The Universal Church

[dochawk]

Transubstantiation, clearly was not the unanimous believe of all the early Fathers.

You can’t look at the early Fathers’ writings that way.

They were trying to figure things out, and would take up positions, and then reject their own positions as theology developed.

There are condemned heresies to which either the named party didn’t actually subscribe, and others for which which the proponent accepted the conclusion of the council and rejected, continuing in the Catholic and Orthodox faith.

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.

You can’t possibly get anywhere useful arguing from English meanings of translated words . . .

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have serious doubts that any of them actually went to their graves believing as the Baptists believe about Communion. Scriptural evidence and ECF evidence for real presence is pretty overwhelming.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

They were trying to figure things out, and would take up positions, and then reject their own positions as theology developed.

I agree. They were figuring things out among themselves and I SERIOUSLY doubt any of them went to their graves believing in some ‘symbolic ordinance’ as the Baptists do. That position is so foreign to historical Christianity that it is almost laughable. There’s a reason why the more historical branches of Protestantism tend to go real presence. (Anglo and Luther)

And I also see how Luther could be torn between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation by merely reviewing the work of the Fathers from the first 7 or 8 centuries. That can happen when you separate yourself form Sacred Tradition and the bark of Peter.

 

[Wannano]

It is interesting to me that the early church fathers are the only one’s that legitimately have the privilege of “figuring things out among themselves.” If they had to do that, it is then obvious that the so called “Sacred Tradition” is not a direct teaching of Christ to the Apostles about how to “do church” that was not recorded in written form.

 

[lanman87]

“Symbol” in Greek does not mean the same thing in English.

Can you provide a reference? I’ve been looking at Greek Lexicons and haven’t been able to find the meaning you give.

 

[lanman87]

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 …?

The problem with that, as I see it, is that he specifically says you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. He is talking about the consecrated wine that you receive.

As for why it is a big deal… Even in modern American we take our symbols seriously. To the point that disrespecting/treating with carelessness the symbol of something is considered rude, horrible, and makes people angry and is as if you are being rude, disrespectful or careless with the actual thing it represents.

When I was a child in elementary school we took turns raising and lowering the American Flag. I remember our principal telling us that if the flag hit the ground then we had to take it to the American legion post for it to be destroyed in a proper patriotic ceremony and if everything wasn’t done the “proper way” then we were disrespecting the United States.

Remember when Baker Mayfield planted the Oklahoma Flag on the Ohio State logo a few years ago, Ohio State fans got all bent out of shape that he was being disrespectful to Ohio State.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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 …?

The problem with that, as I see it, is that he specifically says you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. He is talking about the consecrated wine that you receive.

As for why it is a big deal… Even in modern American we take our symbols seriously. To the point that disrespecting/treating with carelessness the symbol of something is considered rude, horrible, and makes people angry and is as if you are being rude, disrespectful or careless with the actual thing it represents.

When I was a child in elementary school we took turns raising and lowering the American Flag. I remember our principal telling us that if the flag hit the ground then we had to take it to the American legion post for it to be destroyed in a proper patriotic ceremony and if everything wasn’t done the “proper way” then we were disrespecting the United States.

Remember when Baker Mayfield planted the Oklahoma Flag on the Ohio State logo a few years ago, Ohio State fans got all bent out of shape that he was being disrespectful to Ohio State.

I understand your point about symbols.

That said

In the case I’m addressing, a symbol doesn’t remain a mere symbol, but supernaturally changes into what the consecration changes the elements to be.

While the optics don’t change, nor does the taste, of the elements, the supernatural is NOW there… FULLY, in those elements such that they are no longer what they were before the consecration but are NOW what they are changed into…

Another example:

Does a person look differently before and after baptism? No.

How then can they be a new creation AFTER baptism?

Can one see a person’s soul? How then can a soul get muddied then cleansed?

The supernatural exists.

AND

THAT’S why Our Lord said His words are spirit and life. The seen and unseen. There are no other realities. Spirit and life covers them all.

 

[mcq72]

I have serious doubts that any of them actually went to their graves believing as the Baptists believe about Communion. Scriptural evidence and ECF evidence for real presence is pretty overwhelming.

lol…ok, I am the opposite, from Jesus, to the apostles and then first church , and some early fathers, who took it as symbolic, as like symbols of the Passover…I have seen folks contend over this (forefathers and RP) right up to Augustine…make your head spin… but we make our stands

thanks

 

[mcq72]

Does a person look differently before and after baptism? No.

How then can they be a new creation AFTER baptism?

Can one see a person’s soul? How then can a soul get muddied then cleansed?

The supernatural exists.

THAT’S why Our Lord said His words are spirit and life . The seen and unseen.

ok, but like baptism, regeneration , new birth we do expect the person to begin to be different, to change, behold all things are new…in fact without any outward "work, many say such a thing is dead. So it is something we can “see”.

likewise, if indeed the elements are converted to God himself, as spiritual food, you would expect a better efficacy of such nourishment than someone say who believes it is consubstantiated, or spiritual or symbolic only. It is my experience that we do not see that (one communion understanding over another in the communicants behavior), or at least very difficult to quantify such .

Communion is communion (trans, cons, spiritual, symbolic), as baptism is baptism (full immersion, partial, water drop flowing on head), etc?

 

[Justin_Mary]

It is interesting to me that the early church fathers are the only one’s that legitimately have the privilege of “figuring things out among themselves.” If they had to do that, it is then obvious that the so called “Sacred Tradition” is not a direct teaching of Christ to the Apostles about how to “do church” that was not recorded in written form.

That’s an interesting way to look at it.

I’m thinking it was probably hard to keep everyone on the same page back then. I mean there was no telephone, postage was nothing like we have today, & most people were illiterate.

I can see error festering & growing for quite some time before being caught by someone in authority.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Does a person look differently before and after baptism? No.

How then can they be a new creation AFTER baptism?

Can one see a person’s soul? How then can a soul get muddied then cleansed?

The supernatural exists.

THAT’S why Our Lord said His words are spirit and life . The seen and unseen.

ok, but like baptism, regeneration , new birth we do expect the person to begin to be different, to change, behold all things are new…in fact without any outward "work, many say such a thing is dead. So it is something we can “see”.

Point being, the sacraments are an outward sign, instituted by Christ to be and to do what Jesus instituted them to do…give grace… The sacraments are real. That doesn’t mean the person receiving the sacraments and receiving the graces from the sacraments, will respond to the grace. THAT lack of response, by the receiver, doesn’t detract from the sacraments. It says something about the receiver, not the sacrament itself.

mcq72:

likewise, if indeed the elements are converted to God himself, as spiritual food, you would expect a better efficacy of such nourishment than someone say who believes it is consubstantiated, or spiritual or symbolic only. It is my experience that we do not see that (one communion understanding over another in the communicants behavior), or at least very difficult to quantify such .

Didn’t Jesus own disciples walk away from Jesus after He taught them what is required of them? Yes Did that make Jesus a bad or ineffective teacher? No. Did it change in anyway what He taught them that they must do if the want to be saved? No. As far as miracles Jesus performed, did He not cure 10 lepers but only one came back to thank Him? Weren’t those 9 cured as well? Yes. 10 were massively changed, but only one thanked Him. WHY? Why didn’t the 9 respond as one would expect them to do?

mcq72:

Communion is communion (trans, cons, spiritual, symbolic), as baptism is baptism (full immersion, partial, water drop flowing on head), etc?

Baptism can be performed by anyone with the right intention and right form.

Communion/Eucharist, requires a validly ordained priest. Without that, there is no sacrament.

 

[lanman87]

In the case I’m addressing, a symbol doesn’t remain a mere symbol, but supernaturally changes into what the consecration changes the elements to be.

As I said, " I could quote them but I’m sure you are aware of them but deny that they really meant it to be figurative or symbolic."

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In the case I’m addressing, a symbol doesn’t remain a mere symbol, but supernaturally changes into what the consecration changes the elements to be.

As I said, " I could quote them but I’m sure you are aware of them but deny that they really meant it to be figurative or symbolic."

IOW, We’re talking the same reality, NOT figurative, NOT symbolic

 

[mcq72]

I’m thinking it was probably hard to keep everyone on the same page back then

They were universal enough for many to die for their fath.

I’m thinking it was probably hard to keep everyone on the same page back then. I mean there was no telephone, postage was nothing like we have today, & most people were illiterate.

I can see error festering & growing for quite some time before being caught by someone in authority.

I thought things were pretty good in terms of communication in Roman Empire, and wouldnt improve until when, modern times?

 

[mcq72]

THAT lack of response, by the receiver, doesn’t detract from the sacraments. It says something about the receiver, not the sacrament itself.

Ok, but doesnt adress the spiritual fruit not being different between one form of communion versus another.

Communion/Eucharist, requires a validly ordained priest. Without that, there is no sacrament.

Again, pretty hard to quantify any better fruit from a validly performed communion and what you consider an unvalid communion.

A holy, mature Catholic and a holy , mature Baptist do not depart one holier, or mature in grace than the other after their respective communions.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

THAT lack of response, by the receiver, doesn’t detract from the sacraments. It says something about the receiver, not the sacrament itself.

Ok, but doesnt adress the spiritual fruit not being different between one form of communion versus another.

Communion/Eucharist, requires a validly ordained priest. Without that, there is no sacrament.

Again, pretty hard to quantify any better fruit from a validly performed communion and what you consider an unvalid communion.

A holy, mature Catholic and a holy , mature Baptist do not depart one holier, or mature in grace than the other after their respective communions.

that example, relativises the Blessed Sacrament.

The Baptist doesn’t have a valid Eucharist.

 

[lanman87]

One more, just for kicks.

Many Catholic apologist like to quote Clement of Alexander in support of Transubstantiation. From the The Paedagogus Book one section 6

Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. John 6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

When I see quotes like that I like to go read the entire section and sometimes the entire work.

The very next thing he says is, Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.

Clement then goes on to use other ingestive language as a metaphor. He particularly draws from 1 Peter 2:2 and the “pure spiritual milk” analogy and John 4:32-34’s “I have meat to eat that you know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me”

He says, Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

And later he states Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the sou; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.

You may disagree with Clement, but it certainly shows that at least some in the early church understood John 6 to be metaphorical and the ingestive language, even of the Eucharist, to be metaphorical/figurative language of spiritually eating/drinking by faith.

 

[steve-b]

.

Many Catholic apologist like to quote Clement of Alexander in support of Transubstantiation. From the The Paedagogus Book one section 6

Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. [John 6:53-54] Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing [mystery]! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of [Christ], receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our [souls], we may correct the affections of our flesh.

When I see quotes like that I like to go read the entire section and sometimes the entire work.

Good
ianman87:

Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes — the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food — that is, the Lord Jesus — that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.

Clement then goes on to use other ingestive language as a metaphor. He particularly draws from 1 Peter 2:2 and the “pure spiritual milk” analogy and John 4:32-34’s “I have meat to eat that you know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me”

Remember, Symbols do NOTHING. Sacraments do what they are instituted by Christ to do.
ianman87:

He says, Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

And later he states Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the sou; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.

You may disagree with Clement, but it certainly shows that at least some in the early church understood John 6 to be metaphorical and the ingestive language, even of the Eucharist, to be metaphorical/figurative language of spiritually eating/drinking by faith.

Again, metaphors and symbols do NOTHING by themselves. THUS Clement of Alexandria doesn’t contradict himself, and say sacraments are mere symbols…

 

[lanman87]

Again, metaphors and symbols do NOTHING by themselves. THUS Clement of Alexandria doesn’t contradict himself, and say sacraments are mere symbols…

Well, He does say that the John 6 “eat my flesh and drink my blood” is a metaphor, which is what Protestant Christianity says.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Again, metaphors and symbols do NOTHING by themselves. THUS Clement of Alexandria doesn’t contradict himself, and say sacraments are mere symbols…

Well, He does say that the John 6 “eat my flesh and drink my blood” is a metaphor, which is what Protestant Christianity says.

equate eating bread and drinking wine, with eating flesh and drinking blood, optically, doesn’t look like it’s a reality. Clement was teaching converts in a pagan society. When you read more of his writings, you know he is NOT equating the sacraments with metaphor.