E
E.E.N.S
Guest
“…you shall love your neighbor as yourself…”
Fiat (as well as others, including myself) are simply trying to help you come to “see the Light” that is Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Pax Christi.
- Status
Fiat (as well as others, including myself) are simply trying to help you come to “see the Light” that is Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Pax Christi.
F
Fiat
Guest
Why on earth not? Thankfully Christ and the apostles didn’t take that approach.
Because you have come to a Catholic discussion board.
Peace
Fiat
C
Church_Militant
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. 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 baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (*The Mysteries *9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Shall I continue…?
Please do!
Man, it sure is a drag when you misrepresent the ECF and get caught at it big a life eternal. This is the same stuff that we get all the time …allegations that the ECF say things that are simply not factual.
If you got this from one of your favorite anti-Catholic sources, I suggest that you get your money back or just plain stop listening to him and begin your own honest research into what we believe and how it lines up with the ECF.
If what you believe does not line up with the statements of the ECF, then perhaps you have been taught wrong.
Pax tecum,
1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. 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 baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (*The Mysteries *9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Shall I continue…?
Please do!
Man, it sure is a drag when you misrepresent the ECF and get caught at it big a life eternal. This is the same stuff that we get all the time …allegations that the ECF say things that are simply not factual.
If you got this from one of your favorite anti-Catholic sources, I suggest that you get your money back or just plain stop listening to him and begin your own honest research into what we believe and how it lines up with the ECF.
If what you believe does not line up with the statements of the ECF, then perhaps you have been taught wrong.
Pax tecum,
S
sonseeker
Guest
Some O.T. metaphors (there are many more than these in both O.T. and N.T.):
*The Lord *IS my Shepherd (Ps 23)
*The Lord God *IS a Sun and Shield (Ps 84:11)
*His faithfulness *IS a shield and a bulwark(Ps 91:4)
Now, some N.T. metaphors:
You ARE the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13)
*This *IS my body (Mt 26:26)
*…and the good seed, these *ARE *the sons of the kingdom *(Mt 13:38)
Notice that two nouns are always present (except in the Mt 26:26 passage, where a pronoun and noun are present: Lord/Shepherd; Lord God/Sun and Shield/; You/Salt; This/Body (Mt passage pronoun and a noun) good seed/sons of the kingdom.
So, if we apply your argument that the John 6 passage is not a metaphor, to the above metaphors, then the Lord is not the Lord, but a literal shepherd; the Lord God is not the Lord God, but literally a Sun and Shield; His faithfulness is not His faithfulness, but a literal shield and bulwark; believers are not believers (people), but literally salt; this (bread) is literally my body; the sons of the kingdom are not sons (people), but are literally seed. If I show you a photograph of my motorcycle and say “this is my motorcycle,” how would you understand that? All of those listed above are constructed as metaphors.
You run into the same the difficulty with the cup and blood of the covenant in 1 Cor 11:25: *this cup *IS *the new covenant. *Why do you not insist on transubstantiating the “cup” into “the new covenant?”
Because the verb eimi, eimi is used, and because its use refers to *signifying, *or *amounting to, *and not to *becoming, *there is, then, no intention stated Mt 26:26, or Jn 6, that the bread *becomes *the body.
If an actual “change of substance” is meant, then a verb other than “eimi” (to be—a state of being) must be used. The verb ginomai (ginomai) is generally used to indicate “change,” or “to become.” Let’s look at things becoming something different (ginomai): Mk 4:39: …*the wind died down and it *became perfectly calm. Lk 4:3: …tell this stone to become bread. Jn 2:9: …the headwaiter tasted the water, which had become wine. (true transubstantiation). Acts 26:28: …you will persuade me to become a Christian. And many others.
Further, the Jerusalem council gives another reiteration to ***Christians ***in Acts 15:29 to abstain from blood:that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
We are called to take communion in “remembrance” of Christ; we are not called to take communion to “ingest” Christ. His presence is spiritual—where two or three have gathered in my name I am in their midst (Mt 18:20); His physical body is said to be at the right hand of the Father. It is a physical body, localized in heaven, as your physical body is localized where you are.
Of the uncounted millions of metaphors ever written, and the metaphors found in Scripture, you will let every one stand as a metaphor with one exception: Mt 26:26. Why is that? Why do you make an exception with one metaphor? Because if you allow that it is a metaphor, your doctrine disappears.
M
Mickey
Guest
I have already read all your word games, Bill. I am not out to convert you to Catholicism or to convince you of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Your doctrine was invented in the 16th century, and you are passionate that what you have been taught is the truth. So be it. One day it will be revealed to you.
"For My Flesh is food indeed and My Blood is Drink indeed".
Indeed- 1. Without a doubt; certainly; In fact, In reality****
Not everything in Scriptures is a metaphor, Bill. Some sayings are metaphors and others are literal. Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and other protestants adhere to a theology of the Real Presence. The belief is backed up by 2000 years of witnesses going all the way back to the Apostles themselves. And although you like to brush off or distort the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of St John, it is difficult to disregard his testimony. You see Bill–if you allow that it is literal, your doctrine disappears.
Blessings on your journey,
Mickey
S
sonseeker
Guest
It was the case during Christ’s time, and it is still the case today.There have been no miracles from God, since the death of the last apostle. In fact, as you read the epistles, you see the signs, miracles, etc., disappearing, that it is because of the full and final revelation having been made through Christ, and set down in writing.
Heb 1:1-2, especially verse 2 speaks to the finality of Christ’s revelation; God speaks no more, except through the written word.
A.T. Robertson, one of the foremost N.T. Greek scholars, in his Word Pictures in the N.T., says this about the Hebrews 1 passage:
Hebrews 1:2
At the end of these days (ἐπ̓ἐσχατουτωνἡμερωντουτων ep‚ eschatou tōn hēmerōn toutōn]). In contrast with παλαι palai] above. Hath spoken (ἐλαλησεν elalēsen]). First aorist indicative of λαλεω laleō], the same verb as above, “DID SPEAK” IN A FINAL AND FULL REVELATION. In his Son (ἐνυἱῳ en huiōi]). In sharp contrast to ἐντοιςπροφηταις en tois prophētais]. “The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ” (J. R. Sampey)… [small caps are mine]
Scripture tells us that the miracles and signs performed by Christ, and the apostles, had a specific purpose: to verify that they were sent from God:
John 3:1-2
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews;
2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
Acts 2:22
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
2 Corinthians 12:12
12 The **signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. **
Hebrews 2:3-4
3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,
4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.
If you read Acts carefully, you will find that with very few exceptions, the apostles and some of their associates perform the miracles and signs. Since they are all gone, and the church is up and running, and the testimony of God was complete, there are on more miracles, signs and wonders. Besides, in the sacrament of the eucharist, nothing empirically observable occurs; by definition, a miracle must be observable; God’s miracles were always observable. There are also no more visions from God. There may be miracles and visions occurring, but they are not from God; He no longer does them. And scripture says if it is not from God, it is from?
M
Mickey
Guest
…And so if someone is riddled with inoperable cancer…and the family and friends pray day and night asking God for a miracle…and at the person’s next doctor’s appointment the cancer is completely gone…and the doctor’s are at a complete loss to explain this miraculous cure…you say it is the work of satan?
S
sonseeker
Guest
That is God’s providence, Mickey; God’s providence.
M
Mickey
Guest
If you change from inhumanity to almsgiving, you have stretched forth the hand that was withered. If you withdraw from theaters and go to church, you have cured the lame foot. If you draw back your eyes from a harlot … you have opened them when they were blind … These are the greatest miracles.
**St. John Chrysostom **
**St. John Chrysostom **
I
iwonder
Guest
Oh- hey, classic cop out. I’m impressed.:tiphat:
M
mercygate
Guest
Indeed, Mickey. Miracles may not now “abound” but they do occur, and they are not of Satan.
Contrary to what some of our more truculent Catholic posters have averred, miracles in response to prayer also happen (gasp!) to Protestants! God does not limit himself, he is not bound even by his own laws, and the Holy Spirit is absolutely profligate in dispensing his gifts upon people everywhere, Catholic, non-Catholic, Moslem, pagan and heathen. The Catholic Church does not control him, it serves him, and rejoices in his goodnes wherever and however he chooses to lavish it upon his children.
M
mercygate
Guest
Guys, this thread is starting to take a disagreeable turn. The topic is the most central, most precious doctrine of our faith (after the Resurrection); let’s anoint Our Lord’s precious Body with the zeal of charity!
M
mercygate
Guest
Son, *where *is the verb “eimi” used? Mt 26:26 in my Greek NT (the standard [Protestant] ABS edition) reads “estin” – which in NO way means “signifying” or “amounting to.” (Though there was a Protestant translator – I’m forgetting his name: big time biblical scholar – who translated it as “This means my body” – and forever lost credibility in the scholarly world because of it.). What source are you quoting?
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear Sonseeker:
*The Lord God *IS a Sun and Shield (Ps 84:11)
*His faithfulness *IS a shield and a bulwark(Ps 91:4)
Now, some N.T. metaphors:
You ARE the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13)
*This *IS my body (Mt 26:26)
*…and the good seed, these *ARE *the sons of the kingdom *(Mt 13:38)
Notice that two nouns are always present (except in the Mt 26:26 passage, where a pronoun and noun are present: Lord/Shepherd; Lord God/Sun and Shield/; You/Salt; This/Body (Mt passage pronoun and a noun) good seed/sons of the kingdom.
So, if we apply your argument that the John 6 passage is not a metaphor, to the above metaphors, then the Lord is not the Lord, but a literal shepherd; the Lord God is not the Lord God, but literally a Sun and Shield; His faithfulness is not His faithfulness, but a literal shield and bulwark; believers are not believers (people), but literally salt; this (bread) is literally my body; the sons of the kingdom are not sons (people), but are literally seed. If I show you a photograph of my motorcycle and say “this is my motorcycle,” how would you understand that? All of those listed above are constructed as metaphors.
You run into the same the difficulty with the cup and blood of the covenant in 1 Cor 11:25: *this cup *IS *the new covenant. *Why do you not insist on transubstantiating the “cup” into “the new covenant?”
Two nouns joined by a form of the verb “to be” do not demand that the reader construe a metaphor. I can say “that one is my car,” and it truly is my car, not in any metaphorical way, but in a very concrete and certain way.
If Christ’s words at the Last Supper were taken in isolation, I agree that they could easily be construed as metaphor, but in light of Jesus’ command that we eat His flesh and drink His Blood, your conclusion hardly seems to be a likely one. Why would Jesus command us to do something without instituting the means through which it may be accomplished?
And how do you abide by this prescription? Do you avoid red meat, stay away from blood transfusions, etc? My Jesus tells me that I am to drink His blood for everlasting life. I choose to take Him at His word.
If we are not called to “ingest” Christ, then why does Christ tell us to eat His body?
Peace
Fiat
IS my Shepherd (Ps 23)
*The Lord God *IS a Sun and Shield (Ps 84:11)
*His faithfulness *IS a shield and a bulwark(Ps 91:4)
Now, some N.T. metaphors:
You ARE the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13)
*This *IS my body (Mt 26:26)
*…and the good seed, these *ARE *the sons of the kingdom *(Mt 13:38)
Notice that two nouns are always present (except in the Mt 26:26 passage, where a pronoun and noun are present: Lord/Shepherd; Lord God/Sun and Shield/; You/Salt; This/Body (Mt passage pronoun and a noun) good seed/sons of the kingdom.
So, if we apply your argument that the John 6 passage is not a metaphor, to the above metaphors, then the Lord is not the Lord, but a literal shepherd; the Lord God is not the Lord God, but literally a Sun and Shield; His faithfulness is not His faithfulness, but a literal shield and bulwark; believers are not believers (people), but literally salt; this (bread) is literally my body; the sons of the kingdom are not sons (people), but are literally seed. If I show you a photograph of my motorcycle and say “this is my motorcycle,” how would you understand that? All of those listed above are constructed as metaphors.
You run into the same the difficulty with the cup and blood of the covenant in 1 Cor 11:25: *this cup *IS *the new covenant. *Why do you not insist on transubstantiating the “cup” into “the new covenant?”
Two nouns joined by a form of the verb “to be” do not demand that the reader construe a metaphor. I can say “that one is my car,” and it truly is my car, not in any metaphorical way, but in a very concrete and certain way.
If Christ’s words at the Last Supper were taken in isolation, I agree that they could easily be construed as metaphor, but in light of Jesus’ command that we eat His flesh and drink His Blood, your conclusion hardly seems to be a likely one. Why would Jesus command us to do something without instituting the means through which it may be accomplished?
in Acts 15:29 to abstain from blood:that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
And how do you abide by this prescription? Do you avoid red meat, stay away from blood transfusions, etc? My Jesus tells me that I am to drink His blood for everlasting life. I choose to take Him at His word.
As far as your focus on the terms “remembrance,” perhaps you should check the entymology of the Greek and recognize that the term involved not just a mere mental exercise of recalling, but of making present that which once was.
If we are not called to “ingest” Christ, then why does Christ tell us to eat His body?
Peace
Fiat
I
iwonder
Guest
Catholics can’t take Communion metaphorically simply because we don’t view Jesus as a metaphor. We also do not consider him to be an analogy or a comparison or just a great idea. Rather we consider him to be real.Wow,
You were right Eden, no controversey here at all! Okay! First off I wanna say I completely respect the Catholic beliefs,and I am not attacking Catholics. So far the ones, I havemet, are beyond amazing! Yay Catholics! But I dont understand how you guys could not take communion metaphorically. As I’ve said before I believe its a great way of worship…praise God! But what about when Jesus referred to himself as water? Was Jesus literally water? Hmmm I’d have to conclude with no. I’m not implying that everything in the Bible is metaphorical. But I think Jesus did use metaphores to get His point across. When He said I am the bread of life. I believe He said the bread because we need bread to survive(eating is essential to living) , likewise, we need Him.
Well thats my two-bits. Oh and there’s you controversy
E
EA_Man
Guest
Agreed.
We all agree that Jesus is Lord and we all agree that we have the inspired accurate record of what He said.
The disagreement is on what He meant by those words and the best way to honor and worship Him.
Peace
E
EA_Man
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness.”
(The Instructor, 2:2)
E.E.N.S.:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…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. 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.” (Against Marcion, 4:40)
E.E.N.S.:
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)
E.E.N.S.:
Yes. Really.
“In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’–the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’–the holy stream of gladness.”
(The Instructor, 2:2)
E.E.N.S.:
Yes. Really.
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…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. 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.” (Against Marcion, 4:40)
E.E.N.S.:
Yup.
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (On Matthew, 11:14)
E.E.N.S.:
Yes, in Part II
E
EA_Man
Guest
Part II
E.E.N.S.:
“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)
Augustine likens the sacraments to the Easter celebration in that although the Day resembles the Day of Resurrection, it is not in fact that singular day in history. Likewise, the sacraments resemble or represent Christ “in a certain manner”.
Peace
E.E.N.S.:
Augustine defines Presence in a way not consistent with Transubstantiation.
“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)
Augustine likens the sacraments to the Easter celebration in that although the Day resembles the Day of Resurrection, it is not in fact that singular day in history. Likewise, the sacraments resemble or represent Christ “in a certain manner”.
Peace
F
Fiat
Guest
EA_Man:
Regarding the ECF’s use of the word “figure” or “symbol”, here is a discussion as to how those terms are to be understood:
Darwell Stone on Tertullian from A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in Tertullian… Tertullian more than once uses like language with explicit reference to the Eucharist. He asserts our Lord’s intention to have been to show that bread was ‘the figure (figura) of His body’ : he explains the words ‘This is My body’ as meaning ‘This is the figure (figura) of My body’; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord’s body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread ‘makes present (repraesentat) His very body’ [Adv Marc i,14].
“The consideration of this type of phraseology must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words ‘symbol’ [in Clement of Alexandria] and ‘figure’ (figura) [in Tertullian]; (b) the meaning of the word translated ‘makes present’ (repraesentat); (c) the relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the same writers.” [something which Schaff did not address] (Stone, volume 1, page 29)
FIGURA IN TERTULLIAN – "This is the FIGURE of My body"
After Stone points out the different meanings, associations and tendencies of the words “symbol” and “figure” even in present language and cultures, he goes on to say
Regarding the ECF’s use of the word “figure” or “symbol”, here is a discussion as to how those terms are to be understood:
Darwell Stone on Tertullian from A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in Tertullian… Tertullian more than once uses like language with explicit reference to the Eucharist. He asserts our Lord’s intention to have been to show that bread was ‘the figure (figura) of His body’ : he explains the words ‘This is My body’ as meaning ‘This is the figure (figura) of My body’; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord’s body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread ‘makes present (repraesentat) His very body’ [Adv Marc i,14].
“The consideration of this type of phraseology must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words ‘symbol’ [in Clement of Alexandria] and ‘figure’ (figura) [in Tertullian]; (b) the meaning of the word translated ‘makes present’ (repraesentat); (c) the relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the same writers.” [something which Schaff did not address] (Stone, volume 1, page 29)
FIGURA IN TERTULLIAN – "This is the FIGURE of My body"
After Stone points out the different meanings, associations and tendencies of the words “symbol” and “figure” even in present language and cultures, he goes on to say
F
Fiat
Guest
EA_Man said:
No he doesn’t. Re-read Augustine’s concluding statement. He doesn’t say that just as Easter resembles Resurrection Day so too do the Sacraments resemble Christ. You’ve completley misrepresented his conclusion.
Instead, Augustine says in the last sentence you quote that the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is similar to the sacrament of faith. Just as faith is faith so too is the Sacrament of Christ’s Blood the Blood of Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body is Christ’s Body. This is a certain manner. Not an uncertain one.
Fiat
- Status