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

[pneuma07]

Must? I don’t see how the must “follows”. … Given the purposes of the NT gospels and epistles, given the purposes for the creeds and given the reasons the writings of the apostolic fathers were produced, that silence is far too significant for me to disregard.
…as you have similarly noted, if it wasn’t a mirror, one wouldn’t hold to it.

Let’s put if preferred the “must” into brackets, and see your opinion on the considerations before that, on the HS and me (individual believer).

I cannot see how Bereans, before becoming christians, can be quoted as an example of the organization of a Christian congregation.

There is no contrast between Spirit and obedience. “ Obey your leaders”. That is not Ignatius, but, as you know, Hebrews 13.

What is the essential objection by which we should reject the ignatian concept: “No Bishop, no Eucharist” ?
The recipients of the “touto poieite” (“do this, offer this”) were the Apostles. It were the Apostles who had received this task from the Lord at the Institution. Then, in Ignatius’ sub-apostolic time, this has passed to bishops. We see the bishops considered in charge of the eucharistic sacrifice as soon as the Apostles were no more.

I really appreciate the fact we can share Irenaeus “regula fidei”.
That in no way can compel anybody to a “Sola regula fidei Irenaei”. BTW I wonder how this regula fidei is acceptable to
Protestant brothers, since , *confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love * is not exactly supporting the material principle “Sola fide”, à la reformers.
Moreover, “Sola regula fidei Irenaei” , should you really propose it, would be a different formal principle from “Sola Scriptura”.

The hypothesis that the Church was seriously wrong by 1500 is of a different epistemic status then
the same about the sub-apostolic Church.

Isn’t it of concern for you, that what you ( or I) see, or fail to see, in Scripture, and the ECFs, is seriously different from what another does ? This circumstance “appears far too significant for me to disregard”.

Bless you Radical.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

 thanks for any prayer for my wife.

Hope she is doing better…and I hope you are coping well with an increased work load (I assume that you must do more given her injuries)

And, more specifically, on what source can I claim in 2009 the sub-apostolic Church began going astray?

I guess that we both find support in certain “silences”. From my perspective I ask, on what basis can I claim (in 2009) that the authors of the NT omitted the necessity of a bishop overseeing the Eucharist? On what basis can I claim (in 2009) that the author(s) of the Didache, when giving instructions on how to conduct the Eucharistic meal, omitted the necessity of a bishop overseeing the Eucharist?

The issue of the appointment is to the point….I’m inclined, in this framework, to propose this is the way we should read those words in Didache, the “appoint” being likely short for “play the role you are given in the process of appointment”.

Just as I do not see a bishop as being necessary for a proper Eucharist I do not see a bishop as being necessary for a proper and complete appointment.

Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Philipp had baptized them, but the Apostles had to come so that they could receive the HS by having hands with apostolic authority placed upon them. That appears the normal way by which we receive the Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t say normal…but that is another thread

Who certainly blows wherever he wants.

agreed

I cannot see how Bereans, before becoming christians, can be quoted as an example of the organization of a Christian congregation.

I would think that an act that makes a pre-Christian more noble should typically be continued after becoming a Christian. Further, the example of the Bereans is not unique to them. Paul, in the passage I provided, tells the people to weigh/evaluate what they have heard in the church. Likewise, the Didache calls for the people to evaluate the words of the prophets and teachers. Unquestioned acceptance is contrary to early teaching (IMHO).

There is no contrast between Spirit and obedience. “ Obey your leaders”. That is not Ignatius, but, as you know, Hebrews 13.

I agree that obedience to authority is a general requirement for Christians set out in the scriptures

What is the essential objection by which we should reject the ignatian concept: “No Bishop, no Eucharist” ? The recipients of the “touto poieite” (“do this, offer this”) were the Apostles.

I read 1 Cor 11 (esp v. 23) as demonstrating that although the original recipients were the apostles, we all are now the recipients of the “do this”.

Then, in Ignatius’ sub-apostolic time, this has passed to bishops. We see the bishops considered in charge of the eucharistic sacrifice as soon as the Apostles were no more.

“were no more” would occur with regard to a local church as soon as an apostle was no longer present. I would say (as per 1 Cor) that we see the congregation in charge of the Eucharistic sacrifice as soon as the Apostles were no longer present.

That in no way can compel anybody to a “Sola regula fidei Irenaei”. BTW I wonder how this regula fidei is acceptable to Protestant brothers, since , confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love is not exactly supporting the material principle “Sola fide”, à la reformers.

B/c that bit is preceded with “in the exercise of His grace” I believe that most reformers wouldn’t have too much trouble with that comment.

Moreover, “Sola regula fidei Irenaei” , should you really propose it, would be a different formal principle from “Sola Scriptura”.

I see Sola Scriptura as an answer to a modern question. What can we look at today in order to find the fully sufficient and absolutely reliable message from God? Only Scripture.

The hypothesis that the Church was seriously wrong by 1500 is of a different epistemic status then the same about the sub-apostolic Church.

It is….but the same argument is used by the RC to assert that the Church (as defined by the RC) can not err in 100 AD and to assert that it cannot err in 1500 AD. If the Church can err in 1500 AD, then that argument is no longer available to say an error didn’t occur in 100 AD.

Isn’t it of concern for you, that what you ( or I) see, or fail to see, in Scripture, and the ECFs, is seriously different from what another does?

Not that much. I see Christianity as more of a matter of living right than of believing right (save for that core deposit). Further, I believe that I am more inclusive than the RCC. I don’t view you or other RCs or EOs etc. as not being in full union with the body of Christ b/c of your different view. For the most part, the difference only matters to me in that the other fellow believes his (non-core) belief to be an essential…and that affects unity.

Bless you Pneuma07

 

[pneuma07]

Hope she is doing better…and I hope you are coping well with an increased work load (I assume that you must do more given her injuries)

I guess that we both find support in certain “silences”. From my perspective I ask, on what basis can I claim (in 2009) that the authors of the NT omitted the necessity of a bishop overseeing the Eucharist? On what basis can I claim (in 2009) that the author(s) of the Didache, when giving instructions on how to conduct the Eucharistic meal, omitted the necessity of a bishop overseeing the Eucharist?

Dear Radical,

 your assumption on  work load is most accurate.

What is the development of the doctrine ? (The result of) Answering questions, challenges, situations, which were not explicitly dealt with in the original deposit, on the basis, in faithfulness to and with further insight into the deposit itself.
( the definition is just home made, so allow for inaccuracies ). This process does not begin after the Apostles, but with them. In Acts a clear development is recorded in 15 , as solution to questions posed by the evangelization of gentiles.
Then , as years go on, other answers are needed, namely about the organization of the post-apostolic and pre-parusia Church. When you state: “*Just as I do not see a bishop as being necessary for a proper Eucharist I do not see a bishop as being necessary for a proper and complete appointment.”, *this gives a solution of yours , which is different from the one the sub-apostolic leadership would give.
I cannot share this approach, since it looks like you’re telling the sub-apostolic church you are in a better perspective than them to judge. My main objection is that IMHO your and my knowledge of Jesus’ message come through that leadership, as I tried to point out some posts ago.
I really need an assessment of yours about this point.

As for the Didachè a first answer can be that nothing, beginning from its dimensions, suggests it is a complete catechism. About what it does state, we see, in line with later witnesses:* But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs*”.
Non baptized people cannot receive the Eucharist ( because it is holy). Do you agree with this command ?

As for * I agree that obedience to authority is a general requirement for Christians set out in the scriptures *our common ground here looks larger then suspected.
I see the deliverers of the deposit preoccupied with commanding the careful study and preservation of it, against any novelty. So also the Didachè in chapter 11 But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not.
We must not follow those who destroy the doctrine.

As for *I read 1 Cor 11 (esp v. 23) as demonstrating that although the original recipients were the apostles, we all are now the recipients of the “do this”. *

Do you mean every Christian receives in 1 Cor 11 the power of confecting the Holy Eucharist, as the Apostles had ? How so ? Through the paradosis of the tale of the Institution in verses 23-25 ?
The Apostles were made ministers of the Eucharist at the Institution. Do we agree ?

The physical presence of an Apostle, (and later a bishop) is clearly NOT required. Paul would establish local churches and would appoint ministers. of course he will not always be there. He looks deeply concerned on the appointments by those he appointed too, doesn’t he ? This points to a crucial role for apostolically appointed ministers.
We know Eucharist was central in the life of the Church and her vision ( something we can hardly say about most NRP modern faith communities, you will maybe concur), ever since Easter Sunday, if we look at Luke 24:25-35. How could we bet those apostolically appointed ministers were not in charge of the sanctification, and in particular with the Eucharist ?

I hope it will be noted the argument I am proposing here about the sub-apostolic Church is independent in itself from what would be in 1500. (Have I ever quoted indefectibility or anything like that in this particular framework ?)

If my essentials are not my brothers’ essentials we don’t get unity. I really guess that if you propose the whole of Irenaeus sentence ( forgetting the author) as a basic statement on salvation in a poll for protestant brothers, you would not come out with a consensus on it. Most would not put it like this IMHO.
I could add that the fact you like that statement makes you far from “radical” in my catholic eyes, even if this is not a compliment probably from your perspective ( hope this is not an offense, anyway)

I see meaningful progress in steps such as the Joint Declaration on Justification, signed with the Catholic Church by most lutherans and later joined by most methodists. (Maybe you could join too )

Nevertheless , we must remember that not few brothers object even to the concept itself of a statement of faith. Scripture being their “only statement”. Some would probably argue that you betray Sola Scriptura. (In another thread I’d be glad to answer IMHO the “modern question” you propose).
An even more basic issue IMHO, is that once agreed on a statement, the problems of applications and development (again) arise. Who is in charge with the development ?

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma07, here’s a start. Contribution to a first assessment of the theory
You won’t, unless you are sufficiently motivated…and that is my argument. There is something gained by the belief in a RP so as to give motivation. Karl Rahner, if I am reading him correctly, believes that Hellenistic spirituality also served as a fertile field for a RP view.

.

Now a response to Post 14, to contribute to keep our focus.

For Rahner’s view on Eucharist see eg …donjim.blogspot.com/2003/01/rahner-on-eucharist.html
Could you share his points on Hellenistic spirituality for a common assessment ?

I am with you on the “certain world views could make acceptance of the RP easier and some would make it harder.” , and persuaded the single difficulties about faith can change.

You know a few people are still stating transubstantiation was “invented in Trent”, ie some 30 years after Zwyngli’s death. Glad you are not with them on this one. ( do you share Zwyngli’s position ?)

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.

Two (almost) telegraphic points :

1. 42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” - with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.. Catechism

From the point of view of the Apostolic Churches, the eucharistic doctrine is “theology”, in the strict sense. Let’s keep this present.
The Church is certainly not telling you “ Dear Radical, everything is clear and simple here, why are you so peculiarly struggling about this with your intellect and your heart ?”
See also 1333 “in a way surpassing understanding”

1. If you look at Aquinas in his Summa ( Book III questions 75 and 76) you see that so much
   of what we say or could say today was already being debated then, including interpreting Augustine, Ambrose and so on. It is Aquinas’ understanding, however, that (although we know a minor dispute can be traced back to the IX century) the first real heresy was the one from Berengarius( hence debates and definitions occurring in the XI-XIII centuries: there was a challenge).

I’d like to offer a new argument.

The Orthodox Church does accept transubstantiation, as it was very strongly stated ( even if not dogmatically defined) in 1672 in the Bethleem (aka Jerusalem) Synod. (see Decree 17).
Although we could always find some distinction-loving orthodox brothers, the overall agreement between the catholic position and the eastern orthodox one is so extraordinary, that we have to remember here that
this way, in a framework of a deeply shared Real Presence view of all eastern and oriental Apostolic Churches,
we have that transubstantiation itself ( often considered only a western/style late-medieval development/corruption of the doctrine) appears , allowing (to my poor knowledge ) for a few possible exceptions, almost universally shared in Apostolic Churches.

Such an extraordinary harmony among Apostolic Churches about a doctrine is considered a powerful classic mark of authenticity ( at least since the already mentioned Irenaeus, with a clear exposition in Vincent of Lerins), of originality.
I can hardly imagine being in strong direct opposition to such a degree of consensus in Apostolic Churches without experiencing the least discomfort about that.
And all the more so being this case one of such a “very hard saying”.

Bless you Radical

 

[Radical]

For a bit of a change of pace, (whilst I prepare an answer to the three posts of yours that I haven’t responded to) I would like to discuss a bit about what one or ECFs actually wrote (rather than dwelling on what they didn’t write…ie no confrontation, or no declaration of the requirement of a bishop in the Didache)…as I see the writings of some of the ECFs as supporting my thread’s thesis. I think I posted some of this (regarding Tertullian) in the earlier thread(s) and would like your response:

Here are the passages that I would use (in the limited confines of a thread) to argue Tertullian’s NRP view:
Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 * When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. ** 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. ** *
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being dsitinct from the body. Tertullian makes a very clear distinction with the symbolic bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand.
…continuing with chapter 40:
An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. 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! 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! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.
…continuing with chapter 40:
He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. 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. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. 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. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah,* who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — ** in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine.** Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.*
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively.
From On the Resurrection of the Flesh:
*C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to **devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. **Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 **impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. ***
(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”

 

[Radical]

Allow me to be a bit pre-emptive regarding Tertullian. The main argument that I have seen (against a NRP view in Tertullian’s works) is the “ancients viewed symbols differently than do we” argument. In order for that argument to have any merit, it would have to show that, not only did the ancients view symbols differently than moderns, but that the ancients (and specifically Tertullian) viewed (or could view) a thing as being both a symbol of another thing and actually being that other thing at the same time.

If we look at Tertullian’s use of “figure”, this is what we see from Against Marcion Book III:

• For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. *

In that first quote Tertullian is using “figure” to mean “symbol”. By referring to himself as the bread of heaven, Christ is using bread as a symbol and Christ’s body does not become bread other than it is given bread as a symbol.

c 13 By a similar usage Babylon also in our (St.) John is a figure of the city of Rome, as being like (Babylon) great and proud in royal power, and warring down the saints of God.

Babylon is a symbol of Rome,…a good symbol b/c of it power and warring with saints. No one believes that Babylon was transformed into actually being Rome. Babylon remians Babylon and Rome remains Rome.

*c 16 When Oshea the son of Nun was destined to be the successor of Moses, is not his old name then changed, and for the first time he is called Joshua? It is true, you say. This, then, we first observe, was a figure of Him who was to come. For inasmuch as Jesus Christ was to introduce a new generation. *

Joshua, the name Joshua, was a figure of Jesus. No one believes that Joshua was transformed into actually being Jesus.

*IV 24 Who is He that shall bestow the power of treading on serpents and scorpions? Luke 10:19 Shall it be He who is the Lord of all living creatures or he who is not god over a single lizard? Happily the Creator has promised by Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting their hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without at all receiving hurt. Isaiah 11:8-9 And, indeed, we are aware (without doing violence to the literal sense of the passage, since even these noxious animals have actually been unable to do hurt where there has been faith) that under the figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits, whose very prince is described by the name of serpent, dragon, and every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator. *

Scorpions and serpents are figures of evil spirits. No one believes that scorpions and serpents were transformed into actually being evil spirits. One could go on and on with examples of the use of “figure” from Tertullian. Augustine declared, “For a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself.” That is how the ancients understood signs, symbols and figues. **They are things that cause other things to come to mind. If the bread was actually made into Jesus’s body then it ceases to be another thing and becomes the same thing as the body. The body is not a symbol of the body, it is the body. **Therefore, Tertullian and Augustine cannot say that the bread is a sign/figure of Jesus’s body unless they view it to still be bread. It must be something different than Jesus’s body to be a sign of Jesus’s body. I see nothing in Tertullian or Augustine to suggest that the ancients (and specifically Tertullian) viewed (or could view) a thing as being both a symbol of another thing and actually being that other thing at the same time.

I now come to a consideration of what is more likely:
a) how likely is it that Tertullian’s view included a real bodily presence in light of what he wrote?
b) how likely is it that Tertullian could have held to a NRP w/o a confrontation among ECFs erupting?
I conclude that the likelihood of (b) is greater than the likelihood of (a).

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,
your assumption on work load is most accurate.

been there, done that! Hang in there.

What is the development of the doctrine ? (The result of) Answering questions, challenges, situations, which were not explicitly dealt with in the original deposit, on the basis, in faithfulness to and with further insight into the deposit itself.

I think this is a good definition. Another question would be, what is the infallible development of the doctrine?..and the same answer would work provided one added the requirement of the process being divinely guided.

This process does not begin after the Apostles, but with them. In Acts a clear development is recorded in 15 , as solution to questions posed by the evangelization of gentiles.

agreed

Then , as years go on, other answers are needed, namely about the organization of the post-apostolic and pre-parusia Church. When you state: “*Just as I do not see a bishop as being necessary for a proper Eucharist I do not see a bishop as being necessary for a proper and complete appointment.”, *this gives a solution of yours , which is different from the one the sub-apostolic leadership would give.

right, …so the question becomes whether either school of thought is divinely inspired.

I cannot share this approach, since it looks like you’re telling the sub-apostolic church you are in a better perspective than them to judge. My main objection is that IMHO your and my knowledge of Jesus’ message come through that leadership, as I tried to point out some posts ago.

I am in a better perspective to judge the needs of my Christian community. Ignatius was in a better position to judge the needs of his Christian community. Neither of us is in a position to prescribe a rule of faith to be followed by both communities unless we enjoy divine inspiration.

I really need an assessment of yours about this point.

Well, let’s look specifically at 1 Cor and Ignatius. Paul wrote the Corinthians a letter. They recognized it as having a special authority and so the Corinthians preserved the letter and in time copied it and gave it to other churches for their edification. Like the church of Corinth, the other churches received the letter as possessing a special authority, presumably based upon its authorship by Paul. It would seem that the letter’s special authority was soon seen to be that of scripture. I don’t believe the letter’s authority was ever seriously challenged. Eventually, that letter was grouped with other writings which were seen to possess that same level of authority and the NT was formed. Did Ignatius do anything special or extraordinary so that the letter was preserved for us?..Not that I know of. What can be said, is that, the same people that recognized the special authority of Paul’s letter also recognized a certain authority in Ignatius’s letters. The level of authority, however, that they saw in Ignatius’s letters was decidely less. I am not aware that any one ever viewed Ignatius’s letters to be scripture or to be divinely inspired…and so why should I accept his rules?

As for the Didachè a first answer can be that nothing, beginning from its dimensions, suggests it is a complete catechism.

That is possibly the reason why the requirement of a bishop is absent, but is it likely the reason?

Non baptized people cannot receive the Eucharist ( because it is holy). Do you agree with this command ?

as a rule I agree with that rule.

I see the deliverers of the deposit preoccupied with commanding the careful study and preservation of it, against any novelty. So also the Didachè in chapter 11 But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not.
We must not follow those who destroy the doctrine.

I believe that one must also take into account the more dynamic nature of the apostolic church. The NT and the Didache speak of prophets and of (unnamed) apostles. 1 Cor 14 speaks of everyone having a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. I do not see the very early church as understanding that the original deposit was all that God had to say. There would have been an openness to revelation from sources outside of the 12 plus Paul. That which contradicted the core deposit would be rejected, but that which added to (w/o contradicting) the original deposit could be accepted…and then it becomes a matter of them and us evaluating those additions.

 

[Radical]

continuing…

Do you mean every Christian receives in 1 Cor 11 the power of confecting the Holy Eucharist, as the Apostles had ?

What is there to confect? Having been advised of our Lord’s actions, any Christian can take bread and wine and solemnly distribute them in remembrance of the Lord’s sacrifice.

How so ? Through the paradosis of the tale of the Institution in verses 23-25 ?

Likewise, I believe that the great commission of Matt 28 is given to us all and not just the eleven. The apostles represent the whole church and stand in for us all.

The Apostles were made ministers of the Eucharist at the Institution. Do we agree ?

Don’t know. All Christians are charged with “doing” the Lord’s supper in remembrance of Jesus and all Christians are charged with fulfilling the great commission. Neither task is attached to a particular office.

This points to a crucial role for apostolically appointed ministers.

Indeed, Paul calls it a noble task.

We know Eucharist was central in the life of the Church and her vision ( something we can hardly say about most NRP modern faith communities, you will maybe concur), ever since Easter Sunday, if we look at Luke 24:25-35.

I concur…I also note that Calvin complained that when he first went to Geneva, “the Lord´s Supper was observed only three times a year, and seven whole months intervened between the observance at Pentecost and at the Birthday of Christ.”

How could we bet those apostolically appointed ministers were not in charge of the sanctification, and in particular with the Eucharist ?

…they would have overseen the Lord’s Supper as well as most of the other things that the church did…but, none of that means that a Lord’s Supper was invalid w/o them.

If my essentials are not my brothers’ essentials we don’t get unity.

…or full unity, at least

I could add that the fact you like that statement makes you far from “radical” in my catholic eyes, even if this is not a compliment probably from your perspective ( hope this is not an offense, anyway)

No offense whatsoever! I am “radical” b/c my first two choices were already taken.

I see meaningful progress in steps such as the Joint Declaration on Justification, signed with the Catholic Church by most lutherans and later joined by most methodists. (Maybe you could join too )

I recall seeing it and thinking, hey that’s not bad.

Nevertheless , we must remember that not few brothers object even to the concept itself of a statement of faith. Scripture being their “only statement”. Some would probably argue that you betray Sola Scriptura.

Oh, there will always be some. To Calvinists, I am too Arminian and to Arminians, I am too Calvinistic. To fundamentalists I am too liberal and to liberals I am too fundamental. The lists goes on and on.

(In another thread I’d be glad to answer IMHO the “modern question” you propose).

I would love to take you up on that offer…as I always learn something from you.

…more basic issue IMHO, is that once agreed on a statement, the problems of applications and development (again) arise. Who is in charge with the development ?

the church as a whole…and not the heirarchy of the church and not the church of a particular period of time.

Bless you Pneuma…hope the wife is doing better.

 

[Radical]

Could you share his points on Hellenistic spirituality for a common assessment ?

Upon double checking I wasn’t reading Rahner correctly. He was describing someone else’s view and not his own. Today, Bruce Chilton would fall into the school that holds to the idea that hellenistic philosophy shaped the view of the Eucharist. Chilton states: * One of those concepts was the idea that one 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. This internalisation of the deity came to be celebrated in what were called Mystery Cults, because the idea was that each of them had an esoteric tradition , a mystery, that they’ve guarded very carefully, and then took their initiates into.*
One can easily see how a person coming from that philosophical background would be more receptive to a RP.

You know a few people are still stating transubstantiation was “invented in Trent”, ie some 30 years after Zwyngli’s death. Glad you are not with them on this one. ( do you share Zwyngli’s position ?)

I haven’t read much from Zwingli (I note we spell it differently on this side of the pond), but I agree with everything that I have read.

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.

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.

The Orthodox Church does accept transubstantiation, as it was very strongly stated ( even if not dogmatically defined) in 1672 in the Bethleem (aka Jerusalem) Synod. (see Decree 17). …I can hardly imagine being in strong direct opposition to such a degree of consensus in Apostolic Churches without experiencing the least discomfort about that.

If I thought the Apostolic Churches were truly apostolic, it would be of great discomfort…but it is MHO that, in all likelihood, they are not any more apostolic than the baptist church down the block…in some non-core areas more so and in some non-core areas less so.

 

[Radical]

Now returning to your post # 7

continuing
Looking again at the theory more directly:
a) We have that an NRP understanding was obvious for the Apostles within and after the overall performance by Jesus. The theory needs this point, considering the tales of the Institution. I cannot see how this point gets fixed. That speaks IMHO against the exceptionality of the experience of he Twelve alongside the Word made flesh.

NDfan, who stopped by here for one post referenced an interesting claim (on another thread)…namely, that the Lord’s offering of a cup to the disciples paralleled the offering by a Jewish groom of the “cup of acceptance” to his bride to be. If such a custom existed at that time and if Christ’s words echoed that custom then, a) it sure goes well with the Church being the bride of Christ and b) it makes a literal understanding even more unthinkable. Jamie Lash makes the claim and I would love to see his primary sources…though I have my doubts that he can place that custom in 30 AD. In any event, it seems we are at an impass on this one. It is simply my view that repeatedly witnessing the miraculous (with one senses) will not train one to disregard those same senses so as to find a miracle in what appears for all purposes to be a symbol.

b) We have a highly speculative theory, built without producing ancient passages where the supposed novelty of RP is bashed, or something like that.

If my theory is highy speculative, can your refutation of it be labelled highly presumptuous? If one does not presume that any innovation would be met with great and loud resistance, then what is left of your refutation? The writings of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (for example) sound like they are written by someone with a symbolic view…yet, you insist that such couldn’t be the case b/c it would violate your presumption. I need more than that.

The incremental nature of the paradigm shift has been proposed in order to control this absence. Now that could be somehow plausible if we assumed a more or less uniform path.

I don’t assume a uniform path, nor do I think it is necessary.

That is, a first small step towards RP is somehow reached and uncontroversially shared by everyone everywhere, then a second step is proposed and the same pattern repeated…

again, not shared by everyone everywhere b/c, for instance, we see some ECFs describing the words of institution as figurative/metaphorical whilst other ECFs treat them as not figurative/metaphorical…and by the time Origen comes along, one group could point to a tradition of a figurative understanding and the other group could point to a tradition of a non-figurative understanding with each view possessing very respected ECFs.

Let’s remember now “our” great Augustine. If you remain of the opinion he was ( more or less) NRP well into the V century, then we have a different scenario. According to the title , the general christian environment was by then RP, I mean (even) according to the proposed theory. We have a bishop, a great thinker, a prolific author, who in his 5 million or so recorded words ( where did I read that number ? ) never engaged in even friendly controversies with a colleague of his, be he his revered mentor Ambrose or any other.

So what would you suggest that Augustine should have done in the situation that I have postulated for him? Should he have a) ignored his own beliefs and also the respected ECFs that taught a figurative understanding or b) challenged the wisdom of the respected ECFs that taught or were currently teaching a non-figurative understanding by ripping apart their works touching on the Eucharist and thereby calling into question whatever else they taught or c) simply express his own view that eating Jesus’s flesh is a figurative thing w/o tossing the church into further turmoil? I note that Augustine does clearly say that the command to eat Jesus’s flesh is to be understood figuratively…but in all those words he wrote does he ever clearly say that the substance of the bread was changed to the substance of flesh?

O r vice versa. At this point it becomes apparent the theory has to deal with the coexistence of supposed NRP leaders with fully RP ones, and the construction imagined to carefully avoid the )coexistence of distant views does not stand.

It seems that I must not have been very clear on what I was suggesting.

Take care

 

[pneuma07]

For a bit of a change of pace, (whilst I prepare an answer to the three posts of yours that I haven’t responded to) I would like to discuss a bit about what one or ECFs actually wrote (rather than dwelling on what they didn’t write…ie no confrontation, or no declaration of the requirement of a bishop in the Didache)…as I see the writings of some of the ECFs as supporting my thread’s thesis. I think I posted some of this (regarding Tertullian) in the earlier thread(s) and would like your response:

."

Dear Radical,
We’re back to exegesis”work load” . This is what I could do as for now in this gound.

I am afraid I have to start from the second post .
What is peculiar in Tertullian’s contribution to the long development of the word “figura” , is that he appears to be the first one to introduce the sense of “prophetic anticipation of an event afterwards to be fulfilled”, for the greek “typos”. There are many examples of this new usage in him, some of which you quoted.
The question we have is rather about the other usages of “figura”, ie where it is not a “prophetic anticipation”. Is the term “figura”, or its connected verb “figurare” only used in contexts we’d call today “figurative” ?
Among the most ancient latin quotations of the NT, Phil 2:6 “being in the FORM of God” we find that it can become “in FIGURA Dei constitutus”. Not a “figurative” context indeed, if you are not a docetist or anti-trinitarian.

A IV century version of the Nicene Creed is quoted translating “was made flesh and became man” by “corpus atque FIGURAM hominis suscepit”.
Became man = Figuram hominis suscepit.
In Tertullian himself we have this passage:
This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united, which is
et in utero ejus caro figuratus, nascitur homo Deo mistus. …Apology 21

Clearly Tertullian, the staunch adversary of marcionists, did believe Christ was made flesh, not that His flesh was a figure of something, or just appearance.

Now going back to the famous quotation from Advesus Marcionem Book 4 , ch. 40.

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.

The first reason why we can doubt of the proposed reading is that simple: He made it His own body”.
Is this contradicted by the following, or the “This is my body , that is, the figure of my body”.
Why not saying “he made it a sign (or so) of His own body ?
The other point has to do with Book 3 Ch. 19

After quoting Jeremiah, in a context of OT types about Christ ( figurae, in the new sense)
iii.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread ( "IMHO the Latin says “given to the bread the figure of his body : corporis sui figuram pani dedisse”) , whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.

Here Tertullian is IMHO playing a little with words. He’s not saying IMHO; the body was a symbol in the OT, as it is in the NT. It is clear he’s saying that in the prophet, the bread was a type ( figure of prophetic anticipation) of the body of Christ. The expression: giving the bread the “figura” of His body, does not really sound : taking the bread as symbol.
And it strongly reminds of the expressions quoted above, which are definitely realistic.

Why then adding “that is a “figura” of His Body”, in 4.40 ? In His attack against marcionists, he knows they would say “If the body is the bread, then the flesh is not a veritable body”.
So he keeps the distinction IMHO between His body with bodily appearance, and the bread wich receives the “figura” of the body.

He further explains that bread was a type of His body, and wine a type of His blood.

*BTW. Do you consider the (eucharistic ) bread a symbol of the blood of the Lord ? *

Next let’s go to another work.
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 order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit
. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
after this veritable hymn to sacramentalism, the sentence we have to carefully read here:
*“caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima Deo saginetur”
the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. *
The context makes it abundantly clear that Eucharist is referred to.

Consider please:

1. if His Body is merely “symbolized” by the bread, how can our flesh feed on His Body?
   But let’s try then the usual insertion:
   “ The flesh feeds on (“a mere symbol of)the body and bood of Christ , so that the soul too may fatten on God".
   I eat a mere symbol so that my soul may fatten on God. Has a mere symbol the power to have my soul “fattened on God”, by simply eating it with my flesh?

In case we were however inclined to answer in the affirmative, we have to remember the “et” . : ut ET anima Deo saginetur. By this “et”, in this position, we understand our flesh “fattens on God”. The flesh, which feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, fattens on God. We can hardly find anything more realistic than this.

Bless you

 

[pneuma07]

Today, Bruce Chilton would fall into the school that holds to the idea that hellenistic philosophy shaped the view of the Eucharist.

I haven’t read much from Zwingli (I note we spell it differently on this side of the pond), but I agree with everything that I have read.

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.

If I thought the Apostolic Churches were truly apostolic, it would be of great discomfort…but it is MHO that, in all likelihood, they are not any more apostolic than the baptist church down the block…in some non-core areas more so and in some non-core areas less so.

For a perspective on alleged dionysiac influences on Christianity www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html

Your spelling is the common and seemigly right one on both sides, and I am adopting it. I had imagined you are much more insisting than Zwingli on some sort of presence. (Although his own precise vision is debated )

I perceive how great a mistrust you feel for the Catholic Church .
Remember that she became established in the last twenty years of the IV century, to be soon under persecution or at least control again in most of western regions, under arian rulers. (Roman Africa was eg ruled, just since Augustine’s death, by arian Vamdals, Spain by Visigoths, Italy by Ostrogoths and then Lombards) It is manifest RP was not the fruit of the sword used by the Church.
If , however, you know cases of persecutions (or anything similar) because of NRP tenets in the V century or so, that should certainly be considered.

I take note that apostolicity in modern non-catholic western Christianity has been transformed from an objective mark of orthodoxy, to … the subjective claim of the same. This modern definition sounds more or less: “apostolic communities are…those agreeing with me”,( who am the one agreeing with he Apostles).

That is at odds, eg, with that Irenaeus, the one whose regula fidei you propose as a basic creed.

This profound transformation of the meaning appears simply necessary for those communities being issue of the Reformation. But this way, the concept is IMHO made useless.

 

[Radical]

Pneuma07, just a few quick clarifications re your last post

For a perspective on alleged dionysiac influences on Christianity…

I 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 perceive how great a mistrust you feel for the Catholic Church .

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.

Remember that she became established in the last twenty years of the IV century, to be soon under persecution or at least control again in most of western regions, under arian rulers. (Roman Africa was eg ruled, just since Augustine’s death, by arian Vamdals, Spain by Visigoths, Italy by Ostrogoths and then Lombards) It is manifest RP was not the fruit of the sword used by the Church.

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.

 

[pneuma07]

been there, done that! Hang in there.
I think this is a good definition. Another question would be, what is the infallible development of the doctrine?..and the same answer would work provided one added the requirement of the process being divinely guided.
agreed
right, …so the question becomes whether either school of thought is divinely inspired…

Dear Radical,

your encouragement is appreciated. What had happened to you ?

I note we have a large common ground here, in that you basically say we received as NT what the early Church decided eventually to define as NT. I am again with you that we do not know Ignatius’ specific role about this or that book. ( I guess he could not see all the books of the would be NT before his death).

You are with the early Church saying Ignatius letters are not in canon. You accept , step by step these decisions by the early Church. You ask why you (we) should accept Ignatius’ views then.
For the same reason you accept Revelation is canonical and the Didachè as extra-canonical: the sub-apostolic Church decided to adopt those views, as she decided ( in a longer process) the Canon.

I propose that we should consider whether the rejection of this decision is a consistent approach, and above all, again: on what source can I say the sub-apostolic Church was wrong ? Are you more God-breathed than the whole of the group of those selected by the Apostles for the ministry of the Word ? Shall we teach the sub-apostolic leadership what the deposit is ? Shall we teach those to whom the deposit was entrusted in the first place to be passed to future generations ?
What is our access to the deposit by-passing them ?

“It becomes a matter of them and us evaluating”, you state.
But I am, definitely, not on equal footing with the sub-apostolic Church.
Under your seemingly agnostic statement, you are IMHO somehow deciding to teach the sub-apostolic Church( at least in some areas).

I decide to be taught by Her.
Is that wrong ?

A second answer about Didachè is that this text appears to be
mirroring the transition between the apostolic and the sub-apostolic, rather than describing and organizing an already sub-apostolic stage.

Bless you

 

[Cluny]

The non-real-presence church is the corrupt church.

 

[Radical]

What is peculiar in Tertullian’s contribution to the long development of the word “figura” , is that he appears to be the first one to introduce the sense of “prophetic anticipation of an event afterwards to be fulfilled”, for the greek “typos”…The question we have is rather about the other usages of “figura”, ie where it is not a “prophetic anticipation”. Is the term “figura”, or its connected verb “figurare” only used in contexts we’d call today “figurative” ?

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.

From following that argument and explanation from Tertullian in c. 40 there should be no doubt that Tertullian used “figura” as we would use symbol or representation. Tertullian, himself even cartegorized it as a methaphorical usage. Here are the portions of c. 40 that I have in mind:

We start with the first passage where Tertullian felt the need to clarify what Jesus meant when he said, “This is my body” (One can’t help but wonder why that manner of clarification would be necessary if Tertullian shared a RC view).

When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. 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.

5 sentences later Tertullian began to explain how ancient the use of that figure was:

He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: “I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,” which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.

The reference is to Jer 11:19 where Tertullian saw the mention of a tree and bread (Septuagint) as representing Jesus’s body and the cross.
Then Tertullian went on to consider the use of wine for the symbol of Jesus’s blood and after a few sentences stated:

• In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, “Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?” The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood.*

The reference is to Isaiah 63:1(Sept) where Tertullian saw the mention of garments dyed in red (as if from a winepress) as representing/symbolizing the bleeding condition of Christ’s flesh. He categorized this as a metaphor. Tertullian then immediately provided a second example for wine serving as a symbol of Jesus’s blood.

• Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, “He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes”–in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.*

The reference is to Gen 49:11 where Tertullian saw Judah’s garments as being a representation of Jesus’s flesh and the washing wine as being a representation of Christ’s blood.
As such, in the passage in question, Tertullian made it absolutely clear that he was using “figure” in a symbolic/metaphorical sense and so when Tertullian clarified Jesus’s meaning with, “‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body” we can be sure that Tertullian was understanding Christ to be saying, “This bread is a symbol of my body”.

 

[Radical]

continuing

The other point has to do with Book 3 Ch. 19
After quoting Jeremiah, in a context of OT types about Christ ( figurae, in the new sense)
iii.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread ( "IMHO the Latin says “given to the bread the figure of his body : corporis sui figuram pani dedisse”) , whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.

Here Tertullian is IMHO playing a little with words. He’s not saying IMHO; the body was a symbol in the OT, as it is in the NT. It is clear he’s saying that in the prophet, the bread was a type ( figure of prophetic anticipation) of the body of Christ. The expression: giving the bread the “figura” of His body, does not really sound : taking the bread as symbol.

Again, I can not see how this could possibly help your argument. This is one of the same passages that Tertullian referenced in Against Marcion bk 4 c. 40 and he expresses the same ideas. Tertullian saw (in Jeremiah) a prophetic reference to Christ when Jeremiah “prophesies to the Jews, who should say, Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof, that is, His body.” Tertullian explains that the tree is the cross, that is, that the tree represents the cross. He explains that the bread is Christ’s body, that is, that the bread represents Christ’s body. It is not as if the fruit of the tree was actually the body of Christ, but rather the fruit of the tree represented Christ’s body in the prophecy. If we apply that usage to the key phrase in Against Marcion where it reads “‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body” then we have the result that it isn’t that the bread is actually the body of Christ that is broken for us, but rather the bread represented Christ’s body that would be broken for us.

He further explains that bread was a type of His body, and wine a type of His blood.

…and in no case is Tertullian’s type/figure of the body actually the body…it is always something different…it is really fruit of a tree or garments or bread and never the actual body itself.

*BTW. Do you consider the (eucharistic ) bread a symbol of the blood of the Lord ? *

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

Next let’s go to another work.
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 order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit, the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God
…Consider please:

1. if His Body is merely “symbolized” by the bread, how can our flesh feed on His Body?

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.

But let’s try then the usual insertion:
“ The flesh feeds on (“a mere symbol of)the body and bood of Christ , so that the soul too may fatten on God".

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.

I eat a mere symbol so that my soul may fatten on God. Has a mere symbol the power to have my soul “fattened on God”, by simply eating it with my flesh?

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?

In case we were however inclined to answer in the affirmative, we have to remember the “et” . : ut ET anima Deo saginetur. By this “et”, in this position, we understand our flesh “fattens on God”. The flesh, which feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, fattens on God.

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

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

your encouragement is appreciated. What had happened to you ?

on the positive side, 2 pregnancies and on the negative side 2 bouts of breast cancer.

You are with the early Church saying Ignatius letters are not in canon. You accept , step by step these decisions by the early Church. You ask why you (we) should accept Ignatius’ views then.
For the same reason you accept Revelation is canonical and the Didachè as extra-canonical: the sub-apostolic Church decided to adopt those views, as she decided ( in a longer process) the Canon.

I don’t believe that an exact parallel exists here. Regarding Revelation we have a decision by the EC that the book represented a divine revelation dating back to an apostle and with respect to the Didache a decision that it doesn’t amount to divine revelation. Regarding the need for a bishop for the Eucharist when was it first declared that this requirement is founded on a revelation dating back to an apostle? The teachings of both Revelation and the Didache were followed by the EC, but only one was viewed as being absolutely binding. Why treat Ignatius’s teaching about the necessity of a bishop for the Eucharist as being on par with Revelation?

I propose that we should consider whether the rejection of this decision is a consistent approach, and above all, again: on what source can I say the sub-apostolic Church was wrong ?

Regarding consistency please consider:
a) if I accept the validity of one teaching by the EC, does that mean I have decided everything the EC did was valid?
b) If I accept that the EC managed to accurately preserve a written work from an apostle, does that mean that I have decided that everything else put forward by the EC must be an accurately preserved teaching of an apostle?
Regarding the source that the sub-apostolic Church is wrong, where the sub-apostolic teaching goes beyond what is contained in the NT why should it be assumed that the teaching is apostolic and correct? …and where the sub-apostolic teaching goes beyond what is contained in both the NT and the summarizations of the deposit, why should it be assumed that the teaching is apostolic and correct?

Are you more God-breathed than….

nope.

… the whole of the group of those selected by the Apostles for the ministry of the Word ?

and who in that group (of those selected by the apostles themselves) has provided us with something in writing saying that these extra-NT teachings were received directly from the apostles? Well I am at it, what authoritative source does Ignatius provide for the teaching of the necessity of the bishop for the Eucharist? Did he clarify whether it was a) directly received from an apostle, b) indirectly received from an apostle, c) received from a prophet, d) received by himself by a “word”, e) derived by himself as being a practical solution, or f) some other way? You seem to assume that it is either (a) or (b). If so, why? I need more than simply your assertion that Ignatius wouldn’t have done anything but (a) or (b) or that the EC wouldn’t have adopted anything but (a) or (b).

Shall we teach the sub-apostolic leadership what the deposit is ?

In the sources from the ECFs that summarize the deposit, where is it first stated that the deposit included the teaching of the necessity of the bishop for the Eucharist? If it is not included initially in the summarizations, why should we assume that it was part of the original deposit?

Shall we teach those to whom the deposit was entrusted in the first place to be passed to future generations ?

Shall we not try and determine the bounds of the original deposit rather than just assume everything taught by the ECFs fell into it….and into it in alignment with the RCC’s current understanding?

What is our access to the deposit by-passing them ?

It must be that great volume of works by those appointed directly by the apostles. ….or the works of the apostles themselves.

“It becomes a matter of them and us evaluating”, you state.
But I am, definitely, not on equal footing with the sub-apostolic Church.
Under your seemingly agnostic statement, you are IMHO somehow deciding to teach the sub-apostolic Church( at least in some areas)

Well, definitely not teach them…’cuz after all, they are long since dead and therefore, not teachable. It is really a question of how they should teach me. Are they to be treated as infallible in what they did? We know that they frequently made mistakes. IIRC your two strongest passages for arguing that Augustine believed in a RP come from cases where he had a bad understanding of the OT passage. In 1st Clement we are taught about the phoenix and IIRC in Barnabas we are taught about weasels birthing through their mouths…or is it hyenas? Why do you presume, that although they made obvious errors, that they can’t have made an error regarding the necessity of the bishop for the Eucharist?

I decide to be taught by Her.
Is that wrong ?

I would always caution against accepting a teaching without question. In making your decision “to be taught by Her” what evaluation did you make? What questions did you ask?

 

[pneuma07]

continuing…
What is there to confect? Having been advised of our Lord’s actions, any Christian can take bread and wine and solemnly distribute them in remembrance of the Lord’s sacrifice. .

From a RP perspective, confecting Eucharist means repeating
Christ’s action to have the eucharistic species transformed into
Himself, acting in His place as His minister.
*any Christian can take bread and wine and solemnly distribute them in remembrance of the Lord’s sacrifice. * Of course any Christian can do that
The verb poiein, a common verb with the general meaning of “to do”, also has a peculiar biblical meaning as “to offer”.

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

We agree the Eucharist appears central in the early and primitive Church.

*…as I always learn something from you. * That’s very kind of you. Of course I am learning from you and our dialogue.

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.
Just a consideration occurring these days, and valid for myself.

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

 

[pneuma07]

… In any event, it seems we are at an impass on this one. It is simply my view that repeatedly witnessing the miraculous (with one senses) will not train one to disregard those same senses so as to find a miracle in what appears for all purposes to be a symbol.
If my theory is highy speculative, can your refutation of it be labelled highly presumptuous? If one does not presume that any innovation would be met with great and loud resistance, then what is left of your refutation? The writings of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (for example) sound like they are written by someone with a symbolic view…yet, you insist that such couldn’t be the case b/c it would violate your presumption. I need more than that.
I don’t assume a uniform path, nor do I think it is necessary.
again, not shared by everyone everywhere b/c, for instance, we see some ECFs describing the words of institution as figurative/metaphorical whilst other ECFs treat them as not figurative/metaphorical…and by the time Origen comes along, one group could point to a tradition of a figurative understanding and the other group could point to a tradition of a non-figurative understanding with each view possessing very respected ECFs.
So what would you suggest that Augustine should have done in the situation that I have postulated for him? Should he have a) ignored his own beliefs and also the respected ECFs that taught a figurative understanding or b) challenged the wisdom of the respected ECFs that taught or were currently teaching a non-figurative understanding by ripping apart their works touching on the Eucharist and thereby calling into question whatever else they taught or c) simply express his own view that eating Jesus’s flesh is a figurative thing w/o tossing the church into further turmoil? I note that Augustine does clearly say that the command to eat Jesus’s flesh is to be understood figuratively…but in all those words he wrote does he ever clearly say that the substance of the bread was changed to the substance of flesh?

Take care

1. Rather than training specifically not to necessarily follow their senses ( which is not bad), I guess Jesus’ life alongside them, and then His Resurrection, would persuade them that He was the Truth and almighty. Within this context, we cannot IMHO postulate the Institution was certainly perceived as a merely symbolic speech, and even obviously so.
2. I do hope we’re not going back to exegesis on Augustine, unless you declare it essential in the present thread.
   It is my humble persuasion ( or “presumption”, you’d probably say. BTW I totally agree my persuasions/presumptions are nothing here in themselves. Unless they happen to appear reasonable and maybe somehow receivable by you. I cannot know which category a persuasion/presumption belongs to, before presenting or developing it ) that those great authors we’re touching here, generally would understand each other – for a number of motivations - better than me ( and possibly another guy today) can understand them.
   If this is reasonable and if we take note they would no way reproach each other for their presentations
   of the Eucharistic issue, the general view we can get about those authors and ancient Christianity as a whole make it much less plausible IMHO, that this was the case for constant pro bono pacis decisions ( moreover we have agreed that Eucharist was central) , than because there were simply no real disagreements.

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

Bless you.