Help with Origen

  • Thread starter Thread starter Waynec
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Waynec

Guest
In Against Celsus chapter 57
There it says half way down the paragraph: And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist.

Can some one out there help me explain this to a non Catholic? They are telling me that even our own church fathers consider the Real Presence a symbol.

Somehow I don’t think that Origen is calling the Eucharist a symbol.
Help!!
Thanks
 
He’s not. He’s being grateful for the Eucharist. The Body of God.

He’s probably also explaining this to non-Christians in a way they can understand. Against Celsus and all.
 
Last edited:
Really? I didn’t know that. Wasn’t he the one who mutilated his genitals?
 
Oh wait. Dingus me was thinking saint. Sorry.
What I meant was he’s not a saint. Apologies.
 
Even if it were a symbol does that mean it is only a symbol?
 
Pope Benedict was a great admirer of Origen, included him in his “Church Fathers” book, and thought he had a profound influence on the early Church.

books.google.com

Church Fathers

Following his best selling book, Jesus of Nazareth, and his talks published in Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church, Pope Benedict?s Church Fathers presents these important figures of early Christianity in all their evangelical vitality, spiritual profundity, and uncompromising love of God...
books.google.com

Unfortunately some of Origen’s teachings, I believe on the pre-existence of souls for one thing, were later condemned as heretical in the 500s and a little later, so he will likely never be a saint or a Doctor of the Church or anything like that.
 
Now to address your question.

First of all, when you cite to Against Celsus, please make sure you state what book of Origen you are referring to. Against Celsus has 8 books, they all have a “Chapter 57”, and it is not until the 8th book that the Chapter 57 of which you speak occurs.

Second, it’s better to not post some isolated sentence completely out of context. The portion of Book 8, Chapter 57 containing your quote is as follows:
Celsus supposes that men “discharge the duties of life until they are loosened from its bonds,” when, in accordance with commonly received customs, they offer sacrifices to each of the gods recognised in the state; and he fails to perceive the true duty which is fulfilled by an earnest piety. For we say that he truly discharges the duties of life who is ever mindful who is his Creator, and what things are agreeable to Him, and who acts in all things so that he may please God. Again, Celsus wishes us to be thankful to these demons, imagining that we owe them thank-offerings. But we, while recognising the duty of thankfulness, maintain that we show no ingratitude by refusing to give thanks to beings who do us no good, but who rather set themselves against us when we neither sacrifice to them nor worship them. We are much more concerned lest we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with His benefits, whose workmanship we are, who cares for us in whatever condition we may be, and who has given us hopes of things beyond this present life. And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Basically Origen is saying that we don’t need to give thanks to a whole bunch of pagan gods, only to give thanks to our one true God who gives us benefits and cares about us.

He then says that the Eucharist is a “symbol of gratitude to God”, which it is.

The word “Eucharist” means “Thanksgiving”. As explained by Archbishop Lucas,
“Eucharist” means “Thanksgiving.” In the holy Eucharist we receive the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross. We also participate in His sacrifice of praise of the Father, in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the eucharistic sacrifice, the whole of creation, loved by God, is presented to the Father through the death and resurrection of Christ. Through Christ, the Church is able to offer this sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for what God has made good and beautiful both in humanity and in all of creation (See “Catechism of the Catholic Church” # 1359-61).
Click to expand...
Full article:

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Eucharist reflects the importance of always giving thanks to God

When we gather with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving this year, we will be just a few days away from the introduction of the new Roman Missal. I am thankful for all who have been preparing with such care for this moment of grace. In our prayer, study and reflection on the new...
www.catholicnewsagency.com www.catholicnewsagency.com

Saying that the Eucharist symbolizes our Thanksgiving to God doesn’t mean that it is “only a symbol” and not Jesus’ real flesh and blood. The Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus, but it also conveys additional symbolic meanings, such as our thanksgiving to God.
 
Sorry about that. I tried to copy and paste but I couldn’t. Thanks for digging and not giving up on me. I appreciate your mini education.

God Bless
 
Waynec said:
In Against Celsus chapter 57
There it says half way down the paragraph: And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist.

Can some one out there help me explain this to a non Catholic? They are telling me that even our own church fathers consider the Real Presence a symbol.

Somehow I don’t think that Origen is calling the Eucharist a symbol.
Help!!
Thanks
Click to expand...
Origen was familiar with the philosophy of Plato, and a symbol in that context is a bit different than what many Protestants mean by it. It is a higher reality veiled behind the appearance of bread and wine. The appearance, what we see, is a symbol of the higher reality that is present.

And really, we don’t even need to go into all that with this quote. This has nothing to do with the Real Presence. Eucharist means “thanksgiving.” It is an offering and symbol of our gratitude. Not “symbol” as in metaphor, but symbol as in something held high and displayed.
 
Last edited:
Waynec said:
we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Every sacrament is a symbol, representing some greater reality. Unlike other symbols, the sacraments make that greater reality present. The bread, symbolizing gratitude to God, elicits gratitude from us to God and perfectly expresses it. Symbolizing the Body of Christ, the bread becomes the Body of Christ, a physical manifestation of our savior, and transforms us into the Body of Christ.

If you understand what a sacrament symbolizes, you will see that the reality is there. It is not just a symbol, it brings about the grace it symbolizes.
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. the visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament.
Catechism 1131
Click to expand...
 
Dovekin said:
Every sacrament is a symbol,
Click to expand...
This is true.
I have noticed however that the catechists I had in school avoided the word “symbol” when talking about them, and instead used words like “Visible Sign”. I suspect in hindsight they didn’t want anybody thinking sacraments were purely symbolic in the Protestant sense.
 
Origen, and ALL the Fathers believed in, and taught that the Eucharist was actually the body and blood of Jesus the Christ.

Protestant thought around “symbol only” is a recent, innovative, misunderstanding. For 1,500+ years every Christian accepted this teaching, which is correct.

My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.

Deacon Christopher
 
From the begining, the Eucharist was known as a mysterion, something that hides a greater reality beyond it. Or in Latin, a sacramentum, committed to a greater reality than is seen. This is the language of symbol, of religious ritual.

In the 12th-13th century, there was a lively discussion of res and sacramentum, of reality and symbol. The eventual resolution was that it is both reality and symbol, though it is a bit more complicated than that.

Protestants in the 16th century were continuing that discussion by their discussion of symbol, not innovating a new objection. “Just a symbol” is accurate enough, but does not capture the diversity of Protestant theologies and their complexity.

There is no real reason to demonize “symbol.” It is a concept we all share. Exploring the differences in how we use symbol could help us all to a greater appreciation of the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top