B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
It is absurd to claim that the ECFs believed that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Lay off the Catholic apologetics websites and try reading their works in context.
- Status
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
Brian, the evidence is unassailable that the ECFs overwhelmingly believed in real-presence. I took the time to give you over a dozen references. It’s time to offer more than mere opinion against 2,000 years of Catholic historical practice and evidence. Present your case. If we were to be generous and concede that Clement of Alexandria is ambiguous due to the complex symbolic form of his writings who other ECF do you present as in opposition to real-presence. Where do you get your “absurd” emotion from? Give names, works, chapters and verses please.
You must think that Catholic theologians and scholars and clergy are incompetent and irresponsible. What possible motive would billions of historical catholics have for living what you must also imagine is a fabrication? What bishop, priest etc. would give his entire life up to being celebate and conducting the mass to serve Eucharist if the evidence supported a shred of what you believe? Where are you coming from?
Time to “get real”…
BF
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
So why don’t you believe Him when He says “I AM the bread from heaven” and “my flesh is real food”???kepha1:
that answer is weak, it is the same chapter, same conversation. the same context:
he says the word “believe” FIVE TIMES ; how can you not see that is the main point.
Are you a believer or are you among those who understand exactly what Jesus is saying but deliberately refuse to accept and believe Him and reject His teaching per John 6:66?
BF
K
kepha1
Guest
[RedBert;6584341]After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life?
Chapter 6 gives two answers: (v40&47 or v54) Can both be true?
They are false when taken in isolation from it’s context. They are true when read in context. Text without context is a pretext. The bible without the Church is just an excuse.
[RedBert;6584341] that answer is weak, it is the same chapter, same conversation. the same context:
John 6
*47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. *
*48] I am the bread of life. *
*49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. *
*50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. *
*51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." *
*52] **The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *
53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
***[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ***
***[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ***
***[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ***
*[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. *
*58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” *
*59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. *
*60] **Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” *
61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
*62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? *
*63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. *
**
What are the words that Jesus just finished speaking?
Chapter 6 gives two answers: (v40&47 or v54) Can both be true?
They are false when taken in isolation from it’s context. They are true when read in context. Text without context is a pretext. The bible without the Church is just an excuse.
[RedBert;6584341] that answer is weak, it is the same chapter, same conversation. the same context:
John 6
*47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. *
*48] I am the bread of life. *
*49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. *
*50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. *
*51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." *
*52] **The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *
53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
***[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ***
***[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ***
***[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ***
*[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. *
*58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” *
*59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. *
*60] **Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” *
61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
*62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? *
*63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. *
**
What are the words that Jesus just finished speaking?
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
A
Ave_Maria_1
Guest
An article rather auxiliary to this thread:
spiritdaily.com/eucharistrespect.htm
On respect for the Eucharist.
spiritdaily.com/eucharistrespect.htm
On respect for the Eucharist.
A
Ave_Maria_1
Guest
*By all means count me in with the 'absurd! And I will remain so even at the cost of my life! The early Christians did. Yes, those absurd ones died in witness to their faith in the Holy Eucharist. and their frequent reception of Jesus in this most Blessed Sacrament gave them the strength to put their life on the line. This Sacrament is what has given supernatural strength to all the saints. It gives strength to those who totally consecrate their lives to Christ in ways that no other belief system on the face of the earth ever has.
Also to claim just to believe is enough…well even the devil believes! In fact he bleieves so much in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist that those satanists who hold black masses come to the Catholic Church to steal consecrated hosts. They do not go to any protestant church for whatever they use as a symbol. They know the difference! And it is the Catholic Church and the priesthood that are the sworn enemies of the evil one and that is where persecution has and will be always the most voracious.
Ave Maria!
My God, My God, I love You in the Most Blessed Sacrament!
*
C
curlycool89
Guest
I don’t know about others, but I find it entirely hypocritical that first Brian tells us to stop using Catholic sites, then counters with a fundamentalist one. I think I’ll also take bets on how long it takes him to tell us “it’s not a fundamentalist site, it’s a ‘truth’ one”.
If you want something still pretty early, we have the example of Saint Tarcisius who died while carrying the Eucharist to people in prison. Obviously, if he didn’t believe it was the real body of Christ does it make sense that he would die to protect it? Like use some logic here.
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
I visited that website. What a disappointment.
So Brian, your message here to Catholics is “stop trusting Catholic apologetic websites and instead trust ME, BRIAN, to tell the truth on MY Site?” That is your website yes?
Good gracious Brian! I spent an hour reading your droning opinions of what a few ECFs “really said”. Everyone of your points of argument was a total stretch - relying on weak arguments like “word tense” and your own paranoid presumptions of conspiracy of Catholics to try to hide the truth. If that is your personal site I must say that you have a very suspicious mind to come up with some of the zingers I saw there. It hurt my brain to give the benefit of the doubt and try very hard to see things your way since you tortured the word plays and meanings.
You need to understand something Brian. Men like Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian were very lucid thinkers - especially Clement. His thoughts are complex and flow like a long river over many sentences. It is very very easy to lose context since he is purposely using double-meanings in his word and sentence constructs. He likens his instruction like “milk for the children” but his discourse and instruction are highly intellectual and well outside of the intellectual range of many average contemporary adult western minds. It is a flow of thought alien to many here in the west. Unless you have some special linguistic and philosophical pedigree I really don’t think you have any business trying to tell Catholics how to interpret a man who’s intellect is way over your own head. No insult Brian - but you are trying to apply a very parochial analysis on english language syntax that is itself a translation of a non-western form of thinking expressed in an older form of a foreign language. In a nut shell I don’t trust your translation and analysis.
continued.
BF
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
Brian when you start crying-wolf over such fly-spec matter as the past-tense word “was” in Tertullian’s discourse (e.g. ‘and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world’) to make a case for the body being no longer present (and unable therefor to be “real”) you are simply showing your lack of familiar with idiomatic constructs used in biblical times as well as a shallow understanding of Catholic Theology. Hello - has it occurred to you that Jesus gave a foretaste of his glorified flesh because He being God is outside of time and space?!!! You might as well say baptism is invalid since Christ baptised the apostles before He rose from the dead and before He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. You are thinking like an “engineer” Brian. You can’t apply western linear logic to mystical concepts.
I had to stop reading half-way through you analysis of Tertullian. It was all just too banal - sorry.
I don’t have time to list all the errors in assumption I saw and the structural errors in analysis. I had to keep leaping over gaping errors in assumptions to get through your analysis without getting a headache. But let me say this - CONTEXT is more than just reading the paragraph or the book. It also includes knowing something about the author’s point of view, what he really believed and what his major philosophies were. This is why Catholics put so much emphasis on Apostolic tradtion as Paul mentions a number of times.
Further when trying to parse long flowing sentences like Clement of Alexandria its very easy to “lose the bubble” on his context. He is very subtle and switches from one sense of metaphor to another as that is the way he thinks. The entire concept and pattern of soul and body is recursive in his way of thinking. He intertwines multiple thoughts in the spiritual and material domain at the same time using very layered speech and expression. I consider myself a pretty sophisticated & integrated thinker - but Clement could easily twist an average person’s mind into a pretzel trying to follow him. He had me on the ropes more often than not when I read him. I found myself having to rescan and reparse his thoughts often over long concept distances to gain proper context . He is HARD and does not like to use concrete language (and seems to enjoy pulling us into his world view to make us work to hear all he has to say). Clement’s world is entirely metaphysical - simultaneously spiritual and material. He holds that everything we experience here is a symbol for what God wishes to reveal and when he uses the word “figure” or “symbol” it is in that overarching mystical context. This is a form of thinking that is more suited to the Eastern perspective - its not linear and not suited for piecewise assimilation - nor linear critiquing/analysis. We Westerners unless having some exposire to the culture/philosophy of the period need to be careful about trying to 2nd guess what men like Clement means independent of the traditional teachings and insights that are passed down to us.
Here is a blatant biased error on that site:
Irenaeus: “no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly;”
Critique: “Irenaeus said the bread was no longer common bread, thus maintaining its status as bread;”
The above critique is total minor league bologna. It is idiomatic to use the same words that Christ himself used in still referring to His Body as a variant of “bread” to differentiate it from common bread. The distinction had already been made “no longer common bread” and the presence of the term in no way maintains its status as bread. This is highly disingenuous and a sample of the weak arguments on that site.
In two words Brian - PEDIGREE and CONTEXT.
I honestly think you are running yourself down a rabbit hole chasing after imagined “Catholic conspiracies”. As a safety-check - ask yourself what the motive would be for Catholics to misteach Eucharist different than what the ECF taught? Why would 400,000 current era Catholic clergy give up the pursuit of all worldly pursuits (power, income, intimacy, comfort etc.) just to dedicate themselves to conducting the holy mass, transforming Eucharist and serving the Lord? Most of our clergy are at least Masters level educated - many PhDs. Do you think all these men are stupid or are just “deceived” when they studied the ECFs in seminary and theology at a level greater than most anyone else on the planet? Again - “get real” please…
I think you are deceiving yourself and seeing what you want to see. The problem is you are not seeing the Lord in Eucharist where true believers do and always have and always will.
BF
R
RedBert
Guest
During the conversation, our Lord made it abundantly clear how a person could eat the heavenly bread and have eternal life. From the very beginning Jesus told the Jews that God required them to believe in Him as the God-sent Messiah (6:29). He repeatedly states that those who believe in Him have eternal life (6:35, 40, 47). Sadly, the Jews would not believe in Him. In the face of their obstinate unbelief, Jesus reaffirmed the same truths by graphic and emphatic language, speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood to have eternal life (6:53-58)
There is no reason why we should interpret eating and drinking in a different way from Jesus’ earlier explanation. We must participate in the merits of His bodily sacrifice and the blood shed on the cross by believing in Him. That is the only way we can feed and be satisfied with life eternal.
Finally, the Bible also tells us how the apostles understood Jesus’ words. When Jesus asked the apostles whether they wanted to leave Him too, the apostle Peter answered on behalf of the group: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God” (6:68). They had no thought about the Eucharist, much less that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. They had understood well what Jesus meant all the way. He was claiming to be the Messiah; and they confessed their faith in Him. They ate and drank by believing, and Christ gave them eternal life.
Moreover, if eating flesh and drinking blood means taking the Eucharistic elements, as Catholics assert, then eternal life is received by participating in the sacrament, for Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54). If this interpretation is correct, we would expect that the author of the gospel to give due prominence to the Lord’s Supper, especially since his stated purpose for writing was to teach us how we may have eternal life (John20:30,31). It is therefore highly significant that of the four evangelists, only John does not include an account of the institution of the Eucharist in his gospel. In the light of this conspicuous omission, one should reconsider whether eternal life is obtained in some way other than the Eucharist.
-justforcatholics.org
There is no reason why we should interpret eating and drinking in a different way from Jesus’ earlier explanation. We must participate in the merits of His bodily sacrifice and the blood shed on the cross by believing in Him. That is the only way we can feed and be satisfied with life eternal.
Finally, the Bible also tells us how the apostles understood Jesus’ words. When Jesus asked the apostles whether they wanted to leave Him too, the apostle Peter answered on behalf of the group: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God” (6:68). They had no thought about the Eucharist, much less that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. They had understood well what Jesus meant all the way. He was claiming to be the Messiah; and they confessed their faith in Him. They ate and drank by believing, and Christ gave them eternal life.
Moreover, if eating flesh and drinking blood means taking the Eucharistic elements, as Catholics assert, then eternal life is received by participating in the sacrament, for Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54). If this interpretation is correct, we would expect that the author of the gospel to give due prominence to the Lord’s Supper, especially since his stated purpose for writing was to teach us how we may have eternal life (John20:30,31). It is therefore highly significant that of the four evangelists, only John does not include an account of the institution of the Eucharist in his gospel. In the light of this conspicuous omission, one should reconsider whether eternal life is obtained in some way other than the Eucharist.
-justforcatholics.org
R
RedBert
Guest
it has been asked in so many words:
Did the Jews understand literally and correctly? Would not Jesus have corrected them if they had misunderstood?
Initially Jesus spoke plainly about the necessity of believing in Him. Yet the Jews would not believe. They were seeking Jesus for carnal motives. They asked Him for a sign even when their stomachs were still full of the miraculous bread he had fed them the day before. They objected that He could not have “come down from heaven” as they knew (or thought they knew) His father. Jesus never corrected them. Later on He spoke to them in veiled speech as He used to do in the case of unbelief and reasserted His claims in bold language. Knowing that the disciples grumbled among themselves, Jesus warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually – He foretold His ascension into heaven (and therefore He was not speaking about literal flesh eating). His words are spirit and life. He accused them of unbelief and exposed their hardness of heart stating that no-one would come to Him unless drawn by the Father. At that point, many of his followers left. The underlying reason was unbelief and not some innocent misunderstanding. Externally they were “disciples” – inwardly they were unbelievers like the other Jews. Jesus knew their heart: “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe.”
Did the Jews understand literally and correctly? Would not Jesus have corrected them if they had misunderstood?
Initially Jesus spoke plainly about the necessity of believing in Him. Yet the Jews would not believe. They were seeking Jesus for carnal motives. They asked Him for a sign even when their stomachs were still full of the miraculous bread he had fed them the day before. They objected that He could not have “come down from heaven” as they knew (or thought they knew) His father. Jesus never corrected them. Later on He spoke to them in veiled speech as He used to do in the case of unbelief and reasserted His claims in bold language. Knowing that the disciples grumbled among themselves, Jesus warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually – He foretold His ascension into heaven (and therefore He was not speaking about literal flesh eating). His words are spirit and life. He accused them of unbelief and exposed their hardness of heart stating that no-one would come to Him unless drawn by the Father. At that point, many of his followers left. The underlying reason was unbelief and not some innocent misunderstanding. Externally they were “disciples” – inwardly they were unbelievers like the other Jews. Jesus knew their heart: “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe.”
R
RedBert
Guest
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a044.html
By Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan
Recently, a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic attitudes toward Holy Communion. The poll showed serious confusion among Catholics about one of the most basic beliefs of the Church.
**Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. **
add St Augustine to that list too:
you can read the whole statement in context @
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They strove, and that among themselves, since they understood not… (Augustine, Tractate 26).
**Therefore ‘it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,’ as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten **(Augustine, Tractate 27).
For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “when ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting (Augustine, Tractate 27).
They understood not who believed not…they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense (Augustine, Tractate 27).
and
It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying… (Augustine, Psalm 99).
C
curlycool89
Guest
Wait wait wait. What do we have here? Oh yah, another fundamentalist site. Forgive me when I say that anything they say automatically looses credibility.
And if you look hard enough you’ll probably find something that says 90% of Catholic don’t believe contraception is a mortal sin. Morality isn’t determined by popular vote. Neither is doctrine (which is lucky, because otherwise we’d be like the other 900,000 schisms in non-Catholic non-Orthodox Christianity).
R
RedBert
Guest
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
This is not precise.
1)The word Messiah does not appear in John 6.
2) Your editorialization of the bread of life discourse does not make sense. It does not follow that if the Jews did not believe in Jesus that they would come to believe in Jesus if He used more complex and more difficult symbolic language. Jesus did not use symbolic language, rather, he used more specific language. The Jews have already gone on record for all eternity in admitting that they knew that Jesus was talking literally when they said:
*John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” *
To declare or imply that the Jews did not understand that Jesus was speaking literally about His flesh is to announce that one does not believe in the literal NT scripture since it is written in plan words. Ergo. no one can proclaim themselves “believers in Jesus” if they do not believe in His Word.
Are you sure you are a believer or will you too walk away in disbelief?
There is no reason you should think that Catholics have ever thought that Jesus meant anything but His real flesh and blood. We participate in the merits of His bodily sacrifice and the blood shed on the cross by believing in ALL that Jesus said and did. That means eating and drinking His flesh just as we have done for 2,000 years. Paul said the same thing. Have you read any of the early church history? Ever heard of agape feasts (1 Corinthians 11:17-34, 2 Peter 2 13, Jude 1:12)?
– Clear evidence that the early apostolic era Christians partook of Christ by Eucharist
*
1 Corinthians 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, it it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
*
BF
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
They had no thought of Eucharist?! Nonsence. There is no hint of apostolic indifferentism on Eucharist/Bread of Life?! You are way outside of the scriptural evidence here and have no business inserting wild-opinion as fact. The skeptics asked for a sign - THIS was what started the entire discourse. The discourse on bread of life was not just a new way to teach “faith” - it was the sign they asked for. Jesus anticipated the need for a sign and that is why He demonstrated His power via the prior multiplying of loaves - he just now needed to assign significance of that to Him in the flesh.
As well, some disciples had just told Christ that this was a hard teaching. Then Peter specifically says: *“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” * The apostles without fully understanding the Bread of Life mystery (as reflected in Jesus question ‘do you want to leave to?’) were resolved in faith to all that Christ told them nonetheless. This was a new teaching that had to be foremost in their minds since they just saw 5,000 fellow Jewish followers suddenly leave! His words of eternal life were Christ Himself in the flesh just as Jesus said of Himself. The apostle even opens his gospel to set the entire context on John’s gospel on The Word!
*
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:4 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
*
Non-believers need to see the equivalence between God, The Word and the Word made Flesh. Jesus was the living Word.
Jesus was claiming more than to be just Messiah! He was revealing that He was GOD INCARNATE! John the apostle started the entire gospel off from that context.
Thomas was a bit slow too but he got it eventually: John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
As for “They ate and drank by believing, and Christ gave them eternal life.” - this happened only at the Last Supper then after Christ rose again and when the Christians started celebrating their agape feats - which the apostles or their ordained priests presided over.
Again, you are making inaccurate statements. One must not only eat and drink the body and blood of Christ - but one must do it in a worthy manner or else bring judgement upon themselves. The Eucharist is not a magic-pill or like an ambrosia substance where mere possession and partaking bestows eternal life. NO! That will condemn a non-believer or a believer who has lapsed into grave sin to hell unless they repent. Partaking of Eucharist is an occasion to publicly attest to the community of believers their total faith in The Lord (signified by “Amen”) and to take in His perfect faith and grace (body, blood, soul & divinity) while meditating on the divine truth that Christ has taught us. It is an exercise of faith as well as a public witness to faith. In Eucharist one both “sees” and “believes” just as Christ commanded :
*John 6:30 So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
John 6:40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
*
Where do Protestants go to “look to the Son and believe”? There are no crucifixes in a Protestant Church. Most don’t have Eucharist and those that do try to emulate it do not have a valid priesthood and often do not even believe in real-presence…
Your expectations about John not having written about the Last Supper are irrelevant. John writes what the Holy Spirit instructed Him to write. Do you doubt the inspiration of John or the events of the Last Supper as described by the other gospel writers??
BF
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Yes, it’s my website. I didn’t think it was necessary to mention it since my name is all over it and there is a link to it on my profile page here on the forum.
Thank you for your critique and affirmation of the fact that you have no real evidence to support your position. Yes, Clement must be very difficult for you to understand; after all I can see how difficult it must be to read explicit historical evidence that goes against your opinion. What’s so difficult about Clement saying Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the bread of life discourse? Is that too obscure for you to understand? (BTW, do you know why he lost his “sainthood” in the Catholic Church?) And how about Origen, is he too obscure for you too? Maybe it’s your pedigree.
Here is something from the third century that’s not on my website. I know you are familiar with it (or at least one fragment of it) because you mentioned it on another thread.
“Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed winec, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him; and the milk and honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said, “a land flowing with milk and honey,” which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word, softening the bitter heart” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition)
So what’s wrong with it? Here is your chance; I did no research on this and I don’t know who translated it or edited it.
And here is an interesting rendering from Villanova University, a Catholic institution:
“And then the offering is immediately brought by the deacons to the bishop, and by thanksgiving he shall make the bread into an image of the body of Christ and the cup of wine mixed with water according to the likeness of the blood which is shed for all who believe in him. And milk and honey mixed together for the fulfillment of the promise to the fathers, which spoke of a land flowing with milk and honey; namely, Christ’s flesh which he gave, by which they who believe are nourished like babes, he making sweet the bitter things of the heart by the gentleness of his word.” (Christopher Haas, Associate Professor of History and of Classical Studies; Villanova University Department of History)
Into an image of the body of Christ and the likeness of His blood does not sound like transubstantiation to me, how about you? Actually, it sounds exactly like what Clement was saying.
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
Brian, this is just ancient Catholic terminology that is part of our idiom or ecclesial linga-franca. This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned that you can’t just blindly take translations without understanding the conventions of literary expressions. Did you know that the original old Roman Creed and Apostle’s Creed is also called “the symbol” in ancient Catholic traditions? What do you suppose the symbol means with respect to the Creed that used to be called the old Apostolic symbol?
The latin word Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum is an early statement of Christian belief/faith, a creed or “symbol”. Due to persecution “the symbol” (as Creed) was a pass phrase used to gain entry into secret Christian assemblies. Only those who were referred and sponsored by an already existing Christian in good standing were initiated into the Christian Church (after proper instruction) by baptism – usually at Easter Vigil. These were given the Creedal words of faith or “the symbol” so they could then enter into regular full communion. It is believed through tradition (not a lot of written evidence) that the apostles themselves used this word “symbol” as the name of the creed. Symbol is associated with “faith” the Christian community belief… The Latin expression used to designate the creed in this sense is “symbolum” – which means either a sign (symbolon) or a collection (symbole). The word is taken to mean both indicium, i.e. a token or password by which Christians might recognize each other, and collatio, that is to say an offering made up of separate contributions (it may be significant that the One Eucharistic Bread offering was broken into pieces when distributed to the members).
So be very careful here that you do not anachronistically back-project modern day semantics for the word “symbol” when reading transliterated translations that are completely transparent (without knowledge) to the early meanings and conventions. I would say with strong confidence that the quote you cite do NOT mean “symbol” in the modern sence of metaphorical. It is proper to see it as a SIGN - which is EXACTLY what a sacrament is theologically speaking. The sign in Catholic theology is usually an observable outward manifestation (e.g. the image of bread or wine or water) that has concrete sensory appearance that points to an underlying spiritual thing or event. So when somone of Catholic culture (e.g. ECFs) says that ‘this bread is the symbol of Jesus’ body’ – they mean it REALLY IS Christ’s body in a supernatural sense. It just appears to the senses as common bread but to the eyes of faith is the actual thing held in strong faith. So it’s called a sign or symbol - the thing perceived that points to the object of desire - The Lamb of God. It is a bridge from physical to spiritual and what makes it possible for mortal flesh to commune with God.
I am afraid that most of your critique of ECF fall into this category of error - not understanding the lingua franca and fairly sophisticated expressive idioms of the ECFs themselves and also assuming more conventional modern semantics apply to an era and culture where they do not apply.
I wish I knew a literary source to point you to to prove this to you. Regrettably I do not have one handy. I had to learn this myself over the last few years by reading between the lines in various places of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and extrapolate from my own historical readings and personal understanding of the old traditions and Latin. I doubt that there are many modern day Catholics who know the etymology and the deeper meanings behind the entire “symbol” and “sign” taxonomy.
I am at the limit of my knowledge here but intuitively feel the information is available to write a good paper on this. But I hope this gives you enough insight and motive to go research it for yourself. I think you will do much better to first assume that the Catholics have it right then follow what ECF writings and history we still have on hand to put it all together to make the case in a way you can accept.
The more I read the ECFs the more I am convinced that the entire Catholic Sacramental system while always in place (baptism was first) but only a few very deep and mature of faith ECF’s really understood the very deep theology (“the meat” vice “the milk”) that is behind what Christ was revealing to His People. Average modern day Catholics just accept it in faith without understanding all the deeper aspects that men like Clement of Alexandria live and breath like fish.
Christ told Peter: *“Duc in altum” * – “Put out into the deep”.
And Catholics are definately in the deep water in our theology and fishing for the best and the brightest that can help communicate these deeper concepts to the average Christians who are still of simple faith and sucking from The Church on baby’s milk.
BF
J
JoeT777
Guest
The problem with the argument made by the author of “The Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene Church” isn’t so much that it maintains that the ECF viewed the Eucharist as a symbol. This may surprise you, but it is a symbol. It is also real. That is it is a Real sacrifice where in the presents of Christ is Real in the symbol of the Eucharist. The author searches ECF literature for ‘the symbol’ of the Eucharist’ to the exclusion of the real and efficacious Eucharist. Bringing Christ into the interior as commanded in His memory
Is done symbolically, and which is the real blood and body of Christ.
It’s not an ‘either or’ relationship; rather it both symbol and real. Our act of taking is symbolic, the sacrifice conveyed is real.
One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others:—I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. “The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests; and Priests are made by Ordination; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift.” Here the question rises in me, “Who told you about that Gift?” I answer, “I have learned it from the Fathers: I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it ‘the medicine of immortality:’ St. Irenæus says that ‘our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,’ as ‘being nourished from the Lord’s Body and Blood;’ that the Eucharist ‘is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly:’ (Hær, iv. 18. § 5.) perhaps Origen, and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord’s Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they.” Thus I reply, and then the thought comes upon me a second time, “And do not the same ancient Fathers bear witness to another doctrine, which you disown? Are you not as a hypocrite, listening to them when you will, and deaf when you will not? How are you casting your lot with the Saints, when you go but half-way with them? For of whether of the two do they speak the more frequently, of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or of the Pope’s supremacy? You accept the lesser evidence, you reject the greater.” An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 Edition, John Henry Newman
JoeT
- Status