S
- Status
opcorn:
M
mcq72
Guest
Lol…i have also seen many movies etc., and pictures of monks slaving away in labor of love making copies of our Sacred Scriptures, which also helps in appreciating " church" in the best sense.Seems like a big move on your part to say that. Just sayin
L
lanman87
Guest
Okay, I’ll to do this in several post in order to give comment and it may take a while as I’m having to go back through information that I’ve ran across but didn’t save.
I’ll start with Hippolytus of Rome
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome:
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome was composed in approximately 215 in Rome.It apparently preserved older second century practices which were in danger of falling to disuse or innovation.
This text is one of the oldest we have that describes the Liturgy and Practice of the early church. It is a very interesting document. In particular the part concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and how it was administered in the late 2nd Century/Early 3rd Century church.
Chapter 20-21 describes the Baptism and First Communion of catechumens. I was struck when I read this (in Chapter 21) as it is very similar to what our Pastor says every week when we take communion.
27 Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread,which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.
The later in Chapter 37 He says, All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ, to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned.
So it seems like he is being literal but then the very next thing he says in Chapter 38 is
Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it. You will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought.
So once again he clarifies that when he speaks of the Eucharistic elements that he is speaking in typology/symbolic language. But the even though it is symbolic it is still precious and to be treated with respect and is reserved for believers. So much so you don’t even let a mouse near the bread and to spill the antitype of the Blood (the wine) you are as one who scorns the Blood.
L
lanman87
Guest
The 2nd thing I remember finding is from Tertullian’s On the Resurrection of the Flesh. This work doesn’t deal directly with communion but is Tertullian’s defense of the fact that our actual flesh will be resurrected. In it he gives when he believes the Scriptures are speaking in metaphor and when they are being literal.
In Chapter 36 of this long work He talks about what the “Flesh profits nothing” means in John 6. Italics is Tertullian, plain text are my thoughts.
*Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh,
I would paraphrase that into modern english as “They actually thought that He was asking them to literally eat His flesh”
He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit :
So he points out that to understand what Christ meant we have to understand by the Spirit.
The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. **John 5:24
So he affirms that spiritual understanding is to Hear and Believe.
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](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm). 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.
So he shows that “eating the Flesh” is the same thing desiring Him, devouring Him with the ear, to ruminate (think deeply about or mentally chew on) Him with understanding and digesting Him by faith.
Then he affirms that Christ constantly impressed on His hearers under the figure of necessary food. Which is my understanding of ingestive language in the Scriptures. That is it figurative of a Spiritual hunger and thirst and is satisfied by our faithfulness to Christ.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
How does God draw humanity to himself?steve-b:
I do not buck the church authority to do this just as you do not buck authority that indeed now God does draw us internally also to the truth on the matter.
By becoming human.
What does it mean to be human?
Human beings live in community. We have bodies, we form visible institutions (like the One Church), have structures based on charisms like authority.
Christ the Incarnate God entered the human condition fully, as a first century Jew in the tree of David. He gave his authority and mission to a visible body of human beings.
Why should we be any less human than Christ?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I think the rebuttal is that the bread is a symbol and at the same time as literal…so the “accidents”, the appearance of bread, as the symbol for it being literally His body (and spirit/ divinity).
So they object to symbol only, and they object to anything less than literal transubstantiation, so they object to consubstantiation and or just spiritual presence.
We all agree that we do not partake of ordinary bread and wine as Justin Martyr writes. The good news is we all agree the elements are consecrated into symbols that we eat. We also agree the elements of bread and wine are still bread and wine to the senses. The consecration changes the elements into symbols which represent His body and blood in the new covenant. The bad news is we differ on how the symbolic representation is meant or carried out.
All forms of communion “Do” and all have a “this”.
Last edited:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I do believe that John 6 is referring to both Holy Communion and receiving Him in the Word.
This IS my body says Jesus at the last supper. That is something that even Luther could not deny or squirm his way out of.
This IS my body says Jesus at the last supper. That is something that even Luther could not deny or squirm his way out of.
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok, but he squirmed away from transubstantiation …more like a real presence (consubstantiation?)
M
mcq72
Guest
Amen. Preachin to the choir.
N
Nicene
Guest
Just not those who interpret them using their own personal interpretation.
2 pet 2:19And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[ 20 ] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
[ 21 ] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Peter defending the right of the church as the true posessers of divine revelation.
But you do believe the Bible correct? Of course you could “twist it to your own destruction” but you never know
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
2 pet 2:19And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[ 20 ] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
[ 21 ] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Peter defending the right of the church as the true posessers of divine revelation.
But you do believe the Bible correct? Of course you could “twist it to your own destruction” but you never know
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Last edited:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Transubstantiation, clearly was not the unanimous believe of all the early Fathers. I do see a mountain of evidence for real presence, or rather a limited understanding of it.
That’s okay as there is no doctrine in the RCC that says in order for something to be true and eventually dogmatized it first needs to be unanimously preached by the ECF’s.
In the east they say that Jesus says this is my body…so it is…and we bewildered people are like the Jews holding Manna from heaven in our hands wondering how this miracle took place. Very hard to explain the miraculous. The Church did her best to put it in human terms. It’s Jesus…it’s the foretold sacrifice in Malachi of which we gladly partake.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Saint Ignatius of Antioch coined the term ," catholic church." It was coined a few hundred years before Constantine, and it was intended by description to mean Universal. We are members of the Catholic Church, a proper name, and I wonder if Saint Ignatius initial idea remains in it’s intended sense. In fairness, it is hard to prevent ideas of tribe and Empire( after Constantine) from creeping into such a radical idea as Universal.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Thanks for the follow up with the reference. I did [Some snipping due to space] of your reference.steve-b:
… Hippolytus of Rome
in approximately 215
27 The bishop shall bless the bread,which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.
*later in Chapter 37 He says, All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ, to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned.
So it seems like he is being literal but in Chapter 38 Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it. You will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought.
…
Re:
" 27 * The bishop shall bless the bread,which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him.* Then in Chapter 37 He says, All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ , to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned."
In context,
Before the consecration the elements are just symbols …
However
IF
the bread and wine remained symbols, AFTER consecration
THEN the words in ch 37
All shall be careful so that no unbeliever tastes of the eucharist, nor a mouse or other animal, nor that any of it falls and is lost. For it is the Body of Christ , to be eaten by those who believe, and not to be scorned.
would make no sense.
AND
Re:
Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it. You will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought.
While it appears awkward to say it THAT way, in context, I see him distinguishing the wine, before and after consecration. Wine vs blood of Christ, are antitypes, by themselves, until the consecration occurs. Otherwise, why the big deal NOT to spill even a drop, less …?
While
the senses say, bread and wine, before AND after the consecration,
However
the unseen element, the supernatural, occurs AFTER the consecration.
That happens because Jesus makes it so, through the act of ordaining His apostles, to DO what HE did* when He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper… AND it continues through direct and continuous, apostolic succession, in every Eucharist.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Again, Thanks for the follow up on references.steve-b:
The 2nd thing I remember finding is r*om Tertullian’s On the Resurrection of the Flesh. This work doesn’t deal directly with communion but is Tertullian’s defense of the fact that our actual flesh will be resurrected. In it he gives when he believes the Scriptures are speaking in metaphor and when they are being literal.
In Chapter 36 of this long work He talks about what the “Flesh profits nothing” means in John 6. Italics is Tertullian, plain text are my thoughts.
*Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh,
I would paraphrase that into modern english as “They actually thought that He was asking them to literally eat His flesh”
He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit :
So he points out that to understand what Christ meant we have to understand by the Spirit.
The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. **John 5:24
So he affirms that spiritual understanding is to Hear and Believe.
[snip for space]
There are many genres and ways of writing exemplified in scripture AND in the writings of the ECF’s… As we’ve seen in history, Private interpretation outside the guidance of the Church, who gave us the scriptures and the ECF’s, can be inaccurate.
Re: Tertullian,
From: Wm Jurgens theological and historical author
From Vol 1, “Faith of the Fathers”
He had 4 periods in his life. (emphasis mine) Pre Catholic period (before 192),the ( Catholic period (193 - 206 ) the transition period (206-212) the Montanist heresy period ( 213 ☞ )
SO
just me talking,
Even when Catholic sources speak and quote from Tertullian,
When a Catholic goes into heresy, as Tertullian did, and remains that way till the end of their life, even if they are rather prolific in their writing(s), and say solid things, I don’t pay attention to what they write because they became heretics.
But as I said, that’s just me talking.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Word and sacrament, NOT either/or, works for me.
Even though, Jn 6 is getting down to explaining the nitty gritty of literally consuming Him … and the necessity of doing so, we know that is by the Eucharist…and as He says…OR ELSE
Last edited:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Agree. I don’t take Tertullian seriously. Don’t quote from him and never would.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Exactly.
Acts 2:42 – Luke 24:30-32 Gives us a picture of how it was in the beginning. Word and sacrament.
And I would point out how their “eyes were opened” once they received something that is no longer common bread in Luke 24. Significant but overlooked most of the time by non-Catholics.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
Exactly.
Acts 2:42 – Luke 24:30-32 Gives us a picture of how it was in the beginning. Word and sacrament.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
That is good of you to say, and I partly agree. For sure some writings can be seen as case for " real presence". But give an inch and we want a foot. The next best thing would be to admit evidence for some writings suggesting the elements are His body and blood figuratively or spiritually and that “only”.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
“Symbol” in Greek does not mean the same thing in English.
In English, a symbol is something that represents another. Example: When you see the
, you know that you have have to make the sign of the cross.In Greek, a symbol was one of two halves of an object. One person had one half and another had the other half. If A sent a messenger to B, he would give the symbol to the messenger (C) so that B would recognize the messenger as coming from them. The two halves would be put together and B would recognize C. If C did not have the symbol, B would not recognize C as coming from A.
- Status