world view which itself is metaphorical in a kind of literary recursion. In the piece you cite he uses this literary means to “compact” the Church and the Lord together in Eucharist to demonstrate the unifying principal of Christ – which is also a very solid Catholic principal in Eucharist that goes back to apostolic times (see Cor 10:16). We can’t just take single concepts like this in isolation to get a full insight into Clement’s view. I would say that this piece speaks more to Clement’s idea of “unity” than it does any intention to teach on real or symbolic presence as a principal and objective subject. I really think you are trying to force Clement into a cookie cutter template to suit your own objectives – which seem to be to want to transubstantiate Clement from Catholic to Protestant. Shame on you – Clement would “Protest” and say let him rest in peace with the bishop of Rome and his fellow Catholics.
1 Cor 10:16 (KJV) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
BF
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
Brian you are just bringing up the very few minority cases where there are a few statements from an extremely small number of Church Fathers that could possibly be understood to reflect a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. The problem is that these few statements may actually refer to the external observable characteristics of the bread and wine and NOT to the unseen reality of the Real Presence (body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus). Further, these few usually have other statements which affirm a belief in Catholic real-presence. This inconsistency suggests a modern day interpretative problem in some of the figure of speech used by a few and also a lack of a standardized ecclesial vocabulary.
These few statements were made by Tertullian, Origen, St. Hippolytus of Rome, and St. Cyprian of Carthage. We know that the Church never understood the statements of Hippolytus and Cyprian to be denying the Real Presence or they never would have been named as saints. So let’s look at what other things Tertullian had to say about the Eucharist that may help us to clarify their positions on the Real Presence.
Again, Tertullian wrote of the great reverence that we must have for the consecrated bread and wine: ** “We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground” (Tertullian, 211AD).** What is apparent is that Turtullian NEVER denied real - presence. If you can find a writing where he rejects real presence - present it.
Further as you know Tertullian started teaching unorthodox beliefs and became a montanist. Yet he does make statements that affirm real presence in the full sense.
Tertullian quotes that affirm real-presence:
T
Tomb54
Guest
He also said
For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. (Irenaeus; 37 of fragments)
so while he believed it took a spiritual nature like you said he also believed the earthly nature was the body and the blood of our Lord. In other word Body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord thus spiritually and physically our Lord as the CC teaches. There are many other early Fathers that also say the same thing that it was/is truly the Lords Body and Blood. I can get you more of these if you need to see more of what the ECF believed of the Eucharist
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I thought you would at least take the time to read some of the context. Your assertions are without merit.
You just quoted Tertullian saying that the bread Jesus gave to His disciples was a figure of the VERITABLE body. In other words, the figure is NOT veritable!
Look, it is obvious from your responses that you are not familiar with the works of these fathers. You completely misrepresented the context of Irenaeus’ work. You didn’t seem to realize that what I quoted from Clement is but a small part of his instruction on metaphors. You also didn’t notice that I used Irenaeus’ words in one of my questions to you. Had you been familiar with his works you would have certainly recognized what I was doing. And your attempt to discredit my citations with irrelevant accusations was rather pathetic.
Your assertive rhetoric might help the garden grow, but it does nothing to help your credibility.
T
Tomb54
Guest
Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.
The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)
Is another one and I can get several other if you still doubt the True Presence as the early Church believed.
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.
The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)
Is another one and I can get several other if you still doubt the True Presence as the early Church believed.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
From my website: Justin Martyr on the Eucharist
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
I read the entire context and explained my reasoning. What you do not do is consider the entire historical context. Your unsubstantiated criticism is without merit.
You are being selective on the words you want to focus on. He first said “He made it [bread] His own body”. That says it all. The latter figurative part is just exposition on the same theme of how his venerable body is the substantial template for what he makes from bread. Your explanation does not account for the principal part.
I did not misrepresent Irenaeus’ work. This is your mere opinion and its clear that you reject nearly 2,000 years of scholarly Catholic teaching that has much more pedigree than you do personally as well as my own opinion. So your opinion counts for nothing against the pedigree of the Catholic church and only very little with me since I have demonstrated how you have severely tortured the words of the ECFs and shown that you are very biased.
You have only demonstrated your ability to make maximum use of only a very few texts (mostly from known heretics) which are not as concrete as the majority of ECF texts are in supporting Catholic teachings. You of course won’t talk about the more clearly stated texts because you have an anti-Catholic agenda and are not at all interested in the truth.
That’s the only truth that has come out of this discourse and now you are wasting my time.
Good Day,
BF
T
Tomb54
Guest
Whik=le it looks like a nice article that I will need to read when I have time I see one problem already. You are reading only the part you want to bring to the front to support your views and not what the early Christians actually believed. Yes it says he took the bread but it also in the same verse says that He made it His Body just as the CC teaches what happens in the Mass. While it starts as bread it does not remain as such. I will look farther into this later and it looks like I will have to give you all of them and see if you can refute everything the Holy Spirit has taught on this. You see not even Luther or Calvin would go as far as you have went in twisting Jesus words to fit your beliefs. You seem to be on the same level as the Jews who could not accept Jesus teachings in John 6
G
genesiusj
Guest
Part 1 of 3
lol
btw
brb
rofl
kk
What does the phrase, “It is raining cats and dogs” mean?
Will people know what these words mean 200 or 2000 years from now? Probably, because of the age of technology we live in nearly every bit of phrase, sentence, idiom, slang, etc is being recorded somewhere in a computer database.
But do we know what the Biblical authors meant by certain words and phrases? Not if we attempt to interpret them using today’s speech meanings. We need to have reference resources (materials and individuals) to help understand the correct meaning. We need to look at any and every word and verse in context. Not just the context of the verses before and after the verse we are seeking to interpret, but the context of the entire chapter; the entire book; the entire testament; the entire Bible (all books). If we do not use the context of the entire Bible we lose the archetypes that appear in the OT, that will be fulfilled in the NT.
Some more examples of different meanings of common words.
A middle-aged man (Joe) sees a younger man (Tim) slip and fall. Joe, “Are you OK?” Tim, “I’m cool.” Joe, “You’re cold. You must have injured your spine and messed up your circulation.”
FEAR - the first six meanings when you enter “define:fear” in Google’s search engine.
However, there is another meaning in Webster’s dictionary if we drill deeper.
“…to express a filial or a slavish passion.”
Filial fear - In good men, the fear of God is a holy awe or reverence of God and his laws, which springs from a just view and real love of the divine character, leading the subjects of it to hate and shun every thing that can offend such a holy being, and inclining them to aim at perfect obedience.
Slavish fear - the effect or consequence of guilt; it is the painful apprehension of merited punishment.
Therefore knowing exactly what the author intended a word to mean is very, very important.
Before I continue, this debate/exchange might not resolve the issue of the “Real Presence”; however, for me it most certainly debunks the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Neither side can use the Bible Alone to prove their belief. If we do not need sources other than the Bible to interpret the Bible, we should stop wasting time on this and other faith-based websites, and instead give away a million Bibles and pray for the Holy Spirit to give people the correct interpretation. In fact, the people we give these Bibles to should come to the same conclusions and be in total agreement as all the non-Catholic denominations are on every single doctrine. Oops, sorry, I forgot, all the non-Catholic Christian denominations don’t agree on every doctrines: divorce, female clerics, homosexuality.
We know that there needs to be a believing Christian who can share and guide and assist a newbie to the faith so that they properly understand what the Bible means.
Take Acts 8:27-35 (DRB).
"And rising up, he went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.
And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet.
And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?
And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man?
Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus."
Part 2 to follow.
Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - “I have a passion for helping others to learn.”
“I will walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7
“No one heals himself by wounding another.” St. Ambrose 340-397 AD
lol
btw
brb
rofl
kk
What does the phrase, “It is raining cats and dogs” mean?
Will people know what these words mean 200 or 2000 years from now? Probably, because of the age of technology we live in nearly every bit of phrase, sentence, idiom, slang, etc is being recorded somewhere in a computer database.
But do we know what the Biblical authors meant by certain words and phrases? Not if we attempt to interpret them using today’s speech meanings. We need to have reference resources (materials and individuals) to help understand the correct meaning. We need to look at any and every word and verse in context. Not just the context of the verses before and after the verse we are seeking to interpret, but the context of the entire chapter; the entire book; the entire testament; the entire Bible (all books). If we do not use the context of the entire Bible we lose the archetypes that appear in the OT, that will be fulfilled in the NT.
Some more examples of different meanings of common words.
A middle-aged man (Joe) sees a younger man (Tim) slip and fall. Joe, “Are you OK?” Tim, “I’m cool.” Joe, “You’re cold. You must have injured your spine and messed up your circulation.”
FEAR - the first six meanings when you enter “define:fear” in Google’s search engine.
be afraid or feel anxious or apprehensive about a possible or probable situation or event; “I fear she might get aggressive”
be afraid or scared of; be frightened of; “I fear the winters in Moscow”; “We should not fear the Communists!”
be sorry; used to introduce an unpleasant statement; “I fear I won’t make it to your wedding party”
an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight)
be uneasy or apprehensive about; “I fear the results of the final exams”
concern: an anxious feeling; “care had aged him”; “they hushed it up out of fear of public reaction”
Until I did some research, I thought that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it: his praise continueth for ever and ever." Psa 111:10 meant that in order to become wise I should be afraid or scared of God because He could cause me to suffer if I sinned.However, there is another meaning in Webster’s dictionary if we drill deeper.
“…to express a filial or a slavish passion.”
Filial fear - In good men, the fear of God is a holy awe or reverence of God and his laws, which springs from a just view and real love of the divine character, leading the subjects of it to hate and shun every thing that can offend such a holy being, and inclining them to aim at perfect obedience.
Slavish fear - the effect or consequence of guilt; it is the painful apprehension of merited punishment.
Therefore knowing exactly what the author intended a word to mean is very, very important.
Before I continue, this debate/exchange might not resolve the issue of the “Real Presence”; however, for me it most certainly debunks the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Neither side can use the Bible Alone to prove their belief. If we do not need sources other than the Bible to interpret the Bible, we should stop wasting time on this and other faith-based websites, and instead give away a million Bibles and pray for the Holy Spirit to give people the correct interpretation. In fact, the people we give these Bibles to should come to the same conclusions and be in total agreement as all the non-Catholic denominations are on every single doctrine. Oops, sorry, I forgot, all the non-Catholic Christian denominations don’t agree on every doctrines: divorce, female clerics, homosexuality.
We know that there needs to be a believing Christian who can share and guide and assist a newbie to the faith so that they properly understand what the Bible means.
Take Acts 8:27-35 (DRB).
"And rising up, he went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.
And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet.
And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?
And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man?
Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus."
Part 2 to follow.
Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - “I have a passion for helping others to learn.”
“I will walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7
“No one heals himself by wounding another.” St. Ambrose 340-397 AD
G
genesiusj
Guest
Part 2 of 3
If we look, as someone earlier suggested, at verses 40 and 54 in John 6 we read the words “may” and “will”. While there is a distinction between these words as they appear in other verses in the NT, we will stick with just John 6:40 and 6:54.
(KJV+) AndG1161 thisG5124 isG2076 theG3588 willG2307 of him that sentG3992 me,G3165 thatG2443 every oneG3956 which seethG2334 theG3588 Son,G5207 andG2532 believethG4100 onG1519 him,G846 may haveG2192 everlastingG166 life:G2222 andG2532 IG1473 will raise him upG450 G846 at theG3588 lastG2078 day.G2250
*The numbers are from Strongs.
G2192
ἔχω echō ekh’-o
A primary verb (including an alternate form σχέω scheō skheh’-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition): - be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can (+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do, + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.
So how do we know what the author meant here? Is it possession (you have it, done deal)? Or ability (you can have it, if you want)? Or condition (you can have it, if you try)? There is some ambiguity here, according to my interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit,.
Now let’s look at v 54 (BTW this v55 in the DRB – but that’s for another thread).
(KJV+)
Whoso eatethG5176 myG3450 flesh,G4561 andG2532 drinkethG4095 myG3450 blood,G129 hathG2192 eternalG166 life;G2222 andG2532 IG1473 will raise him upG450 G846 at theG3588 lastG2078 day.G2250
G2192, same as verse 40. I have a question? Why didn’t the KJV use “hath” in verse 40 just as in verse 54. Why “may have” (or may hath?)? I my opinion, or rather in my interpretation, what the Holy Spirit reveals to me, is that verse 40, “may have” is not a guarantee. While verse 54 is more absolute.
Part 3 to follow.
Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - “I have a passion for helping others to learn.”
“I will walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7
“No one heals himself by wounding another.” St. Ambrose 340-397 AD
If we look, as someone earlier suggested, at verses 40 and 54 in John 6 we read the words “may” and “will”. While there is a distinction between these words as they appear in other verses in the NT, we will stick with just John 6:40 and 6:54.
(KJV+) AndG1161 thisG5124 isG2076 theG3588 willG2307 of him that sentG3992 me,G3165 thatG2443 every oneG3956 which seethG2334 theG3588 Son,G5207 andG2532 believethG4100 onG1519 him,G846 may haveG2192 everlastingG166 life:G2222 andG2532 IG1473 will raise him upG450 G846 at theG3588 lastG2078 day.G2250
*The numbers are from Strongs.
G2192
ἔχω echō ekh’-o
A primary verb (including an alternate form σχέω scheō skheh’-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition): - be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can (+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do, + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.
So how do we know what the author meant here? Is it possession (you have it, done deal)? Or ability (you can have it, if you want)? Or condition (you can have it, if you try)? There is some ambiguity here, according to my interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit,.
Now let’s look at v 54 (BTW this v55 in the DRB – but that’s for another thread).
(KJV+)
Whoso eatethG5176 myG3450 flesh,G4561 andG2532 drinkethG4095 myG3450 blood,G129 hathG2192 eternalG166 life;G2222 andG2532 IG1473 will raise him upG450 G846 at theG3588 lastG2078 day.G2250
G2192, same as verse 40. I have a question? Why didn’t the KJV use “hath” in verse 40 just as in verse 54. Why “may have” (or may hath?)? I my opinion, or rather in my interpretation, what the Holy Spirit reveals to me, is that verse 40, “may have” is not a guarantee. While verse 54 is more absolute.
Part 3 to follow.
Thanks and God Bless,
Genesius - “I have a passion for helping others to learn.”
“I will walk by faith and not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7
“No one heals himself by wounding another.” St. Ambrose 340-397 AD
- Status