Purely Symbolic Eucharist Apologetics from Church Fathers

[rbarcia]

Both Clement and Origen spoke of the bread and wine being figurative. Clement is often misquoted in one section, but if you read the larger text, you get another perspective.

Same can be said for many other early Christian writings.

Tertullian is quotes are often taken out of context, like

“We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.” (Notice, he does not call it body/blood like other places)

if you read the section around it, there is no context that this section is referring to Eucharist.

You can make cases from other parts of Tertullian that it is not exactly straight forward to say that he is arguing for Transubstantiation.

If in the writings, they are arguing for Real Presence, then it means that there was some debate since many of these writings are a response to another view point.

In general, misquotes and sections of a writing does not argue for what most people believed in the day. You cannot say “Because Clement wrote X, Most Christians believed X” That is just making too far a jump.

I can quote pieces of Irenaeus that seem to argue against Real Presence.

“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors,** except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect.** Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?’” (Fragment 13)

There is text in Justin Martyr and also argue against Tran and Real Presence as well.

Net/Net early church writings are no way a smoking gun for what early Christians thought of communion as people think.

 

[Kliska]

There is no problem at all.

When Jesus says He is the door, He goes and explains how it is that He is a door:

John 10:9 I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

When Jesus says He is the vine, He goes and explains how it is that He is a vine:

John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

When He says, the bread is His body and the wine is His blood. He does not say, I am a bread or I am a wine. The definition is given in the assertion. Because there is nothing else to make clear. This is…

The problem still remains because He did not always explain his words, but He actually did in John 6 just as He did with the vine and door passages. This is why I’m focused on the Last Supper direct descriptions, and not John 6. This again, is why my questions were directed at Lutherans, as Luther’s main contention to other non-Catholics was focused on the Last Supper passages.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

Lewis tended to miss out on the Jewish ideas behind many of the happenings in scripture; including the Passover elements of bread and wine and why specifically those where chosen. I’m sure, though we are fans, we both know of some of Lewis’ teachings we don’t agree with.

Thanks for your reply. I do really appreciate being able to have these kind of serious discussions with people! It is very refreshing.

As far as the Jewishness of the Eucharist is concerned, I would maintain that the Real Presence is very Jewish. If you have time, please check out the following links:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catechesis/catechetical-sunday/eucharist/upload/catsun-2011-doc-pitre-roots.pdf
hebrewcatholic.net/eucharist-jewish-mystical-tradition-part-1/

It is fascinating to see how much the Eucharist is a real fulfillment of the Passover!

And yes, a long conversation over pie and coffee would be great! lol As one Lutheran friend of mine says, “Teaching and feasting go together.”

Thanks!

 

[Kliska]

id rather find what we do believe in common than what seperates us! But sometimes it means clarifying what we believe in oerder to reveal what we dont agree with.

You know I agree with both!

I do acknowledge there can be a ‘seemingly’ fine line between bread with the ‘presence’ of Jesus and bread that no longer is bread, but actual ‘flesh’ of Christ. Both intentions and faiths would profess much of the same essentials about who Jesus is, what He did for us, what He is to us, and so on. But somehow, Transubstantiation is a deeper more profound action of faith and participation than a ‘spiritual’ presence. It boils down to the reality that Christs actual body and blood opened the doors of heaven for us. We are all held together through this one Word made flesh!

But we also agree that we have to make sure the teaching is true, or else we are being diverted from the truth of the passages and our relationship with Christ. I believe, in essence, that we are indeed the body of Christ; you and I are both united in Him, not in a “symbolic” sense, but in a truly efficacious sense. I have the real presence of Christ, as do you, we just don’t see it in the same way. I don’t see it sacramentally.

For me, it becomes more difficult to reconcile the Lord’s strong Words in John 6 with the seperated protestants who do believe and follow Jesus, yet fall short of full Communion in the Eucharist. But then I remember, that though I receive a true Sacramental Communion in the Eucharist, I constantly fall short of 100% belief in all that I do. So both of our aim should be full participation in both Sacrament and faith working in Love.

And of course my concern is that the focus is too much on the sacramental aspect taught in the RCC, and not enough on the fact of our participation in Christ in a very very real and literal way ever second of every day. No, it is not an either/or, but we agree on the idea of Truth and Truth making us free. So, either transubstantiation is true in the sense the RCC teaches or it isn’t. It is indeed important that we believe truth, for it sets us free.

So, with respect to your posts, I would ask the same as you did of me in your thread. Please provide for me the earliest Church apologetics that clearly seperate your interpretation from a Catholic real flesh and blood Eucharist.

Peace
Michael

As I’ve said previously, it is contained in the scriptures themselves. John’s perspective, Paul’s perspective, and the synoptics all must be self-contained on their own when it comes to explaining salvation, as well as working together. We must keep looking at the whole context of the teachings and make sure they are in harmony. I don’t see that as possible when trying to show transubstantiation from the different accounts. I don’t have a problem with the teaching at all, as long as it is truth. At this point, again, I just don’t see it.

…early church writings are no way a smoking gun for what early Christians thought of communion as people think.

Yup.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

Both Clement and Origen spoke of the bread and wine being figurative. Clement is often misquoted in one section, but if you read the larger text, you get another perspective…

Clement and Origen lived and wrote in Alexandria, which had the distinct reputation for interpreting scripture **with several levels of meaning. **

Scholar Ludwig Ott wrote this: “The Alexandrinians, St. Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen, attest the general belief of the Church that the Lord offers us the partaking of His Body and His Blood. However, due to their penchant for allegory, passages are also found in their writings, in which they use the words body and blood to signify the teaching of Christ, by which our spirits are nourished [Origen is quoted from Contra Celsum VIII,33 cf. In Num hom 7,2; In Exod hom 13,3; In Matt comm ser 85]. As, according to the usage of the Alexandrinians, the same scriptural passage can be variously interpreted, an allegorical interpretation DOES NOT EXCLUDE the possibility of a more fundamental meaning.”

lettersonorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-real-presence-of-jesus-in-the-eucharist/: “It is very important to understand what the word ‘symbol’ meant to the Fathers. In the Greek (which is how the majority of the Fathers would be using it), the word does NOT mean substitution or in place of. It is a compound word made up of sym (meaning together) and ballon (meaning to throw). Thus, a symbol is something where two unlike things are thrown together. Thus, the Eucharist is a symbol because the mundane bread and wine are thrown together with the divine presence of Christ. The Eucharist is BOTH bread and wine AND the body and the blood of Christ. This is how it is a symbol.”

Protestant Theologian Darwell Stone: “As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning ‘symbol’ would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness. ‘What we nowadays,’ he writes, ‘understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies…What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.’”

Here are a few examples of the use of the word “figura” in the ancient world, showing that its definition has considerably devolved to its modern usage:

1. In one of Seneca’s letters it is the equivalent of the Greek word -idea- as used in Platonic philosophy (Ep lxv,7 Latin given).
2. The translation of Phil 2:6 “being in the FORM of God” in the old Latin version becomes “in FIGURA Dei constitutus”
3. After Tertullian, a Roman council spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being “of one Godhead, one power, one FIGURA, one essence” (Council of 370 A.D.)
4. A Gallican version of the Nicene Creed translated “was made flesh and became man” by “corpus atque FIGURAM hominis suscepit”

Finally,let me quote Darwell Stone again: “The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING.”

Therefore, in my opinion, even though Clement and Origen were influenced by the theological allegorizing prevalent in Alexandria, and even though they found several layers of meaning to many, many texts, they both nevertheless believed in a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is a symbol, but it is not just a symbol: it also contains—somehow, mysteriously, spiritually but truly—both the Flesh and Spirit of Christ.

Moreover, the fact the early Church father denied the charge of cannibalism does in no way prove that they didn’t believe in the Real Presence. Why, any Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran today would do the same, and yet they all firmly hold to it! That argument is a logical fallacy.

Here is a good website for you to look at: catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-tertullian-deny-real-presence.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The problem still remains because He did not always explain his words,

That’s why He left a teaching authority (Matthew 28) with His Church .

 

[Mystical_Poet]

That’s why He left a teaching authority (Matthew 28) with His Church .

Exactly!!

 

[Faithdancer]

I believe, in essence, that we are indeed the body of Christ; you and I are both united in Him, not in a “symbolic” sense, but in a truly efficacious sense. I have the real presence of Christ, as do you, we just don’t see it in the same way. I don’t see it sacramentally.

And of course my concern is that the focus is too much on the sacramental aspect taught in the RCC, and not enough on the fact of our participation in Christ in a very very real and literal way ever second of every day. No, it is not an either/or, but we agree on the idea of Truth and Truth making us free. So, either transubstantiation is true in the sense the RCC teaches or it isn’t. It is indeed important that we believe truth, for it sets us free.

As I’ve said previously, it is contained in the scriptures themselves. John’s perspective, Paul’s perspective, and the synoptics all must be self-contained on their own when it comes to explaining salvation, as well as working together. We must keep looking at the whole context of the teachings and make sure they are in harmony. I don’t see that as possible when trying to show transubstantiation from the different accounts. I don’t have a problem with the teaching at all, as long as it is truth. At this point, again, I just don’t see it.

Well stated, Kliska. The only requirement for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. As soon as an organization- a church- starts adding other requirements, that’s legalism. And as soon as a separate class of people is created to mediate between the believer and Christ by administrating said legalistic requirements- that’s sacerdotalism.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And of course my concern is that the focus is too much on the sacramental aspect taught in the RCC, and not enough on the fact of our participation in Christ in a very very real and literal way ever second of every day. No, it is not an either/or, but we agree on the idea of Truth and Truth making us free. So, either transubstantiation is true in the sense the RCC teaches or it isn’t. It is indeed important that we believe truth, for it sets us free.

Ok, please stop here.

The subject for this thread is the Eucharist. As such we are focusing on this sacrament.

Also, you need to understand that the entire purpose of the Sacraments is Jesus Christ. To say that we don’t focus enough on the participation in Christ in a real and literal way is a gross misrepresentation of our theology.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well stated, Kliska. The only requirement for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. As soon as an organization- a church- starts adding other requirements, that’s legalism. And as soon as a separate class of people is created to mediate between the believer and Christ by administrating said legalistic requirements- that’s sacerdotalism.

Right… why on earth would Christ have said that He was going to build a Church on Cephas and choose Apostles to teach others…

Not that is what you can call sarcasm…

 

[Per_Crucem]

You know I agree with both!

But we also agree that we have to make sure the teaching is true, or else we are being diverted from the truth of the passages and our relationship with Christ. I believe, in essence, that we are indeed the body of Christ; you and I are both united in Him, not in a “symbolic” sense, but in a truly efficacious sense. I have the real presence of Christ, as do you, we just don’t see it in the same way. I don’t see it sacramentally.

But the rest of the church, for the last 2000 years, has, Kliska. Even in our own day, as fractured as Christendom is…still, roughly 90% of the Christian world sees Jesus’ presence as sacramental in the Eucharist.

And of course my concern is that the focus is too much on the sacramental aspect taught in the RCC, and not enough on the fact of our participation in Christ in a very very real and literal way ever second of every day. No, it is not an either/or, but we agree on the idea of Truth and Truth making us free. So, either transubstantiation is true in the sense the RCC teaches or it isn’t. It is indeed important that we believe truth, for it sets us free.

How in the world does the teaching that reception of Holy Communion means we have the actual body, blood, humanity and divinity of Christ within us a distraction from our union with Christ? Forget technicalities like transmutation or transubstantiation. I fail to see how a super-spiritual, near gnostic interpretation, of our union with Christ is somehow superior to an actual participation in His humanity and divinity that doesn’t rely on warm fuzzy feelings in order to validate it.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

But the rest of the church, for the last 2000 years, has, Kliska. Even in our own day, as fractured as Christendom is…still, roughly 90% of the Christian world sees Jesus’ presence as sacramental in the Eucharist.

How in the world does the teaching that reception of Holy Communion means we have the actual body, blood, humanity and divinity of Christ within us a distraction from our union with Christ? Forget technicalities like transmutation or transubstantiation. I fail to see how a super-spiritual, near gnostic interpretation, of our union with Christ is somehow superior to an actual participation in His humanity and divinity that doesn’t rely on warm fuzzy feelings in order to validate it.

Couple thoughts:

My hunch is that the 90% estimate of Christians believing in the Real Presence may be too high, especially if we are talking about official church teaching which narrows it down to Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Lutherans.

I think what is difficult for Christians who believe and receive the literal Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to read denial and rejection of such a wonderful Gift. As one Lutheran pastor wrote [paraphrasing]: Heaven touches down to earth as each Mass; we come into the very presence of our Lord and his saints every time we take holy Communion. The very thought is overwhelming to lowly humans just like when Christ appeared to the disciples and God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. It is hard to read and appreciate the rationale for anything less than the actual holy Mystery of the Real Presence and almost sacrilegious to limit Christ in His covenant with His people.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Couple thoughts:

My hunch is that the 90% estimate of Christians believing in the Real Presence may be too high, especially if we are talking about official church teaching which narrows it down to Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Lutherans.

I think what is difficult for Christians who believe and receive the literal Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to read denial and rejection of such a wonderful Gift. As one Lutheran pastor wrote [paraphrasing]: Heaven touches down to earth as each Mass; we come into the very presence of our Lord and his saints every time we take holy Communion. The very thought is overwhelming to lowly humans just like when Christ appeared to the disciples and God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. It is hard to read and appreciate the rationale for anything less than the actual holy Mystery of the Real Presence and almost sacrilegious to limit Christ in His covenant with His people.

2 billion Christians in the world. 1.6 billion of which are either Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox. Okay, so 80%

 

[bogeydogg]

As I’ve said previously, it is contained in the scriptures themselves. John’s perspective, Paul’s perspective, and the synoptics all must be self-contained on their own when it comes to explaining salvation, as well as working together. We must keep looking at the whole context of the teachings and make sure they are in harmony. I don’t see that as possible when trying to show transubstantiation from the different accounts. I don’t have a problem with the teaching at all, as long as it is truth. At this point, again, I just don’t see it.

Yup.

You’re wrong on two counts here.

One is that transubstantiation and real presence are not the same thing. You cannot argue over both and lump them together, especially if you are attempting to get Lutherans to explain transubstantiation or consubstantiation since Lutherans do not confess either doctrine.

Second you cannot hold the documents of Holy Scripture as stand alone books and claim that Jesus speaking to his disciples in John 6 has nothing whatever to do with Jesus speaking to his disciples in the Synoptics. The Church’s fundamental confession about Holy Scripture is that it has ultimately one Author who is God the Holy Spirit who speaks by the Prophets and lead men to write as they were carried along.

To argue the way you do and say that the Synoptics, the Pauline Letters and the Johannine writings have nothing to do with each other is to essentially argue that you don’t believe in Divine Authority of Holy Scripture.

One last thing a straw man argument is an ad hominem (I know what ad hominem means) because it denigrates not only the argument but the one who made it by overly simplifying what was said in order to attack the person by treating their argument as beneath contempt. However since I did not change the content of what you said, neither did I fail to argue your point, what I did was neither a straw man nor an ad hominem.

However when I do fire off an ad hominem it is because I think they are funny not because I think anyone will actually take them seriously. Which is why I will so often place a note next to my logical fallacies or funny faces.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

Well stated, Kliska. ***The only requirement for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. ***As soon as an organization- a church- starts adding other requirements, that’s legalism. And as soon as a separate class of people is created to mediate between the believer and Christ by administrating said legalistic requirements- that’s sacerdotalism.

Wrong! It is much more than just faith my friend. That is the escapist theology. Adding? What do you call hundreds upon hundreds of denominations? Not one denomination has added something not taught by Christ? Time to look in your own backyard my friend before you criticize mine.

 

[Faithdancer]

As I’ve said previously, it is contained in the scriptures themselves. John’s perspective, Paul’s perspective, and the synoptics all must be self-contained on their own when it comes to explaining salvation, as well as working together. We must keep looking at the whole context of the teachings and make sure they are in harmony. I don’t see that as possible when trying to show transubstantiation from the different accounts. I don’t have a problem with the teaching at all, as long as it is truth. At this point, again, I just don’t see it.

Amen, and cherry-picking from Scripture to support the dogma of a particular institution- and thereby support the existence of the institution itself, its hierarchy and worship particulars- isn’t a practice that is exclusive to Roman Catholics, of course. In the Body of Christ there are no denominational separations whether RCC, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, what-have-you. There are only believers, and Christ’s Church includes all who believe in Him.:dancing:

 

[bogeydogg]

And of course my concern is that the focus is too much on the sacramental aspect taught in the RCC, and not enough on the fact of our participation in Christ in a very very real and literal way ever second of every day. No, it is not an either/or, but we agree on the idea of Truth and Truth making us free. So, either transubstantiation is true in the sense the RCC teaches or it isn’t. It is indeed important that we believe truth, for it sets us free.

And here you are just far out in left field. To argue that the RCC does not teach salvation by faith through grace or that we do not teach that we are to participate in Christ is to reveal a level of gross ignorance about the RCC that betrays you having been taught a theology of ignorance. No one who has seriously studied the Catholic Church would ever make such a ludicrous claim, it is absurd and offensive in the extreme.

I will quote to you from the New Jerusalem Bible which a Catholic Bible from a Catholic school on “What is Faith?”

"Faith, which is the response of a human being to God as truth and goodness and so THE ONE SOURCE OF SALVATION, is the reliance on the truth of God’s promises and on God’s faithfulness to them and on his power to implement them. After the long OT period of preparation God has spoken through his Son. We must believe the Son and the proclamation of the Gospel made by the Apostles. The Kerygma proclaims that GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD, MADE HIM LORD, AND THROUGH HIM OFFERS LIFE TO ALL WHO BELIEVE IN HIM. Faith in the name, or person, of Jesus who is Messiah, the Lord, the Son of God is thus THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR SALVATION. Faith is not only intellectual assent it is trust and obedience to the life-giving truth. Faith which thus unites a person to Christ and also confers the Spirit on him, the Spirit of the children of God.

Faith is reliance on God and not on the self and thus contrasts with old order of the Law with its vain search for holiness by works, ONLY FAITH CAN AFFECT TRUE HOLINESS, THE SAVING HOLINESS OF GOD HIMSELF RECEIVED AS A FREE GIFT FROM HIM. Faith relates to the promises made to Abraham and so makes salvation accessible to everyone, gentiles included. It is coupled with baptism, calls for public confession, and expresses itself in charity. Faith is unsupported by the senses or other proofs, and it involves hope as its concomitant. It must be allowed to grow amid struggles and suffering, demanding fortitude and tenacity right up tot he vision and possession of God."

Before you say, “Well there are a lot of provisos in there about doing, and growing and participating…” (which btw is an interlocutor not an ad hominem) I would remind you that most if not all protestant denominations formulate some sort of doctrine about “progressive sanctification” “lordship salvation” “showing your salvation through works” all of which sound exactly the same in practice if not wording as “cooperating with grace”.

And the reason why is simple, the hard boiled “faith alone” preacher knows perfectly well that the Lord said, “If you love me keep my commandments.”

Or does that fall into one of those isolated books that can be taken with a grain of salt?

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

Amen, and cherry-picking from Scripture to support the dogma of a particular institution- and thereby support the existence of the institution itself, its hierarchy and worship particulars- isn’t a practice that is exclusive to Roman Catholics, of course. In the Body of Christ there are no denominational separations whether RCC, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, what-have-you. There are only believers, and Christ’s Church includes all who believe in Him.:dancing:

Would that include Mormons and JW’s even though they deny his divinty?

What about Muslims and Jews, they too believe something about Jesus?

Hindu people believe Jesus is divine! What about them?

 

[Faithdancer]

Would that include Mormons and JW’s even though they deny his divinty?

What about Muslims and Jews, they too believe something about Jesus?

Hindu people believe Jesus is divine! What about them?

Are the groups you mention Trinitarian? Do they recognize and worship Jesus Christ as God? Do they believe that salvation comes through the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ? Do they acknowledge Christ as Redeemer and sole Mediator?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Are the groups you mention Trinitarian? Do they recognize and worship Jesus Christ as God? Do they believe that salvation comes through the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ? Do they acknowledge Christ as Redeemer and sole Mediator?

Whoa, whoa, whoa… That’s too much right there partner. Whatever happen to just faith in Jesus? Don’t be adding trinity rivers, grace, and acknowledgements and conditions…

Plus, this is outside of the scope of the thread.

Yeeehaaa!