P
Peter_J
Guest
Doesn’t anyone like the classics anymore?
OK, just as well – it wasn’t much a joke.
- Status
B
Blacksword
Guest
Um, no. Sorry, but you are very mistaken about the Early Church Fathers here. The term “Transubstantiation” is merely a development to explain in detail the SAME teaching that had been the universal teaching of the Church from the beginning, that Christ is actually, truly present body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist. Regarding the various ECF writings I’ll just quote them, including St. Augustine, and frankly, shame on you, if you’ve actually read St. Augustine’s writings on the subject, for patently misrepresenting him:
St. Augustine:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’. For he carried that body in his hands.”
-Explanations of the Psalms 33:1 (circa A.D. 405)
“I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. The bread you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the Word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”
-Sermons 227 (circa A.D. 411)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But your faith obliges you to accept 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.”
-Sermons 272 (circa A.D. 411)
St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, **because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins **and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
-Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6 (circa A.D. 110)
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-Letter to the Romans 7 (circa A.D. 110)
Tertullian:
“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.”
-“Against Marcion,” Bk 4, chapter 40
For a clear and accurate reflection on Tertullian I’d recommend this also further: catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence
As is discussed there, your mistake, a typical one made by Protestant apologists (some unknowing but others I suspect very much aware they are purposefully misrepresenting the truth of the matter) is in thinking that by the term “figure” Tertullian meant merely “figurative” or symbolic, whereas from the whole context of his writings it is clear that he meant “sign” in the exact same way the Catholic Church understands it today.
W
Wannano
Guest
I lived a sheltered life…Doesn’t anyone like the classics anymore?
OK, just as well – it wasn’t much a joke.
B
Blacksword
Guest
Additional easily obtainable quotes from the ECF’s:
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
St. Justin Martyr:
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food that has been made into the Eucharist by the eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
-First Apology 66 (circa A.D. 151).
St. Irenaeus:
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?”
-Against Heresies 4:33:2 (circa A.D. 189)
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. When the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life – flesh that is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”
-Against Heresies 5:2:2-3 (circa A.D. 189)
Origen:
“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’.”
-Homilies on Numbers 7:2 (circa A.D. 249)
St. Cyprian:
“[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’. All these warnings being scorned and despised, 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, violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord.”
-The Lapsed (Treatise 3) 15-16 (A.D. 251)
St. Ambrose:
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It only 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 (circa A.D. 390).
St. Hilary:
“When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously-had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”
-The Trinity 8:14 (circa 356 A.D.)
B
Blacksword
Guest
More:
St. John Chrysostom:
“When the word says ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!”
-Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 82:4 (A.D. 370)
“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”
-Homilies on the Treachery of Judas 1,6 (A.D. 407)
St. Epiphanius:
“We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”
-The Man Well-Anchored 57 (A.D. 374)
Now these are just passages from some ECF’s that I compiled in an earlier exchange I had with my father on this. There are many more, for instance I found this just now on a simple google search with a dozen more ECF’s in agreement: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
So, in conclusion, the essential doctrine of the Real Presence is absolutely universal in the early Church, and even was held to among some such as Tertullian who died a Monatist heretic! Support for the modern post-Reformation invention of a merely symbolic or “figurative” Eucharist cannot be found anywhere in the Church prior to the 16th Century reformers, and is wholly at odds with prior Christian history, belief and practice.
B
Blacksword
Guest
Yes, number 5 obviously.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You’ve switched from philosophy to science. The word substance,isn’t used the same way between the two disciplines. St. Thomas Aquinas was using the terms of metaphysics when he used the terms substance and accident. He wasn’t using scientific terms.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
The actual substance changes. No, Catholics are not Calvinists.
P
PJM
Guest
THANK YOU so very much:thumbsup:*
I THINK [age 72 memory getting weaker] that I shared that the EARLY Church used the TERM: "Breaking of the Bread for Holy Communion [a later theological term].
Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.
Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers
Acts Of Apostles 2:46
And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of hear
I’m not sure of my reply was missed, ignored or further denied:shrug:
GBY
Patrick*
P
PJM
Guest
GOOD start here
[1] So “GOD can do anything”
SO PLEASE GOOGLE “Eucharistic Miracles”
[2] Why then do you choose NOT to believe what the bible precisely [and five different bible authors] testify too? And as previously indicated was believed, accepted, put into immediate practice, [acts 2:42 & 2:46] and MANY gave their very lives in brutal fashion to uphold?
God Bless you
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
quote MARK 16
Originally Posted by rcwitness View Post
Mark relates that He appeared in “another form”. I have touched on this with you before, but what does Mark (or the Spirit) mean by “another form”? And remember, it was significant for them to return to the others to to relate how He was made known to them end quote
Haydock’s Commentary
verse 12:
Ver. 12. He had appeared to Magdalene in the form of a gardener, and to two disciples in the form of a traveller.
BUT also keep in mind Jesus was NOW in His GLORIFIED BODY:thumbsup:
GBY
Originally Posted by rcwitness View Post
Mark relates that He appeared in “another form”. I have touched on this with you before, but what does Mark (or the Spirit) mean by “another form”? And remember, it was significant for them to return to the others to to relate how He was made known to them end quote
[11] And they hearing that he was alive, and had been seen by her, did not believe. [12] And after that he appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country. [13] And they going told it to the rest: neither did they believe them. [14] At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. [15] And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Haydock’s Commentary
verse 12:
Ver. 12. He had appeared to Magdalene in the form of a gardener, and to two disciples in the form of a traveller.
BUT also keep in mind Jesus was NOW in His GLORIFIED BODY:thumbsup:
GBY
P
PJM
Guest
Here are TWO VERY OLD Catholic versions of
Mark 16: 9-14
The Douay Bible which predates the King James NT & and The Latin Vulgate
Douay:9 But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen; out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 She went and told them that had been with him, who were mourning and weeping.
11 And they hearing that he was alive and had been seen by her, did not believe.
12 And after that he appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country.
13 And they going told it to the rest: neither did they believe them.
14 At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again.
Vulgate:
9 surgens autem mane prima sabbati apparuit primo Mariae Magdalenae de qua eiecerat septem daemonia
10 illa vadens nuntiavit his qui cum eo fuerant lugentibus et flentibus
11 et illi audientes quia viveret et visus esset ab ea non crediderunt
12 post haec autem duobus ex eis ambulantibus ostensus est in alia effigie euntibus in villam
13 et illi euntes nuntiaverunt ceteris nec illis crediderunt
14 novissime recumbentibus illis undecim apparuit et exprobravit incredulitatem illorum et duritiam cordis quia his qui viderant eum resurrexisse non crediderant
God Bless you
P
PJM
Guest
NO my friend,
PLEASE READ Acts 2:42 & 2:46
The Early Church has numerous Martyrs who gave their very lives in BRUTAL fashion because of belief in the Doctrine, which the RCC has always held.
It was not a matter of unbelief; but unknown definition.
The TERM “transubstantiation” though was a later theological therm added to explain what really takes place
GBY
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
GEAT reoly, I was just thinking of posting something very similar. Gald you beat me to it
God Bless you
Patrick
S
susanlo
Guest
My statement about Augustine was that: “Augustine later writes that John 6 is figurative and not to be taken literally.” I should have specified John 6:53 and not the whole chapter, but I don’t think that is misrepresenting him. He wrote:
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness.”
He is talking about whether phrases are taken literally or figuratively. He writes in a previous chapter:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
He clearly states that John 6:53 is figurative, and stating that isn’t misrepresenting him even if you decide to re-define figurative.
“But, He drummed upon the doors of the city: what are the doors of the city, but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? And was carried in His Own Hands: how carried in His Own Hands? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, This is My Body. Matthew*26:26 And He fell down at the doors of the gate; that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm
This doesn’t seem to be speaking of transubstantiation.
S
susanlo
Guest
The full text for sermon 227 david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html
“You are yourselves what you receive”
“You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.”
“Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed?†9 Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven.”
The full text for sermon 272 earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
“My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.””
“So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.””
S
susanlo
Guest
The Letter to the Smyrnaeans was a warning against Docetism. “Docetism is the belief that Jesus Christ did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion.”
Chapter 5 - “Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
They don’t participate in the Eucharist and prayer not specifically because of any belief about the substance of the bread, but because they denied that Jesus ever even had flesh and denied that he died on the cross. This doesn’t mean that Ignatius didn’t believe in some form of transubstantiation, but it hardly means that he did. There would be no point in participating in the Eucharist if it was even remembering that Jesus had flesh if you didn’t believe that He did have flesh.
The Letter to the Romans is about him requesting the Church in Rome to not intervene in any way to prevent his martyrdom. The chapter your quote is from has much allegory:
"Chapter 7. Reason of desiring to die
The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
In Chapter 4 he writes: “I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm
I don’t think this passage in your quote is about him requesting to receive the Eucharist, but metaphorical language about wanting to be martyred.
S
susanlo
Guest
“For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.”
newadvent.org/fathers/03123.htm
“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.”
newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
I don’t have Tertullian’s writings in their original translation, but I understand that Tertullian used the same terms in other writings where he clearly meant to use figurative language.
“Chapter 37. Christ’s Assertion About the Unprofitableness of the Flesh Explained Consistently with Our Doctrine.
He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to 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: 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. John5:24 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, John1:14 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. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John6:51 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. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: The flesh profits nothing.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm
S
susanlo
Guest
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise…very interesting understanding of fetal development and breast-feeding…Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. John6:53-54 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”
newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm
I don’t think any of this can be taken at face value. He is not discussing the Eucharist, but how people are nourished by word and knowledge. (I think, it is kind of confusing to say the least.)
I am not going to post about all of your quotes on here, but it is important to look at each one in-depth and not take it at face value. Some early theologians, like Ambrose that you quoted, did write about a change in the Eucharistic elements. Others only appear to be saying that when they are in fact writing about something else altogether. It is often more complicated then a few brief quotes.
S
susanlo
Guest
I don’t think I will be able to understand it. Thank you for trying.
I read some of what Thomas Aquinas wrote on it today and I don’t think I can grasp it. I am a scientific person and I don’t think I can make my brain work in a way that can understand it. The physical substance remains unchanged, yet something which I can’t put my finger on does change. This change is not physical, but it isn’t merely spiritual or merely the meaning of the elements.
I think to answer the question of the post would be mostly because I can’t even understand it. I don’t know if all 3000 of the new Christians in Acts 2 suddenly comprehended this idea after a short sermon before becoming (non-separated) Christians, and today we just struggle with it. Or maybe understanding it isn’t necessary to be a Christian and understand what Communion is actually all about - which is remembering Jesus’ sacrifice to provide salvation for man.
- Status