The eucharist antitype

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alvarillo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alvarillo

Guest
Irenæus says:

“And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”

Antitype is defined as "an·ti·type (nt-tp)
n.
  1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
  2. An opposite or contrasting type."
Now for the question. Is Irenæus saying that the eucharist is a mere symbol? This completely contradicts other things I have read from him, so I’m inclined to think it is a misinterpretation, but what then does he mean? :confused:

(to see it in context go to: newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm)
 
Two thoughts that must always be entertained when trying to understand what a person is saying who wrote hundreds and thousands of years earlier:

1st look to the original language. Is antitype the best translation of the word Iraneous used?

2nd is the current dictionary’s definition of antitype the same definition as antitype would have had at the time that Iraneous wrote?

I don’t know the answer to either of those questions :(,
and I don’t know how one would find the answer to those questions :o,
BUT the answer to them is very important to know in order to answer your original question. 🤷
 
If you read the complete paragraph that is the context of the couple of sentences the OP quotes, it can be seen that it is the first definition of “Antitype” that fits. Ireneous is referring to the Blessed Eucharist having been foreshadowed by the various forms mentioned in the first half of this paragraph (such as our bodies, and incense; which are all carnal) and saying that these people may now avail themselves of the reality that these “types” were but a shadow of in the past.

He may also be referring to the fact that before the consecration, the bread and wine are mere carnal matter and have no real spiritual significance and are therefore mer types for His body and blood which they are transsubstantiated into after. This would fit the first definition as well because His Body and Blood would be antitypes to the unconsecrated bread and wine…

Of course I am no authority: but it does seem to fit…I think.

" Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of’ the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom."
 
He may have been refering to the bread and wine as symbols of the true presence of the body and the blood of Jesus. Because he truly preached the body and blood of Jesus in the forms of bread and wine.:):):):):):)🙂
 
we also find In the “Constitution of the Holy Apostles”, Section 6, “and offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ”.

The MW dictionary “representation” a picture or image that represents sommething else.

And then in “Origen against Celsus” Book VIII, chapter 57 we read " And we have aSYMBOL of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist"

There is convincing evidence that the ECF did not beliieve in the real presence.
 
He may have been talking about the manna from heaven and the blood of the OT lamb sacrifice for sin as being the anti-type of the Real Presence, the bread and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ.
Just my thoughts
Jeanne
 
allischalmers said:
we also find In the “Constitution of the Holy Apostles”, Section 6, “and offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ”.

The MW dictionary “representation” a picture or image that represents sommething else.

And then in “Origen against Celsus” Book VIII, chapter 57 we read " And we have aSYMBOL of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist"

There is convincing evidence that the ECF did not beliieve in the real presence.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing! don’t any of the great catholic thinkers want to comment on these two quotes
 
allischalmers said:
It’s amazing! don’t any of the great catholic thinkers want to comment on these two quotes
Click to expand...
again, the points about context and the varying meanings of language over time are pertinent. In particular, strong words tend to become weaker over time (both “soon” and “anon” meant “right this minute” when they first came into use in English).

“Representation” today can mean nothing more powerful than a picture. A more accurate reading would be re-presentation, which is what the Eucharist is - a making present, again, of the sacrifice of Calvary - not by re-crucifying Jesus, obviously, but the Holy Spirit making it present to us.

As to Ireneus, he made it clear in more than one place that he considered the belief in the reality of the Eucharistic presence to be an essential of the faith.
Ireneus, Against Heresies Chap XVIII
Click to expand...
For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the Flesh and Spirit. For as bread which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity … that flesh which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from bread which is his body.
Click to expand...
[fruit and grain] through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of the Christ
Click to expand...
And Origen’s use of “symbol” is not the equivalent of “mere symbol” - the Eucharist is in fact a symbol - but a symbol that effects what it symbolizes.
 
allischalmers said:
we also find In the “Constitution of the Holy Apostles”, Section 6, “and offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ”.

The MW dictionary “representation” a picture or image that represents sommething else.

And then in “Origen against Celsus” Book VIII, chapter 57 we read " And we have aSYMBOL of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist"

There is convincing evidence that the ECF did not beliieve in the real presence.
Click to expand...
Neither Origen nor Irinaeus were canonized Saints either. Saint Justin the Martyr and Saint Ignatius of Antioch both made it quite clear that they believed in the Real Presence.

I am not a theologian or a philosopher. All I know is that the first time I went into an adoration chapel, I knew that Jesus is as truly present in the Eucharist as He was on the road to Emmaus- where, coincidentally, He was recognized in the breaking of the bread.
 
NHInsider said:
again, the points about context and the varying meanings of language over time are pertinent. In particular, strong words tend to become weaker over time (both “soon” and “anon” meant “right this minute” when they first came into use in English).

“Representation” today can mean nothing more powerful than a picture. A more accurate reading would be re-presentation, which is what the Eucharist is - a making present, again, of the sacrifice of Calvary - not by re-crucifying Jesus, obviously, but the Holy Spirit making it present to us.

As to Ireneus, he made it clear in more than one place that he considered the belief in the reality of the Eucharistic presence to be an essential of the faith.

And Origen’s use of “symbol” is not the equivalent of “mere symbol” - the Eucharist is in fact a symbol - but a symbol that effects what it symbolizes.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that was very helpful. 👍
 
NHInsider said:
And Origen’s use of “symbol” is not the equivalent of “mere symbol” - the Eucharist is in fact a symbol - but a symbol that effects what it symbolizes.
Click to expand...
As I reread some of the posts – your explanation of “symbol” sounds a lot like the explanation of the signs of the Sacraments. Is that right?
 
NHInsider said:
“Representation” today can mean nothing more powerful than a picture. A more accurate reading would be re-presentation, which is what the Eucharist is - a making present, again, of the sacrifice of Calvary - not by re-crucifying Jesus, obviously, but the Holy Spirit making it present to us.

And Origen’s use of “symbol” is not the equivalent of “mere symbol” - the Eucharist is in fact a symbol - but a symbol that effects what it symbolizes.
Click to expand...
That’s quite a word dance you’re trying to do HNInsder. But it won’t work. I am sure that those people that translated the ECF’s were very well educated poeple and were careful to accurately give us the message that the ECF’s wanted their reader to recieve

You do not have to put word’s in their mouth.
 
allischalmers said:
we also find In the “Constitution of the Holy Apostles”, Section 6, “and offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ”.

The MW dictionary “representation” a picture or image that represents sommething else.

And then in “Origen against Celsus” Book VIII, chapter 57 we read " And we have aSYMBOL of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist"

There is convincing evidence that the ECF did not beliieve in the real presence.
Click to expand...
Hi Allischalmers,

I am trying to catch up with your very interesting posts.🙂

First. What is ECF?

Sorry, but having spent time in Alaska where everything is written in alphabeticism, I have lost tract of the Lower 48 definitions. Could ECF be early Christian fathers? If so, what do the late Christian fathers believe? :confused: I can hear the laughter, :rotfl:
that’s o.k., but this is a serious question.

Second. I use an unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition along with current dictionaries.

From the unabridged dictionary:
“Representation” n. 1. the act of representing. There are 16 definitions of representation.

Looks like there can be some interesting discussion regarding picture and act. 😃 Especially since, in my humble opinion, symbolism can be found in the Catholic Eucharist.

The etymology for the word “re-present” is intriguing ; “re-pre sent” v.t. to present again or anew. [1555-65; re + present (2)]
granny note: (2) refers to the verb form rather than the noun form.

Blessings,
granny

Jesus Christ is the Source of eternal truth.
 
allischalmers said:
That’s quite a word dance you’re trying to do HNInsder. But it won’t work. I am sure that those people that translated the ECF’s were very well educated poeple and were careful to accurately give us the message that the ECF’s wanted their reader to recieve

You do not have to put word’s in their mouth.
Click to expand...
I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth. I am making a legitimate observation about the English language. I wasn’t the one who suggested that the use of the word “representation” in one sentence undermines paragraphs of statements regarding the character of the Eucharistic elements. 🤷
 
What is it that is being symbolized? Gratitude. The symbol does not define the bread but is cotained by it.
 
Alvarillo said:
Irenæus says:
“And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
Antitype is defined as "an·ti·type (nt-tp)
n.
  1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
  2. An opposite or contrasting type."
Now for the question. Is Irenæus saying that the eucharist is a mere symbol? This completely contradicts other things I have read from him, so I’m inclined to think it is a misinterpretation, but what then does he mean? :confused:

(to see it in context go to: newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm))
Click to expand...
This is how I understand it.

The oblation begins as an offering of thanks for carnal nourshment and it’s end is spiritual nourishment. Those are anti-types.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top