Transubstantion and Clement of Alexandria

[Truthstalker]

There’s been some discussion lately on transubstantiation lately, to my mind kind of too broadly based. I thought it might be helpful to take a look at one Early Church Father and see where he is at on the subject. Please take out your “Instructor”, Book 2, Chapter 2, by Clerment of Alexandria. I realize most of us have it memorized in Greek, so I need not translate or recite it.

I look at Clement as one of the great early theologians of the church (153-217). Through his eyes we can see how the early church thought of these things. In the case of an ambiguous reading of Scripture, for example, we can look for clarification in authors such as Clement.

And what do we find? We find him saying “And to drink the blood of Jesus is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is to the flesh.”

Nothing symbolic about it. The presence of the Spirit is as real to the Word as the blood is to the flesh. If you look at the context you will see that this is supported by the context.

Some go as far, I imagine, as to take 1 Cor 11:29 to mean that those who do not see the Lord’s body there, who do not discern it, should not take communion. Clement speaks of those who by faith take it are sanctified both in body and soul (thereby showing sacramentalism and a physical effect of physical food).

Clement lived too early to learn of the Upper Story and the Lower Story, to have learned that the spiritual things, the real things, are in the upper story, and we poor mortals drift in an unreal lower story where the best we can get is the symbolic from God. To Clement the Eucharist was the real Body and Blood of the Lord, meaning transubstantiation had occured. He does not speak of drinking wine in communion. He speaks of drinking the blood of Jesus. Clear as clear can be.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

I therefore admire those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire. It is proper, therefore, that boys and girls should keep as much as possible away from this medicine. For it is not right to pour into the burning season of life the hottest of all liquids–wine–adding, as it were, fire to fire. For hence wild impulses and burning lusts and fiery habits are kindled; and young men inflamed from within become prone to the indulgence of vicious propensities; so that signs of injury appear in their body, the members of lust coming to maturity sooner than they ought. The breasts and organs of generation, inflamed with wine, expand and swell in a shameful way, already exhibiting beforehand the image of fornication; and the body compels the wound of the soul to inflame, and shameless pulsations follow abundance, inciting the man of correct behaviour to transgression; and hence the voluptuousness of youth overpasses the bounds of modesty. And we must, as far as possible, try to quench the impulses of youth by removing the Bacchic fuel of the threatened danger; and by pouring the antidote to the inflammation, so keep down the burning soul, and keep in the swelling members, and allay the agitation of lust when it is already in commotion. And in the case of grown-up people, let those with whom it agrees sometimes partake of dinner, tasting bread only, and let them abstain wholly from drink; in order that their superfluous moisture may be absorbed and drunk up by the eating of dry food. For constant spitting and wiping off perspiration, and hastening to evacuations, is the sign of excess, from the immoderate use of liquids supplied in excessive quantity to the body. And if thirst come on, let the appetite be satisfied with a little water. For it is not proper that water should be supplied in too great profusion; in order that the food may not be drowned, but ground down in order to digestion; and this takes place when the victuals are collected into a mass, and only a small portion is evacuated.

newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

 

[Truthstalker]

Thank you. I’m not sure the last paragraph is pertinent to the present discussion.

 

[Truthstalker]

I guess I have to argue with myself. Clement also has two passages that are used by some to argue for a symbolic interpretation:

With reason, therefore, the apostle enjoins, “Be not drunk with wine, in which there is much excess;” by the term excess (aswtia) intimating the inconsistence of drunkenness with salvation (to aswston). For if He made water wine at the marriage, He did not give permission to get drunk. He gave life to the watery element of the meaning of the law, filling with His blood the doer of it who is of Adam, that is, the whole world; supplying piety with drink from the vine of truth, the mixture of the old law and of the new word, in order to the fulfilment of the predestined time. The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: “Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness.”

I’ll argue, here with myself, that to extend this, given Clement’s other statement, to cover the Eucharist is to force a symbolic interpretation on the Eucharist. I hold this passage cannot sustain that interpretation. So there, me! Ready to give up yet?

No, I will argue again. Clement has this to say:

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. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, “I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.” But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: “For the Son of man,” He says, “came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.” Let this be held fast by us against those that are called Encratites.

It his argues that this shows that the blood of the vine is Christ’s blood, and so according to Clement, then, it remains in the Eucharist unchanged. I maintain here there is confusion on the part of those who argue such, as Jesus drank wine at times outside of the Eucharist, and again it is a stretch to maintain that the Eucharist is unchanged. This is at best an exceedingly weak argument against transubstantiation. Clement’s focus in these passages is not the nature of the Eucharist - they appear only in passing, and it is doubtful one can more than guess at what his full exposition would have been from the last two passages. But based on the first, it is transubstantiation.

I’m including these to illustrate that I am not simply presenting one side of the argument, to preclude an accusation of bias and a false presentation of the relevant data.

If anyone has read this far, thank you. If you think you’re leading someone and you turn around and no one’s following you, you’re only taking a hike. I think John Maxwell said that.

 

[Bogamir]

Well I followed you, even if I am 2 1/2 years behind.

I found your quotes useful to show Clements’s position. I was given this quote to show try to show the opposite position:

*"Are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise.”

Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1:6
*

 

[Truthstalker]

It is interesting to compare where I am now and where I was back then. It is not an either/pr between transubstantiation and the symbolic, as I thought then. A real spiritual presence is allowed as an interpretation.