On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church

[Radical]

…if figura were here “ a mere symbol”, why should we say we cannot have a symbol of an empty thing, or a phantom ?
Zeus, or Donald Duck, could have symbols, without having reality of theirs own. Yet they could not have a realistic “figura”…What sense would it make, even in marcion’s view, crucifieng a mere symbol to prove jesus’ body was a phantom ?

Let me answer these together by giving my understanding of Tertullian’s words. My comments are in brackets after Tertullian’s paraphrased sentences.

1. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it a symbol of his own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, a symbol of my body.
2. A symbol, however, there could not have been, unless there was an actual body.
3. A thing that does not exist is incapable of a having a symbol.(as in, a ghost could not give a symbol of his body, b/c he doesn’t have a body)
4. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) Jesus pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked a material body, it follows that He must have given bread for us as a substitute for his non-existent body.
5. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified. (This is sarcasm. Tertullian is first saying that if Marcion was right and Jesus had to pretend that the bread was his body b/c he didn’t have an actual body, then the bread should have been the thing which was crucified.)
6. But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! (This is also sarcastic. Tertullian proposes an inappropriate edible thing as an alternate symbol to contrast with bread that has a long history of being the symbol for Christ’s body. Then he simply insults Marcion.)
7. He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: (here he begins to tie Christ’s use of bread as a symbol to the earlier use of the same symbol for the same thing)

“He likewise when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood ,Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh”.
No REAL blood can…… Mere symbolism appears IMHO to be ruled out in this sentence.

Nothing of the sort (IMHO)…what Tertullian is saying is that Jesus sealed the NT in his blood. Therefore, Jesus must have had blood and since you can’t have blood w/o a body of flesh, then Jesus must have had a body of flesh. Tertullian can then conclude: Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.

 

[Radical]

IMHO the remarkable weakness of the proposed reading of this aspect of 1 Cor 11 is that you make such strong words depending on a weak link between bread and the Lord’s blood. (mere association with something in its turn merely symbolized).

I wouldn’t call it a weak link when it is made by Jesus himself. David (whilst inspired) declared to God, “Against you, you only , have I sinned…” This is after David committed adultry. If it is fair to say that David’s adultry and treachery was a sin against God, I fail to see how how it is such a stretch to say that one who eats one of the two elements unworthily will be guilty of sinning against both the body and the blood.

Do you mean the whole of the sacramentalism in On Resurrection of the Dead ch. 8 by Tertullian
is figurative ? Are we in a poetic context ? What is your interpretation ?

What I meant (for example) was that a soul (being an immaterial thing) does not become fattened (a material result). Much of what Tertullian wrote is not to be understood literally and is to be understood spiritually or figuratively…and w/o a literal understanding, there is a great deal of flexibility that can be taken in his meaning.

As for *Once did the Jews lay brands on Christ; these mangle His body daily. Oh hands to be cut off! Now let the saying, If your hand make you do evil, amputate it, Matthew 18:8 see to it whether it were uttered by way of similitude merely. What hands more to be amputated than those in which scandal is done to the Lord’s body? (On idolatry, Ch. 7). * the sheer strength of the words is fearful.
Can you really imagine this language as an issue of a NRP environment and account for it this way ?

Yes, easily. A great scandal was involved. Tertullian was outraged. A modern equivalent would be if the abortionists from the abortion clinic down the block were invited into the local RC church to baptize infants.

You know, even for a RPer, for this RPer for one, the language is really strong. I’m almost asking Tertullian “ I Are you sure ? is the offense you’re speaking about really graver than any other those hands could be guilty of ?
Is that definitely graver than abusing children, or torturing them, as you ARE stating ? ‘”

I think you are treating Tertullian’s words with far too much precision. He is in a rant. The question is asked for emphasis and not in an attempt to establish the idolators’ deed as the gravest of all sins. (If one wanted to be precise, it would seem that the gravest of all sins [that could be committed by hands] would seem to belong to those hands that do a thing amounting to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit…even in a RP view, I fail to see how the idolators’ actions would be on par with those that crucified Jesus, or hit him.)

Tertullian is teaching me, helping me to understand better what RP means. I hope you understand what I’m trying to explain.

I understnd you, but I think you do not understand Tertullian

Bless you

 

[pneuma07]

You are right about the interesting…but I am not sure about the James 5. Which verse(s)?
Right…I don’t expect every member to speak on every issue. That would be impossible. Individuals and groups of individuals take on various roles and responsibilities that serve the whole. Everyone should ask why something is believed. Any one that sees an unaddressed problem should speak up and act. In that way, the church as a whole holds the responsibility. The difference between us may not be that great. Perhaps it is no more than I don’t see the fiunction tied to an office and as such, I see the laity taking a more active (rather than passive) role.
I don’t.
agreed
I think we understand each other on this matter as well, and can move on…again with divergent views.

Dear Radical,

at the moment my wife’s post-injury path seems to be neither better nor worse than expected.

Glad the Exodus 19 verses were interesting. Here’s James 5

*14Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for (AJ)the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, (AK)anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; *

You are right: I am not far from your words, eg Everyone should ask why something is believed.
Even if the decision-making process happens in a structured ( therefore visible) Church, we are called to be active in our roles, and there are responsibilities for all.

On the specific core lines, I see the present exchange is likely approaching, the “agreement on disagreement” point. This time the privilege of the last word must be yours.

 

[Radical]

On the specific core lines, I see the present exchange is likely approaching, the “agreement on disagreement” point.

agreed

This time the privilege of the last word must be yours.

at this time I have nothing further to add unless you bring up something more.

I believe I’ll follow your lead and take a break from this sort of pursuit until sometime after Easter.

I trust your wife will continue to recover…BTW (and merely b/c I am curious) did you have elders annoint and pray for your wife’s healing?..the practise is very common in my church…just wondering about yours.

Bless you Pneuma! …and thanks again for the discussion.

 

[pneuma07]

agreed

at this time I have nothing further to add unless you bring up something more.

I believe I’ll follow your lead and take a break from this sort of pursuit until sometime after Easter.

I trust your wife will continue to recover…BTW (and merely b/c I am curious) did you have elders annoint and pray for your wife’s healing?..the practise is very common in my church…just wondering about yours.

Bless you Pneuma! …and thanks again for the discussion.

Dear Radical,
A short due answer immediately.

From the CCC 1511 *The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick: *To which James 5 is scriptural witness.
My wife was not anointed for the present injury. Some people receive this sacrament several times.

I am glad to note you and your faith community appear to acknowledge and live a ministerial priesthood (whatever the terminology) alongside the general priesthood of the believers.

As far as general remarks are concerned I had supposed we were approaching the conclusive part of the exchange, not that …it is already over.

A summary/commentary from my perspective will be allowed. One from yours would be welcome, and if new points are not introduced there, my contribution is over with the present post.

In a general view, the present thread confirms (at present ) once again a persuasion of mine about “pure exegesis”. Debating and debating on a single passage (or on some single passages) is often inconclusive. Divergent readings come into the debate and go out of it, after each one went in more in- depth considerations and came out satisfied ( often more satisfied than before) with the reading the other has opposed. Just a rule, or a trend if we prefer.
Reasons for this can be a plurality. Two major ones being probably:
from our own side, all of us are to some degree subject to eisegesis and the natural resistance to give up cherished opinions.
from the examined text side, they are often far from our language and our mindset, moreover possibly sometimes the authors simply could not or maybe did not want to be clear.

The exegetical work on a whole author is more promising than on single passages. We know by experience , nevertheless, that is not necessarily enough. Back to our case in the strictly exegetic field, I’d point to an IMHO apparent difficulty of NRP readings to account for strong and peculiar statements, so clearly fitting within a RP discourse.

So IMHO at the very least a complementary useful approach (unless one is perfectly sure one’s exegesis is seal dealing) is “going contextual”: getting insights from the period, the relations among authors, the society, the attitudes. Not that these aspects aren’t subject to possibly different interpretations in their turn, but I’d say the larger becomes the observed picture, the less decisive becomes our observation point

After such a long introduction, a survey of what has been proposed - the main points that is - in the present thread on the Theory in the title:

• Borrowing a concept from textual criticism, it was suggested the more difficult, (harder , more peculiar) reading is the one likely to be the original one. (lectio difficilior potior) . In our case RP is the one in relation to NRP. RP being harder and peculiar is the one we can consider original. It was IMHO received and believed ( to be delivered to future generations) through the unique experience of the Apostles alongside our Lord.
  The opposing view, as I could understand here, tells us RP was unthinkable. For the Apostles as well as for the following generations of believers. Then, it eventually became, from unthinkable, attractive. Later still, to our days, to become unpalatable again. Clear explanations about these transmutations have nevertheless not been given.
• The absence of recorded controversies, rebukes, explanations about the momentous paradigm shift allegedly taking place in the ancient Church is really deafening. To which, it is responded in conclusion, as I get, that the theory can outweigh such an unfavourable situation by the mere strength of its superior exegetical supports.
  The same has to go about the use of unchanged and potentially highly ambiguous language during the supposed shift, when precision would have been most necessary.
• An initial exploration of attitudes about the Eucharist according the earliest extant sources can give the idea of several points which are indicative of RP mindset. I mention here the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, the disposal of uneaten elements, or the centrality the Eucharist appears to have ( point which was agreed here) as strongly speaking for a RP Church. I cannot see comparable elements pointing to the other side being proposed here.
  The choice to bet on specific regions, namely Latin Africa, about the supposed resistance of the NRP belief, does not help IMHO. It is just from that region we have tales about profanations of the Holy (by Cyprian, by Optatus, as quoted in the thread on Augustine) which are almost dreadful in their realism .

Period. Reviewing all the other mentioned issues would be too long here.

Thanks for the discussion, the charity and the insightfulness. :clapping: :tiphat:

Bless you and see you.

 

[Radical]

Pneuma07, here are a few observations to add to yours (a few of course means tto much for only one post)

First, regarding the early church’s opposition to Gnosticism, I could not help but note the similarity between the RP view and Gnosticism with respect to Christ’s presence. Before anyone gets too excited…there are, obviously significant differences as well. The similarity that I am referring to is this. In the RP view Christ is said to have a bodily presence in the Eucharist, but that bodily presence is not of a material nature…call it mystical, call it otherworldly, call it what you will, but matter is not a part of that presence. In Gnosticism, Christ is said to have been present on earth, but his body was a “phantom” in that it lacked a material nature… call it ghostly, call it otherworldly, call it what you will, but matter is not a part of that presence. As such, a Gnostic could be comfortable with the real bodily presence claimed (by some) to exist within the Eucharist (b/c of the absence of any matter), but the Gnostic could not be comfortable with a Jesus, clothed in body of matter, giving us a symbol of that material presence. I find this ironic.

So IMHO at the very least a complementary useful approach (unless one is perfectly sure one’s exegesis is seal dealing) is “going contextual”: getting insights from the period, the relations among authors, the society, the attitudes. Not that these aspects aren’t subject to possibly different interpretations in their turn, but I’d say the larger becomes the observed picture, the less decisive becomes our observation point

I agree that we should obtain insights from the period and of course, be aware of our limitations in that regard.

Borrowing a concept from textual criticism, it was suggested the more difficult, (harder , more peculiar) reading is the one likely to be the original one. (lectio difficilior potior) . In our case RP is the one in relation to NRP. RP being harder and peculiar is the one we can consider original. It was IMHO received and believed ( to be delivered to future generations) through the unique experience of the Apostles alongside our Lord.

I believe that more precision is required here. The more difficult, (harder, more peculiar) reading is the one more likely to be the original one unless valid reasons can be offered as to why a more difficult reading would be favored (with such reasons shifting the likelihood away from the more difficult reading).
As to such reasons, is there any doubt that any believer would be attracted to the actual presence of Jesus?..attracted to the idea that Jesus is miraculously communing with the believer on a frequent basis? Is there any doubt that control of the administration of the Eucharist would be a powerful tool for keeping possible dissidents in line? Is there any doubt that there is a general tendency within religions to build upon their beliefs and, in the process, make those beliefs more convoluted?

 

[Radical]

…and finally:

The opposing view, as I could understand here, tells us RP was unthinkable. For the Apostles as well as for the following generations of believers. Then, it eventually became, from unthinkable, attractive. Later still, to our days, to become unpalatable again. Clear explanations about these transmutations have nevertheless not been given.

This cuts both ways. Clear explanations as to why these transmutations could not have happened have also not been given. With respect to the transmutation of RP becoming “unpalatable again” don’t we agree that such a thing happened? Wasn’t that transmutation the result of factors that include a) a growing understanding that the clergy erred both morally and doctrinally, b) an increase in the view that one could disagree with the RCC and suffer no earthly or heavenly consequences, and c) a shift toward natural and away from supernatural explanations? Given that a shift happened at least once, why should there be a presumption that an earlier shift did not occur?
One can give plausible reasons as to why a RP would gain acceptance. One can provide cultural factors that would make the origination and acceptance of a RP view more probable. From my perspective, it seems that your assessment is founded (almost entirely) on this:

The absence of recorded controversies, rebukes, explanations about the momentous paradigm shift allegedly taking place in the ancient Church is really deafening. To which, it is responded in conclusion, as I get, that the theory can outweigh such an unfavourable situation by the mere strength of its superior exegetical supports.

A couple of things in response to this:

First, Tertullian (for example) could still be of the NRP view even if my theory was flawed. I think you need to do a better job of explaining Tertullian’s remarks. As it stands, from over here it appears that you are insisting that Tertullian must have been employing a rather rare usage of “figura” that doesn’t at all fit with the context simply b/c no dispute erupted in the church with those who held to an actual presence of some sort. In the critical passage Tertullian asked, “But why call His body bread…” and then shortly thereafter said, “He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Please note that Tertullian has it going both ways. According to Tertullian, Jesus called his body bread and called bread his body. This fits with someone holding up some bread and saying, “This is my body”. That action can be viewed as both calling the bread his body and calling his body bread. I don’t see how that fits with what you think Tertullian was saying with “figura”. IMHO the context clearly establishes a symbolic view on Tertullian’s part.

Second, it is MHO that you make far too much of this “momentous paradigm shift”. Take a good hard look at the RC explanations on the many Eucharist/Real Presence threads in this forum and note that, for practical purposes, it is often impossible to find a difference between the explanation of what it means to have a real bodily presence and what it means to have only a spiritual presence. It seems that all involved (except for the extreme symbolists) would understand that Jesus is present at the Lord’s Supper from his promise that he would be in the midst whenever 2 or 3 are gathered. From there it becomes a question of what sort of presence is involved. I do not believe that anybody asserts that a material presence is involved. So from there it becomes a question of what sort of immaterial presence is involved. Is it an immaterial presence amongst the believers, beneath/behind the elements or in place of the elements? This is getting fairly technical…and perhaps the significance one places on the Eucharist could be as important as this technicality…and perhaps this technicality does not amount to a momentous paradigm shift. I don’t think it does. Today, for the RCC and the EO this technicality amounts to a test of orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean that the technicality held that significance 1800 years +/- ago.

The same has to go about the use of unchanged and potentially highly ambiguous language during the supposed shift, when precision would have been most necessary.

I believe that the “unchanged” language is typically no more than the ECFs following the wording found in the Gospels and in 1 Cor. Regarding ambiguous language, I can’t help but note that all three words in “real bodily presence” are ambiguous and have come to hold a variety of meanings. As indicated above, a gnostic could argue that Jesus had a real bodily presence during his time with the disciples (provided the gnostic’s use of “real bodily presence” is about the same as “the real bodily presence” that RCs claim for the Eucharist). It seems that the church only gets precise when it wants to disqualify certain specific views, and even then absolute precision is not necessarily achieved.

An initial exploration of attitudes about the Eucharist according the earliest extant sources can give the idea of several points which are indicative of RP mindset. I mention here the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, the disposal of uneaten elements, or the centrality the Eucharist appears to have ( point which was agreed here) as strongly speaking for a RP Church. I cannot see comparable elements pointing to the other side being proposed here.

Again it is MHO you make far too much of these points.

God bless you Pneuma07.