Irenaeus was Lutheran

[guanophore]

This post was taken from a thread on the Transubstantiation and the Early Fathers.

In fact, have a look at that passage from Irenaeus and see how many times he puts the earthly and the heavenly elements together in the same construction.

Wonderful.

Irenaeus was Lutheran!

What if Luther really believed in transubstantiation.

 

[Steadfast]

This post was taken from a thread on the Transubstantiation and the Early Fathers.

What if Luther really believed in transubstantiation.

1. It was a joke.
2. We know from his writings that he rejected the “scholastic fiction” of transubstantiation.
3. Lighten up.

 

[Mannyfit75]

1. It was a joke.
2. We know from his writings that he rejected the “scholastic fiction” of transubstantiation.
3. Lighten up.

Transubstantiation merely explains Real Presence or the process during the Consecration. It isn’t fiction.

It would be fiction if Jesus would declare that his flesh is not really food, or that his blood is not really drink.

 

[Steadfast]

Transubstantiation merely explains Real Presence or the process during the Consecration. It isn’t fiction.

I am just using Luther’s words to describe it in evidence that he didn’t believe it.

It would be fiction if Jesus would declare that his flesh is not really food, or that his blood is not really drink.

I think his point was that such bizarre Greek subtleties were unnecessary, unwarranted and entirely meta-biblical importations.

My point is that transubstantiation proper is a fairly late development, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is as ancient as the church itself.

 

[Steadfast]

By the way, the ideas of substans and accidens were, in the real aristotelian conception, inseparable elements of every real phenomenon.

When with transubstantiation, your church thought to coopt the ideas in order to explain the Eucharist it went way beyond anything Aristotle himself would have done. For him the idea of a substans being replaced by another, with the accidens of the former remaining would have been nonsense.

Transubstantiation then is a “scholastic fiction” foisted upon the church by schoolmen which doesn’t really even make sense within its own terms.

Luther, no fan of Aristotle and certainly no fan of the schoolmen knew this.

 

[Contarini]

By the way, the ideas of substans and accidens were, in the real aristotelian conception, inseparable elements of every real phenomenon.

When with transubstantiation, your church thought to coopt the ideas in order to explain the Eucharist it went way beyond anything Aristotle himself would have done. For him the idea of a substans being replaced by another, with the accidens of the former remaining would have been nonsense.

Transubstantiation then is a “scholastic fiction” foisted upon the church by schoolmen which doesn’t really even make sense within its own terms.

It seems to me that you want to have it both ways. The fact that transubstantiation doesn’t make sense in an Aristotelian framework weakens your case against it as some kind of philosophical corruption of Christian theology. Rather, it uses Aristotelian language to express a reality that bursts the bounds of Aristotelian philosophy (and still more of the far more reductionistic forms of physics that have replaced Aristotelianism). I am not sure that it’s the best or only way to talk about the Real Presence. But it needs to be taken seriously as an attempt to describe the indescribable in the best terms available in the Middle Ages–and I’m not sure better terms have become available since.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am just using Luther’s words to describe it in evidence that he didn’t believe it.

Of course he didn’t that’s why he isn’t Catholic anymore.

I think his point was that such bizarre Greek subtleties were unnecessary, unwarranted and entirely meta-biblical importations.

My point is that transubstantiation proper is a fairly late development, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is as ancient as the church itself.

Transubstantiation only defined what was already believed. The ECF believed that the bread and wine are no longer ordinary bread and wine, but are the Body and Blood of Our Lord. That is very clear.

Transubstantiation points that, during the consecration when the priest says, “this is my Body…” and “This is My Blood.” The unleaven bread is no longer bread. It is substantially becomes Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The appearance or accident remains the same but it can no longer be called bread and wine. This is real presence.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It seems to me that you want to have it both ways. The fact that transubstantiation doesn’t make sense in an Aristotelian framework weakens your case against it as some kind of philosophical corruption of Christian theology. Rather, it uses Aristotelian language to express a reality that bursts the bounds of Aristotelian philosophy (and still more of the far more reductionistic forms of physics that have replaced Aristotelianism). I am not sure that it’s the best or only way to talk about the Real Presence. But it needs to be taken seriously as an attempt to describe the indescribable in the best terms available in the Middle Ages–and I’m not sure better terms have become available since.

Edwin

Edwin,

What is the general view of your Church concerning Real Presence? Can an Anglican decide to believe either symbolic, consubstantiation, transubstantiation?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

What is the general view of your Church concerning Real Presence? Can an Anglican decide to believe either symbolic, consubstantiation, transubstantiation?

The 39 Articles, which are the statement of faith of the Church of England drawn up in the 16th century, endorse the view that believers truly receive the Body and Blood “after a heavenly and spiritual manner,” and explicitly reject transubstantiation. In other words, they essentially come down on the side of Calvin and other Reformed defenders of a “true spiritual presence.” However, the 39 Articles are open to a lot of interpretation, and as GKC points out their authority is very limited within the Anglican Communion as a whole. Most Anglicans will avoid the word transubstantiation, but many adhere to the “substance” )) of the view, preferring to speak in more mystical terms like the Eastern Church. Others do hold to consubstantiation or something like it, and of course some hold to the view expressed by the Articles. I will not claim that no Anglicans believe in a purely symbolic view–after all, there are Anglicans who think the Resurrection was purely symbolic (!). But our liturgy pushes us toward a stronger understanding, and particularly in the U.S. Anglicans distinguish themselves from other Protestants (or, some might say, from Protestants–since many Anglicans don’t consider themselves Protestants) precisely on the basis of our sacramental theology.

The most common view among Anglicans, in my experience, is that Christ is truly present but we do not need to explain how. Most Anglican churches reserve the Sacrament, though only a view practice devotions to the reserved Sacrament, and some churches are rather casual in their treatment of the consecrated elements after the end of the liturgy (i.e., the Precious Blood may be poured wholesale down the piscina rather than drunk, but I have never seen it treated like any other leftover wine). Many of us receive kneeling, and reception on the tongue is by no means unheard-of (my parish in NC allowed intinction only if the celebrant placed the Host on the tongue–communicants were not allowed to “self-intinct”).

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

The 39 Articles, which are the statement of faith of the Church of England drawn up in the 16th century, endorse the view that believers truly receive the Body and Blood “after a heavenly and spiritual manner,” and explicitly reject transubstantiation. In other words, they essentially come down on the side of Calvin and other Reformed defenders of a “true spiritual presence.” However, the 39 Articles are open to a lot of interpretation, and as GKC points out their authority is very limited within the Anglican Communion as a whole. Most Anglicans will avoid the word transubstantiation, but many adhere to the “substance” )) of the view, preferring to speak in more mystical terms like the Eastern Church. Others do hold to consubstantiation or something like it, and of course some hold to the view expressed by the Articles. I will not claim that no Anglicans believe in a purely symbolic view–after all, there are Anglicans who think the Resurrection was purely symbolic (!). But our liturgy pushes us toward a stronger understanding, and particularly in the U.S. Anglicans distinguish themselves from other Protestants (or, some might say, from Protestants–since many Anglicans don’t consider themselves Protestants) precisely on the basis of our sacramental theology.

The most common view among Anglicans, in my experience, is that Christ is truly present but we do not need to explain how. Most Anglican churches reserve the Sacrament, though only a view practice devotions to the reserved Sacrament, and some churches are rather casual in their treatment of the consecrated elements after the end of the liturgy (i.e., the Precious Blood may be poured wholesale down the piscina rather than drunk, but I have never seen it treated like any other leftover wine). Many of us receive kneeling, and reception on the tongue is by no means unheard-of (my parish in NC allowed intinction only if the celebrant placed the Host on the tongue–communicants were not allowed to “self-intinct”).

Edwin

I see. Thanks.

 

[Steadfast]

Transubstantiation only defined what was already believed. The ECF believed that the bread and wine are no longer ordinary bread and wine, but are the Body and Blood of Our Lord. That is very clear.

Actually, you are mistaken. The ECF’s, especially Irenaeus, do not say that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine when they become the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Transubstantiation points that, during the consecration when the priest says, “this is my Body…” and “This is My Blood.” The unleaven bread is no longer bread. It is substantially becomes Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The appearance or accident remains the same but it can no longer be called bread and wine. This is real presence.

No, that’s Transubstantiation, one theory used to explain the Real Presence but you will not find it in the early church.

 

[Steadfast]

It seems to me that you want to have it both ways. The fact that transubstantiation doesn’t make sense in an Aristotelian framework weakens your case against it as some kind of philosophical corruption of Christian theology. Rather, it uses Aristotelian language to express a reality that bursts the bounds of Aristotelian philosophy (and still more of the far more reductionistic forms of physics that have replaced Aristotelianism). I am not sure that it’s the best or only way to talk about the Real Presence. But it needs to be taken seriously as an attempt to describe the indescribable in the best terms available in the Middle Ages–and I’m not sure better terms have become available since.

Edwin,

This is very well said and I do not doubt that it is true, but it is the very reason that Lutherans have resisted using the word “consubstantiation” to describe their understanding.

Importation of these categories in order to “express a reality that bursts the bounds of Aristotelian philosophy” is unnecessary and emblematic of the larger problem: scholastic reduction of the simple and mysterious to terms that can never really contain them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, you are mistaken. The ECF’s, especially Irenaeus, do not say that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine when they become the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Ireneaus said:

He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said, ‘This is My body.’ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world. . . . Then again, how can they [Gnostic heretics] 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? . . . When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can [the Gnostics] affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? (Against Heresies, 4:17:5, 4:18:4-5, 5:2:3)

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, that’s Transubstantiation, one theory used to explain the Real Presence but you will not find it in the early church.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are many purposes of the Eucharist, and numerous spiritual benefits which accrue from partaking in Communion at Mass—provided this is undertaken in a “worthy manner” and without conscious mortal sin. (6) It is the “source and summit of the Christian life,” (7) the sign of Christian unity, (8) and of the Body of Christ, the Church, (9) an act of Thanksgiving to God, (10) a memorial and sacrifice, (11) the central focus of the liturgy and Mass, (12) the empowering of the faithful for ministry, (13) a symbol of God’s faithfulness and miraculous provision, (14) an anticipation of the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven, (15) a remembrance of the Last Supper, (16) and of Christ’s Passion, Resurrection, and return, (17) a sign of salvation, the “bread of heaven,” (18) adoration and worship of God, (19) union with Christ, (20) the means of grace, cleansing from sin, and spiritual renewal, (21) and an offering for the dead. (22)

The daunting word “transubstantiation” is easily understood when broken down: “trans” means “change.” Therefore, the term is defined literally as the process of change of substance. The Catholic Church, in seeking to understand the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a doctrine delivered directly by our Lord and St. Paul, gradually developed an explanation as to the exact nature of this miraculous and mysterious transformation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Contrary to the common misconception, transubstantiation is not dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy, since some notion of the concept goes back to the earliest days of the Church when Aristotle’s philosophy was not known. The eastern Fathers, before the sixth century, used the Greek expression metaousiosis, or “change of being,” which is essentially the same idea. The Church did, however, draw upon prevalent philosophical categories, such as substance and accidents. In all ages, Christians have sought to defend Christianity by means of philosophy and human learning (wherever the individual intellectual categories utilized were consistent with Christian faith). St. Paul, for instance, did this in his sermon on Mars Hill in Athens, where he made reference to pagan poets and philosophers (Acts 17:22-31). St. Augustine incorporated elements of Platonic thought into his theology, and St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristotle and Christianity into a unified, consistent system of Christian thought (Scholasticism or Thomism).

Transubstantiation is predicated upon the distinction between two sorts of change: accidental and substantial. Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties are transformed in some fashion. Thus, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and gas (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. A substantial change, on the other hand, produces something else altogether. An example of this is the metabolism of food, which becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes initiated by digestion. In our everyday experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transition of accidents, or properties.

 

[Mannyfit75]

In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69). See chart below.

Indeed, transubstantiation is difficult for the natural mind (especially with its modern excessively skeptical bent) to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith. Yet many aspects of Christianity which conservative, evangelical, orthodox Christians have no difficulty believing transcend reason and must ultimately be accepted on faith, such as: the Incarnation (in which a helpless infant in Bethlehem is God!), the Resurrection, the omniscience of God, the paradox of grace versus free will, eternity, the Union of the Human and Divine Natures in Christ (the Hypostatic Union), the Fall of Man and original sin, and the Virgin Birth, among many other beliefs. Transubstantiation may be considered beyond reason, yet it is not opposed to reason; suprarational, but not irrational, much like Christian theology in general.

If one accepts the fact that God became Man, then it cannot consistently be deemed impossible (as many casually assume) for Him to become truly and really present under the appearances of bread and wine. Jesus, after His Resurrection, could apparently walk through walls while remaining in His physical (glorified) body (John 20:26-27). How, then, can transubstantiation reasonably be regarded as intrinsically implausible by supernaturalist Christians?

Likewise, much of the objection to this doctrine seems to arise out of a pitting of matter against spirit, or, more specifically, an a priori hostility to the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter. This is exceedingly curious, since precisely this notion is fundamental to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus. If God did not take on matter and human flesh, no one would have been saved. Such a prejudice is neither logical (given belief in the miraculous and Christian precepts) nor scriptural, as we shall see.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, whom very few would accuse of being unreasonable or credulous, had this to say about the “difficulties” of transubstantiation:

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe . . . It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant - but how is it difficult to believe? . . . For myself, I cannot indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, “Why should it not be? What’s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all;” . . . And, in like manner: . . . the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. What do I know of the Essence of the Divine Being? In know that my abstract idea of three is simply incompatible with my idea of one; but when I come to question the concrete fact, I have no means of proving that there is not a sense in which one and three can equally be predicated of the Inommunicable God. (23)

Once one realizes that transubstantiation is a miracle of God, any notion of impossibility vanishes, since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and the sovereign Lord over all creation (Matthew 19:26, Philippians 3:20-21, Hebrews 1:3). If mere men can change accidental properties without changing substance (for example, turning iron into molten liquid or even vapor), then God is certainly able to change substance without outward transmutation.

Therefore, after these weak philosophical objections are disposed of, we can proceed to objectively and fairly examine the clear and indisputable biblical data which reveals to us that God does in fact perform (through the agency of priests) the supernatural act of transubstantiation.

 

[Steadfast]

Here is the part that is so darned Lutheran:

Irenaeus:

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can [the Gnostics] affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? (Against Heresies, 4:17:5, 4:18:4-5, 5:2:3)

1. He speaks of the bread and wine receiving the Word of God, which happens to be exactly how Lutherans describe it…
2. He refers to the gnostics who denied that the flesh is capable of receiving the gift of God. He says this in correspondence to the bread and the wine receivng the Word of God (see pt. 1).
3. The conclusion we can draw is that the bread and wine, when they receive the Word of God and become the Body and Blood of Christ are no more done away with than the flesh is when it receives “the gift of God”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).*

 

[Mannyfit75]

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters , whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).*

 

[Steadfast]

I have to assume that those passages are not for me since I agree with them entirely.