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

[pneuma07]

I need more than that.

Here is a (home made) synopsis about attitudes, terminology, disciplines regarding the Eucharist (sorry Lord’s Supper), of modern NRP Christianity vs early Christianity, through the earliest sources:

Communion of faith is not necessarily required ( they would, see Justin )
A bishop, or anybody ordained by a bishop, is not required for the validity (they would, see Ignatius )
You do not call the Eucharistic element “the Holy”: (they would)

Most NRP communities do not particularly care about the disposal of not eaten elements, and some do not at all ( they definitely would)

You do not consider it a sacrifice of whatever nature ( they would, see Didache and anywhere)

Most NRP do not send the consecrated element to people who could not attend ( they would )

Most do not call it Eucharist (they would, see Ignatius, Justin)…

Tell me if there are essential errors in the above incomplete list.

So they would not speak and would not behave as NRP Christianity does.Then, why should we bet that they would **believe ** as NRP Christianity does ?

Conversely , in each and every case above the Catholic Church
( together with other Apostolic
Churches) happens to be in agreement (and to my poor knowledge in unbroken continuity, through centuries and millennia) with the early Church.

 

[pneuma07]

Am I missing something? …b/c it is MHO that it is not necessary to bother with this analysis. If you look again at chapter 40 you will see that, in essence, Tertullian stated:
a) Jesus made the bread his body, that is a symbol of his body
b) this isn’t anything new, as the same symbolism is used in the OT; and
c) here are a few examples of that earlier use of the same symbol.

".

Dear Radical,

in the OT we have types, or typoi: I repeat that this is a brand new meaning of the latin “figura”, introduced by Tertullian.

The abundant reference to types/figurae in Tertullian is linked to another front of the contrast with marcionists: besides docetism. Which is their attack against the OT, and a general view of its contrast with Christianity.
Tertullian makes use of these numerous types/figurae in order to show the harmony and unity between OT and Chrisitianity.

The presence of OT types ( “figurae”) or their quotations do not give in itself specific clues , IMHO, on the precise nature of the association Jesus-bread which is anticipated. Unless we want to consider that the number of this types involving bread or wine becomes clue that this association would be very special indeed.

I did propose an explanation of why Tertullian put that “that is” in ch. 40.

Besides, I offered cases in which the term “Figura” ( apart from the meaning of typos) is in realistic context, against any claim that this could never be the case.

 

[pneuma07]

Nope. Bread for body and wine for blood…I like my symbols simple.

B/c, it is quite appropriate to call the symbol by the thing that it represents. We say that the bread is (by which we mean symbolizes for us) his body which was broken for us. We say that the wine is (by which we mean symbolizes for us) his blood which was poured out for us. I think it quite appropriate for me to call the bread of the Lord’s Supper by the term “His Body”. The only reason I wouldn’t express myself in the way that Tertullian did in the passage above, is the fact that it may cause the reader to assume that I hold to a RP view.

That should be, the flesh feeds on the bread (which is a mere symbol of the body of Christ) , so that the soul too may fatten on God.
please note Tertullian’s examples that immediately preceed the one in question. If you object that mere bread wouldn’t have the power to fatten a soul, would you also object that:
a)mere water does not have the power to cleanse a soul;
b)mere oil does not have the power to consecrate a soul;
c)a mere hand movement does not have the power to fortify a soul; and
d)the mere placement of hands does not have the power to illuminate a soul?
I understand it to be only the soul that fattens on God and …and isn’t the “et” also used in relation to signing and laying on of hands such that what the flesh enjoys is metaphorically mirrored by what the soul enjoys? I do not see a need for a real presence in any of those cases.

Bless you Pneuma07

OK. There is not even a symbolic relationship between bread and blood.
How come then that if I eat the bread unworthily I am guilty of the blood of the Lord ?

As for: The only reason I wouldn’t express myself in the way that Tertullian did in the passage above, is the fact that it may cause the reader to assume that I hold to a RP view.

Right ! Which is precisely why postulating an author using (seemingly ?) realistic language being a mere symbolist, implies postulating his whole environment was NRP too. Same for the Council of Nicea.
And why therefore I do not imagine a paradigm shift took place while the very same language was being
Used , according to the theory, before, during and after the shift itself. Do you ?

I expect you to have maybe objections about Tertullian’s statements from a) to d) here. I am with our author.

More precisely I accept any statement from a) to e), without insertions. Do you accept them ?

I do not guess we have to imagine mere symbols of water or oil or the body of the Lord , acting the way here is described. I imagine there is real presence of water , or of oil and anything mentioned here implied. . Not mere symbols of oil, eg. In any case of the list the acting element is quoted IMHO, not symblos thereof.

And no , I do not “require” the Real presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord under eg the species of oil.
Why should I, if that was never claimed or pointed to be the case to my knowledge ? Are you asking whether Real Presence is then in all sacraments the way it is predicated about Eucharist ? Of course it is not. Are you suggesting a “nowhere or everywhere” alternative ?

Eucharist is special. Who told that ?
You already know my references. … No such reference for other sacraments.

I’m now presenting another passage: Idol-artificers are chosen even into the ecclesiastical order. Oh wickedness! 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 comparison with what had been done once is clearly proposed to convey the idea that the new offenders are if possible even worse, which could not be the case against a mere symbol, even in a “important, “heavy” symbolism” case, as the one one could be inclined to consider as alternative to this being a clear manifestation of RP mindset.

Tell me: is it in your opinion indicative of any possible NRP mindset/belief, that Tertullian’s blood boils at the mishandling of “the Lord’s body” so as to say no hand should be amputated more than those ?

Bless you.

 

[Radical]

Eucharist, is defined as a thusia in the Didachè, a sacrifice. Sacrifices used to be offered by selected ministers in the OT.

Understood…but now we are a royal priesthood. Tertullian called prayer a offering and a sacrifice. Such a sacrifice fits well with a NRP.

Maybe after this thread I could take a break from apologetics.
I’d like to lurk in “Spirituality” for example. If we always are engaged in “defending” the faith, we can forget to learn how to live it.

sounds like it would be a wise decision…I am happy to wait till you feel inclined again

I’d like to know how the Church “as a whole” works in developing the doctrine ( even if I do not object in any possible sense to this formulation).

I see it as taking various forms. I see 1 Cor 14 : 26-32 as showing how the congregation served to vet the content of words, revelations, prophesies, and tongues. I see people such as Hus, Luther, Francis, Calvin and Zwingli and their supporters and followers as shaping doctrine…w/o the support of the people the ideas of the reformers would not have gone far. I see modern RCs, such as Garry Wills trying to change the RCC from within to lead to greater unity with non-RCs which (hopefully) will result in a change of doctrine. Many other forms exist (of course).

Do we see the “Church as a whole” in Acts 15 ?

I see things working one way when Christ was present, another way when apostles were present and yet another way once both Christ and the apostles were gone.

And I don’t know whether you mean the invisible set of all true believers, or rather one visible church you adhere to, or what exactly is now for you the church.

The Church IMHO is the invisible set of all true believers.

I do hope we’re not going back to exegesis on Augustine, unless you declare it essential in the present thread.

no such declaration will be forthcoming from this camp.

Is there something reasonable and possibly acceptable in 1) plus 2) ?

Please don’t get me wrong on this…I believe that the lack of arguments between/amongst ECFs on the RP vs NRP is something that must be accounted for…just as I believe that the considerable variation between/amongst ECFs with regard to what they say about the Eucharist must be accounted for. You think that it is most reasonable to believe, that given the lack of argument, the ECFs must have been in agreement under a RP umbrella and that the variation is merely a variation w/i that umbrella. In contrast, given variations that seem impossible to fit under such an RP umbrella, I think that it is most reasonable to believe that the ECFs must have somehow avoided a full scale argument for sufficiently compelling reasons.

 

[Radical]

Here is a (home made) synopsis about attitudes, terminology, disciplines regarding the Eucharist (sorry Lord’s Supper), of modern NRP Christianity vs early Christianity, through the earliest sources:

We NRPers tend to view the books of the NT as the earliest sources…and the sources you reference as later and in some cases considerably later sources.

Communion of faith is not necessarily required ( they would, see Justin )

Do you think the ECFs would approve of the lax manner in which the modern RCC oversees who does and who doesn’t participate. My church states clearly that all participants must be believers.

A bishop, or anybody ordained by a bishop, is not required for the validity (they would, see Ignatius )

And I would see the good folks criticized by the Council of Nicea as having a better grasp of the original practice. Do you actually believe that the church of Corinth (the recipients of Paul’s letters) conducted the Lord’s Supper as prescribed by the Nicean council in the following canon?
It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate.

You do not consider it a sacrifice of whatever nature ( they would, see Didache and anywhere)

Again, it depends on the meaning of “sacrifice”. Many an ECF used “sacrifice” in a fashion that would allow a modern NRP believer to call the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice.

I can’t help but note that we NRPers would never dream of::
a) only offering one of the two elements to the congregation; or
b) conducting this act of worship in the language unknown to the bulk of the congregation
…and in these things I believe the NRPers are very consistent with the church of 65 AD. I tend to also believe that the earliest congregations thought it very important to use one loaf in order to achieve the symbolism of one body ( I have only encountered a few NRP congregations that follow this symbolism). Also, I believe that, at first, the Lord’s Supper was associated with a meal. I know of a few NRP groups that do this occasionally to more appreciate the way it was at first. How has the RCC done and how is it doing in these four areas?

So they would not speak and would not behave as NRP Christianity does.Then, why should we bet that they would **believe ** as NRP Christianity does ?

Again, the concern is not believing the same as Martyr, but believing and doing the same as Paul. …and with repect to the four areas I just listed, should the same question be posed to the RCC? Items (a) and (b) above seem to be of extreme importance.

Conversely , in each and every case above the Catholic Church ( together with other Apostolic Churches) happens to be in agreement (and to my poor knowledge in unbroken continuity, through centuries and millennia) with the early Church.

Continuity with a variation that arose after the apostles departed is a continuity that is of no value (to me). That being said, it is nice to have continuity with certain ECFs with respect to the matter of a NRP.

Bless you,…how’s the Mrs. doing?

 

[Radical]

Tertullian makes use of these numerous types/figurae in order to show the harmony and unity between OT and Chrisitianity.

agreed…he shows how Christ’s making a figure of the bread is absolutely consistent with the way in which the OT prophets made a figure of the bread. A “type” is a thing that represents another thing, or a symbol if you prefer.

The presence of OT types ( “figurae”) or their quotations do not give in itself specific clues , IMHO, on the precise nature of the association Jesus-bread which is anticipated.

I disagree…when Tertullian says that Marcion “did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah…” Tertullian connects the manner of Christ’s usage of a figure to the manner of Jeremiah’s usage of that same figure. Further, look at the two things Tertullian says regarding Marcion’s view immediately after saying, “He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body.”

First, he comments that, in light of what was actually meant by “This is my body,” Marcion might claim that Jesus “pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance”. Marcion would not be in a position to claim Christ pretended that the bread was his body if, in fact, Tertullian understood that “This is my body” meant that the substance of the bread had been changed into the substance of his body. If such was the case, then Tertullian would be saying that (a) because Jesus had said that the substance of the bread had been changed into the substance of his body, then (b) Marcion might claim that Jesus pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance. That makes no sense. On the other hand, (a) because Jesus had said that the bread represented his body, then (b) Marcion might claim that Jesus pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance. Now that makes sense.

Second, in reference to Christ’s statement that “This is my body”, Tertullian asks the question: “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!” As such, in Tertullian’s mind saying “this is my body” is calling “his body bread”. Again, if Tertullian thought that the bread was somehow changed into Jesus’s body, then Christ could not be calling his body bread. Instead, by those words, Jesus would be changing bread into his body. On the other hand, if the bread is held out as a representation of his body, then Jesus was indeed calling his body bread.

IMHO (expressed assertively ) there simply should be no ifs, ands or buts. In that passage Tertullian clarified that when Jesus said “This is my body”, what Jesus actually meant was that “this bread is a representation of my body.”

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma07, just a few quick clarifications re your last postI looked very briefly at the JP Holding link and didn’t see anything on point. The only issue is whether their were any Mystery Cults in Hellenistic society where the adherents “could enter into festivity and celebration of a god, let us say, Dionysius, and (in) the course of consuming a feast in his honour, one was consuming the god himself, so that one internalised that deity.” If such cults existed and if their festivities were common knowledge, then (it would seem) that such views would have given something to Hellenistic society that would make it easier for them to accept the “unthinkable” RP.

I mistrust anyone or anything that claims to possess a “monopoly” with respect to God, fullness of truth etc. My first exposure to that sort of claim was a bizarre anabaptist group.

To be clearer, my comment with respect to use of sword and excommunication had to do with swallowing transubstantiation in its full development…and as you have noted, once groups were free of those threats, NRP gained acceptance rather quickly and broadly.

The perspective we can receive in the link is that so many elements of Christianity are according to some views allegedely
derived from dyonisiac cults. You certainly reject these allegations. Shall we neverthelss decide to selectively adopt just one of them ?
What do we know about the scale of the influence in the Empire of those cults ? And about their dynamics, have we evidence of such a growth in the II to IV centuries that the christian community could not escape this specific influence ?

I take note that you mistrust the Catholic Church together with some other groups, but the allegation that transubstantiation is accepted/kept where a sword make people swallow it would maybe deserve more insights before being proposed, let alone in a catholic forum.
Was the orthodox Bethlehem Synod of 1672 under the catholic sword ? Was Penal Lwas Ireland under the catholic sword when that people would keep the faith under any harshness ?
Who is under threat of the catholic sword today ?

 

[Radical]

Shall we neverthelss decide to selectively adopt just one of them ?

Well if that belief was present in ancient Hellenistic societies then I am not going to pretend that it wasn’t b/c I don’t like the way in which some fellows have used it and other pagan beliefs.

What do we know about the scale of the influence in the Empire of those cults ? And about their dynamics, have we evidence of such a growth in the II to IV centuries that the christian community could not escape this specific influence ?

…and these are the sort of questions that should be asked and answered….and assumptions should not be made.

I take note that you mistrust the Catholic Church together with some other groups, but the allegation that transubstantiation is accepted/kept where a sword make people swallow it would maybe deserve more insights before being proposed, let alone in a catholic forum.

This took me aback. Sorry for any offense. Please allow me to explain myself further. You had said:

OK, you find transubstantiaton as the most unpalatable “description” of RP. The more they build on RP, the more vulnerable it becomes.
If the proposal amounts to stating that the Church would build something ever more and more difficult to swallow, I feel you keep making the point of the originality of RP

And I responded with:

I just don’t see it that way…A heirarchy that controls doctrine by threat of sword and/or threat of excommunication can easily build a doctrine that is harder to swallow b/c it can control and eliminate any disagreement…and once one is convinced that the heirarchy speaks for God, almost anything will be swallowed.

I thought it obvious (from history) that the sword plays a part in determining beliefs. Kingdoms ruled by Muslim princes were predominantly Muslim. Kingdoms ruled by Catholic princes were predominantly Catholic. Kingdoms ruled by Lutheran princes were predominantly Lutheran. That IMHO is how it worked in general. Specifically, I could cite examples such as Wycliffe, Hus and Berengar as examples where the RCC (and its followers) used the sword and excommunication as tools to enforce its views…but I would think that going into those sorts of details would be more likely to cause offense. Frankly, I thought that it was beyond dispute that the RCC has used threat of sword and/or threat of excommunication to eliminate disagreement. Am I to understand that you disagree?

Who is under threat of the catholic sword today ?

…and from what I can tell, amongst those who are counted as Christian today, the RP view is now in the minority. That is a significant change in the last 600 years.

 

[pneuma07]

Understood…but now we are a royal priesthood. Tertullian called prayer a offering and a sacrifice. Such a sacrifice fits well with a NRP.

… You think that it is most reasonable to believe, that given the lack of argument, the ECFs must have been in agreement under a RP umbrella and that the variation is merely a variation w/i that umbrella. In contrast, given variations that seem impossible to fit under such an RP umbrella, I think that it is most reasonable to believe that the ECFs must have somehow avoided a full scale argument for sufficiently compelling reasons.

Dear Radical,

if we go to Exodus 19, we can find something IMHO very interesting about priesthood.
Not only the Church has , as you rightly observe, but Israel too had a universal priesthood ( verse 6) . And the Israelites too could offer their prayers ( see Hosea 14).
Besides that, there was a special ministerial priesthood too ( verses 21-22).
Likewise the NT has a ministerial sacramental priesthood, as we can see in James 5, besides the universal priesthood.

You are quoting individuals, or groups within the Church, not the Church as a whole, whether visible, or, as in the model you adhere to, invisible.
BTW Francis was, (besides an exceptional example of Christian), a very faithful child of the Church, not precisely at home, as such, in the fellowship you mention.
I cannot understand whether you detect the invisible Church as a whole in the Council in Acts 15.

For what we know the CFs carefully avoided any argument. I understand, based on your exegesis, you say “OK, they must have had their reasons.”
If so, let’s leave this issue. With divergent views.

My point on the Institution is and remains that the situation and the context was so exceptional that he was not obvious IMHO, Jesus was speaking merely symbolically. If so, if we cannot state it was obvious, than the opposite is true.
My simple line ( which certainly will have its weaknesses) goes: if realism was not just unthinkable, IMHO He was speaking realistically. But I believe realism was not unthinkable. …

 

[pneuma07]

We NRPers tend to view the books of the NT as the earliest sources…and the sources you reference as later and in some cases considerably later sources.

Bless you,…how’s the Mrs. doing?

Two main points why I cannot share the “back to NT” way here:

1. one is general. While it looks certainly good saying the NT is our earliest (written I hope you mean) source as a whole, we should check whether the NT does say positively something on a given point. Otherwise, the quoted texts ARE the earliest sources we have on the issue.
   . Being against them, one appears to be against the first existing Christian witnesses. Period.
   Saying that this is after all meaningless would make the exegesis of the ECFs a rather redundant exercise. ( of the sort “I do not really care what the ECFs say, you know, I just like to know at least in some cases I agree with some of them”)
2. The other one is peculiar to our case. Your theory is NOT about NRP being substituted immediately after the editing of the last book of the NT
   (which took place likely after Ignatius’ death, BTW). You seem to believe the II and likely III century church was NRP. My present argument is valid against this possibility, since I propose sources from the first part of that age. Those sources do appear to show attitudes and disciplines being different from the average modern NRPers.
   In our case saying “OK, I am not with, say, Justin and those guys, nevermind, since I am with Paul”, would be IMHO a double fallacy. In the first place b/c that would go right against your case as in the title. In the second place b/c the harmony with Paul remains a postulate.

As for your 4 points.

Point a) ( Both kinds) From the old catholic Encyclopedia "if we assume the doctrinal points involved – viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends”.
Why ? because of: “ The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers – the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people”
Basically the discipline follows the passage from very small congregations to large ones.

Point b) Said that I cannot see why the language adopted is essential at all in our RP vs NRP case,
I respond that the most ancient lyturgical practice in the roman Church appears to have been in greek, language unknown to most there. Latin became liturgical language, if I am not mistaken, in the III century. Then it is our NRPers who do not follow the ancient way, but I have nothing againt that. With Vatican II we could say the movement of the III century was repeated, while, as you know,Latin is permitted.

c) as to the loaf , the case appears similar to the Chalice in point a).

d) I believe there were two distinct moments. The Eucharistic service in itself, and the agape, which was just a meal. 1 Cor 11 apparently proscribes the confusion between Eucharistic service and simple common meals.

Nowhere here am I stating that the early Church was wrong.

You, on the contrary, look going against the sub-apostolic Church, by implying ( by not caring continuity at all) you know they where probably wrong in the points mentioned in my post you are answering here.
Basically , you are charging the early Church with not being solascripturaist. Which I do agree she was not.

BTW what have we to do, according to Sola Scriptura, with the not eaten elements ? Here we do have a point which appears indicative of a RP vs NRP mindset.

About my wife, we’re going to get to know something tomorrow.
Thanks and bless you.

 

[jurias1525]

I am not as learned as many of you seem to be on this site, but as I see it, God has chosen to put us all in the place that we are today. He calls all of us differently to serve His needs. Why waste time on deciding (judging ) which of His religions is right…pray for all to be joined together (having faith)in His plan for us all…Let Him lead and follow where he leads us…we are His sheep…even we stray …He will lead us home. Pray for each other.

 

[Radical]

OK. There is not even a symbolic relationship between bread and blood.
How come then that if I eat the bread unworthily I am guilty of the blood of the Lord ?

I take it that you are referring to 1 Cor 11:27. I would answer that it is b/c the two symbols were inextricably joined in the Lord’s Supper by Jesus such that if one is consumed unworthily it is an offense against both. It would be similar to me saying, “If you attack either my wife or me it will be considered as an attack on us both.”

Right ! Which is precisely why postulating an author using (seemingly ?) realistic language being a mere symbolist, implies postulating his whole environment was NRP too. Same for the Council of Nicea.

Please be reminded that in my thesis, Carthage/Tertullian’s area and Alexandria remain NRP for a time whilst other parts of the empire go further along the RP path.
Therefore, Tertullian would not need to concern himself with being mistook as advocating a RP. Regarding Nicea, please remind me again as to the wording you have in mind.

More precisely I accept any statement from a) to e), without insertions. Do you accept them ?

Well they are rather poetic, figurative etc. in nature and as such, a thing such as fattening a soul could be understood in a variety of ways…in other words, items (a) to (e) are easily agreed to b/c they can carry such a varied understanding and/or any positive act focused on God can be said to be of benefit to the soul.

I’m now presenting another passage: Idol-artificers are chosen even into the ecclesiastical order. Oh wickedness! 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).

Tell me: is it in your opinion indicative of any possible NRP mindset/belief, that Tertullian’s blood boils at the mishandling of “the Lord’s body” so as to say no hand should be amputated more than those ?

In the passage Tertullian is saying that Matthew states that, if one’s hand causes one to sin, then it should be cut off. Therefore, all that would be required for Tertullian to ask “What hands more to be amputated than those in which scandal is done to the Lord’s body?” is for these idol makers (from withinI the church) to be committing a grave sin by applying to the Lord’s body those hands which confer bodies on demons. Those hands contaminate whatever they touch. IMHO, such requires the bread to be only a sacred symbol and not to “possess” a real presence.

Bless you.

 

[Radical]

Hope you have received some good news…my prayers are with you.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,
if we go to Exodus 19, we can find something IMHO very interesting about priesthood…
Likewise the NT has a ministerial sacramental priesthood, as we can see in James 5, besides the universal priesthood.

You are right about the interesting…but I am not sure about the James 5. Which verse(s)?

You are quoting individuals, or groups within the Church, not the Church as a whole, whether visible, or, as in the model you adhere to, invisible.

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 cannot understand whether you detect the invisible Church as a whole in the Council in Acts 15.

I don’t.

For what we know the CFs carefully avoided any argument. I understand, based on your exegesis, you say “OK, they must have had their reasons.”
If so, let’s leave this issue. With divergent views.

agreed

My point on the Institution is and remains that the situation and the context was so exceptional that he was not obvious IMHO, Jesus was speaking merely symbolically. If so, if we cannot state it was obvious, than the opposite is true.
My simple line ( which certainly will have its weaknesses) goes: if realism was not just unthinkable, IMHO He was speaking realistically. But I believe realism was not unthinkable. …

I think we understand each other on this matter as well, and can move on…again with divergent views.

 

[Radical]

Two main points why I cannot share the “back to NT” way here:

1. one is general. While it looks certainly good saying the NT is our earliest (written I hope you mean)

I don’t have access to anything other than written sources.

Otherwise, the quoted texts ARE the earliest sources we have on the issue.
. Being against them, one appears to be against the first existing Christian witnesses. Period.

I would prefer to say that by being against them, one appears to be against the earliest extant Christian opinion regarding the matter.

Saying that this is after all meaningless would make the exegesis of the ECFs a rather redundant exercise.

not meaningless, but not of binding authority. Their view is an opinion/understanding to be given certain weight, but not an opinion to be placed on a level with scripture.

1.  The other one is peculiar to our case. Your theory is NOT about NRP being substituted immediately after the editing of the last book of the NT

(which took place likely after Ignatius’ death, BTW). You seem to believe the II and likely III century church was NRP.

at two locations…Alexandria and Carthage, not so much elsewhere.

My present argument is valid against this possibility, since I propose sources from the first part of that age. Those sources do appear to show attitudes and disciplines being different from the average modern NRPers.

Just as there can be variations within a RP umbrella, there can be variations within a NRP umbrella.

In our case saying “OK, I am not with, say, Justin and those guys, nevermind, since I am with Paul”, would be IMHO a double fallacy. In the first place b/c that would go right against your case as in the title. In the second place b/c the harmony with Paul remains a postulate.

I would say, “OK, I am not with Justin on this matter, b/c I do not think it is likely that Justin was with Paul on this matter. And I want to be with Paul.”

 

[Radical]

Continuing…

As for your 4 points.
Point a) ( Both kinds) From the old catholic Encyclopedia "if we assume the doctrinal points involved – viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends”.

I think that this type of reasoning would work for me too. Regarding the epsicopacy I would amend it as follows:
*if we assume the doctrinal points involved – viz. absence of a Divine precept imposing a monarchial bishop as recommended by Ignatius, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with its administration that is not divinely determined, then the question of church government becomes purely practical, and is to be decided by a reference to the purpose(s) to be attained, including preaching the gospel to the world, santification of the members of the body of Christ and caring for the poor. Nor can it be doubted that a monarchial bishop may best secure these ends in certain circumstances and not in others. *

Nowhere here am I stating that the early Church was wrong.

I think that between the two of us we listed 10 early practices. I don’t see any one of them as being determinative of an RP vs an NRP. So again, to paraphrase the bit you provided from the old catholic Encyclopedia, I would comment as follows: * Given the absence of a Divine revelation concerning the Lord’s Supper beyond what is revealed in the NT, and given the freedom of the members of the Church to put forward their insights and understandings derived through meditation and prayer and/or built upon passages not expressly dealing with the Lord’s Supper, then various views about substantive and procedural matters regarding the Lord’s Supper may be embraced by the body of Christ so long as they do not go against* the Divine revelation or cause division within the body of Christ and so long as they serve the purposes to be attained, which include recognition and remembrance of the wondrous sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf, recognition and remembrance of the new covenant that he gave us in his blood and fellowship and unity within the body of Christ. *(*To assess “going against”, one may have to resort to what is likely and what is not likely…).
IIRC I don’t have any serious opposition to any of the 10 practices/views that we listed…until, that is, the practice or view is taken too far. Likewise I don’t have any problem with someone saying that there is a real presence in the Eucharist, but when that real presence is declared to be a real bodily prersence and when that is made into an essential belief, then it has been taken too far in two ways.

You, on the contrary, look going against the sub-apostolic Church, by implying ( by not caring continuity at all) you know they where probably wrong in the points mentioned in my post you are answering here.

In many cases it is hard to know whether I would say that they are “probably wrong” or not. Take, for example Ignatius’s insistence on a monarchical bishop. What authority is he claiming for that rule? If he is merely saying that, in his opinion, it is very important that the church functions in this manner at that time b/c of the difficulties that it faced at that time, then I wouldn’t say that Ignatius was probably wrong. I would say that he was probably right.

Basically , you are charging the early Church with not being solascripturaist.

It is more than that. I am charging the early church with making into “essentials” certain things that its leaders added to the original deposit.

BTW what have we to do, according to Sola Scriptura, with the not eaten elements ?

Well, there are a few flavours of SS, but IMHO it would be up to the congregation to determine what they should do with the uneaten elements and that determination would only be problematic if they then went on to claim divine inspiration for that determination and/or universal application for their determination, or based it on a belief concerning the elements not expressed in scripture and then went on to claim divine inspiration for that belief and/or that the belief was essential to the faith.
Bless you.

 

[Radical]

Hello, jurias

I am not as learned as many of you seem to be on this site, but as I see it, God has chosen to put us all in the place that we are today. He calls all of us differently to serve His needs. Why waste time on deciding (judging ) which of His religions is right…

First I wouldn’t ask it this way… I would say that I am trying to determine which denomination possesses the fullest partial knowledge. (1 Cor 13:9) …and I do so b/c I believe that it is part of God’s plan for my life.

…pray for all to be joined together (having faith)in His plan for us all…Let Him lead and follow where he leads us…we are His sheep…even we stray …He will lead us home. Pray for each other.

Amen.

 

[pneuma07]

agreed…he shows how Christ’s making a figure of the bread is absolutely consistent with the way in which the OT prophets made a figure of the bread. IMHO (expressed assertively ) there simply should be no ifs, ands or buts. In that passage Tertullian clarified that when Jesus said “This is my body”, what Jesus actually meant was that “this bread is a representation of my body.”

*Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples , He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.

“A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure”.*

Dear 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”.

• If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance , it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! *

Marcion could say ( hi Marcion, how many words are being put into your mouth )
“Lacking a veritable body, he could only pretend having one, namely by choosing to say the bread was that”. But to really go on pretending that, the bread should have been crucified, which was not, adds Tertullian. It is clear IMHO what is meant is that Jesus pointed to the bread as His real body: being without body, in Marcion’s view, He had to pretend the bread was it. But, argues Tertullian, that was not the case: the bread was not crucified, as would have happened , had Jesus been without a .
What sense would it make, even in marcion’s view, crucifieng a mere symbol to prove jesus’ body was a phantom ?
Tertullian, on the contrary, believes IMHO the Lord had a veritable body, whose “figura” He gave to the bread.

“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.

BTW the verb *representare *used to have mainly the meaning of “making present”, not , as in modern understanding “acting in lieu of someone absent”. Contrary to ethymology, we today thing the represented thing/person…is absent .
The verb “representare” is still used with the mentioned meaning in the latin of the Church.

 

[pneuma07]

Well if that belief was present in ancient Hellenistic societies then I am not going to pretend that it wasn’t b/c I don’t like the way in which some fellows have used it and other pagan beliefs.
…and these are the sort of questions that should be asked and answered….and assumptions should not be made.

This took me aback. Sorry for any offense. Please allow me to explain myself further. You had said:

OK, you find transubstantiaton as the most unpalatable “description” of RP. The more they build on RP, the more vulnerable it becomes.
If the proposal amounts to stating that the Church would build something ever more and more difficult to swallow, I feel you keep making the point of the originality of RP

And I responded with:

I just don’t see it that way…A heirarchy that controls doctrine by threat of sword and/or threat of excommunication can easily build a doctrine that is harder to swallow b/c it can control and eliminate any disagreement…and once one is convinced that the heirarchy speaks for God, almost anything will be swallowed.

I thought it obvious (from history) that the sword plays a part in determining beliefs. Kingdoms ruled by Muslim princes were predominantly Muslim. Kingdoms ruled by Catholic princes were predominantly Catholic. Kingdoms ruled by Lutheran princes were predominantly Lutheran. That IMHO is how it worked in general. Specifically, I could cite examples such as Wycliffe, Hus and Berengar as examples where the RCC (and its followers) used the sword and excommunication as tools to enforce its views…but I would think that going into those sorts of details would be more likely to cause offense. Frankly, I thought that it was beyond dispute that the RCC has used threat of sword and/or threat of excommunication to eliminate disagreement. Am I to understand that you disagree?

…and from what I can tell, amongst those who are counted as Christian today, the RP view is now in the minority. That is a significant change in the last 600 years.

I am not pretending dyonisiac cults did not exist either. I just have no element to point to a relevance of theirs in the proposed really remarkable passage from the “unthinkable RP” mindset of the first generations, to the “attractive RP” mindset of the following ones.

About swords I just found factually unfounded my comment with respect to use of sword and excommunication had to do with swallowing transubstantiation in its full development…and as you have noted, once groups were free of those threats, NRP gained acceptance rather quickly and broadly., as suggesting the case for RP is so weak in your view that it can only be supported by the argumentum ad baculum.
As you very probably know JPII made great steps in order to ask
separated brothers for forgiveness for any evil they suffered by people acting in the name of catholicism. So, no offense is possible if you point to the obvious and declared existence of coercion and repression against dissense by catholic rulers. (whose scope and nature could be object of history threads) .
Our forefathers, particularly those in the XVI-XVII centuries, would kill each other for motivations including religion, as a matter of fact. ( Our forefathers in XIX and XX, who would feel they were much more civilized, would kill each other by the millions for motivations including nationalism and secular ideologies. Nowadays we kill babies in their mothers’ wombs by the millions and do other amenities ) .

That’s all very sad. To conclude on a little lighter tone: , as for nowadays I’d concur NRP is a globally minority view in the self-declared beliefs of Christians (there was no Gallup in 1409, so I don’t know then). IMHO the pressure which has produced so many
de facto NRPers within Apostolic Churches is not by NRP christianity, it is by the world. The non christian world has unprecedented impact on the average christian. And let us remember the non christian world is … 100% NRP.

 

[pneuma07]

I take it that you are referring to 1 Cor 11:27. I would answer that it is b/c the two symbols were inextricably joined in the Lord’s Supper by Jesus such that if one is consumed unworthily it is an offense against both. It would be similar to me saying, “If you attack either my wife or me it will be considered as an attack on us both.”

… In the passage Tertullian is saying that Matthew states that, if one’s hand causes one to sin, then it should be cut off. Therefore, all that would be required for Tertullian to ask “What hands more to be amputated than those in which scandal is done to the Lord’s body?” is for these idol makers (from withinI the church) to be committing a grave sin by applying to the Lord’s body those hands which confer bodies on demons. Those hands contaminate whatever they touch. IMHO, such requires the bread to be only a sacred symbol and not to “possess” a real presence.

Bless you.

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).

On Nicea we’re always on the old canon 18 *neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. *The Council Fathers could not choose IMHO a wording which sounds obviously RP to RPers, and to yourself obviously NRP, had there been any paradigm shift taking place, with people of different persuasions coming from different regions. And the Council could not be unaware of such a shift. …

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 ?

---

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 ?

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 ? ‘”
And then it occurs to me: “Tertullian does know what he’s speaking about. Even against my resistance I understand he is right”.

You know catholics have (you’ll probably say too many) religious symbols. I could never ever imagine whatever sort of abusing whatever of these symbols as a more indignant offense than abusing children. Don’t you agree Radical ?
Tertullian is teaching me, helping me to understand better what RP means. I hope you understand what I’m trying to explain.

As a by-product of these feelings of mine, I really exclude IMHO Tertullian was NRP.

Bless you.