catzrfluffy
i come bearing .gifs
- Sep 4, 2009
- 2,259
- 727
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Try Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence « One Fold BlogCreedIsChrist said:
Upvote
0
How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone?
- Thread starter Tyndale
- Start date
- Status
Trento
Senior Veteran
- Apr 12, 2002
- 4,387
- 575
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Summary at the end of the Ante-Nicene Fathers by Proteatant Early Church Scholars
Darwell Stone --
"....it is most natural and reasonable to understand the less definite language in the light of the more definite; and THROUGHOUT the writers of the period the identification of the ELEMENTS WITH THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST appears to be the ruling idea." (Stone, volume 1, page 54)
<B>Protestant Patristic scholar Phillip Schaff admits there was no serious controversy until the 9th century --
"The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy and ecclesiastical action till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century...." (Schaff, vol 3, pg 492)
Schaff continues in his next section:
</B>Schaff continues in his next section:
The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question."
(§ 96. "The Sacrifice of the Eucharist")
(§ 96. "The Sacrifice of the Eucharist")
<B>Ante-Nicene Fathers by Early Church Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly --
"....the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist....It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper....Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord's real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5].....The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)
</B>
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MOD HAT ON
You'll notice a few posts are missing or edited in the thread. Don't fret if one of yours is one of them...you were probably just quoting posts that have been deleted.
Carry on. Carry on.
By the way, try not to feed the trolls. Please.
MOD HAT OFF
Upvote
0
chestertonrules
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
S
SpiritualAntiseptic
Guest
I'm not going to argue with an online blog. If you want to post particular points, I'll refute them. The people he choose to quote and twist around their words is amusing, if not quite bold. They were orthodox partristics and certainly don't deny the real presence.
Upvote
0
- Jan 30, 2004
- 23,183
- 2,778
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I wonder if the One Fold author is otherwise a big fan of Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
Smart money says, "no". Especially the proto-Universalist elements in their work.
Smart money says, "no". Especially the proto-Universalist elements in their work.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Thank you for that. Nice to see someone else understanding poor, twisted Ignatius' words within the context he wrote them. --against gnostics who denied God Incarnate.
Here's a couple more.
Didache c90
"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks. But first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 14)."
As long as we argue about this, the Didache says defiled.
And Irenaeus again,
Irenaeus c175 bishop of Lyons
For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?”
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The other two points missing in this discussion is that the called-out ones are the Church. Not the buildings.
So, where is this altar of perpetual sacrifice found? Not in us.
It takes a Levite-type priest to make a sacrifice. Not us Melchizedekian types in Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Secundulus
Well-Known Member
I am unsure why you use this to support your theory? The Didache calls it a sacrifice which is anathema to Protestants.
It is in the Didache you quoted above.
Upvote
0
S
SpiritualAntiseptic
Guest
Yes, and?
Who teaches perpetual sacrifice? Only extremists Jews, to my knowledge.
The sacrifice is made by Christ now.
Upvote
0
S
SpiritualAntiseptic
Guest
In fairness to them, purgatory and hell had not been separated concepts yet. I sorta look the other way
Upvote
0
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." (Smyrnaeans 7:1 - Roberts-Donaldson translation)
Other translations don't translate it that way at all.
J.B Lightfoot translation:
"They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God perish by their questionings." (Smyrnaeans 7:1)
Charles H. Hoole translation:
"They, therefore, who speak against the gift of God, die disputing. But it were better for them to love, that they might also rise again." (Smyrnaeans 7:1)
Other translations don't translate it that way at all.
J.B Lightfoot translation:
"They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God perish by their questionings." (Smyrnaeans 7:1)
Charles H. Hoole translation:
"They, therefore, who speak against the gift of God, die disputing. But it were better for them to love, that they might also rise again." (Smyrnaeans 7:1)
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
So some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers saw symbolism in the Eucharist? Wow, that's surprising! I think almost everyone does. The issue at hand is whether it's only symbolic, and their near-unanimous testimony, when you don't use carefully selected quotes, is that they didn't regard it as only symbolic.
Let me also add, with no intent to pour obloquy on my Catholic brethren, that they are quite heavily focused on the Eucharist as sacrifice. But others who hold to as solid a belief in the Real Presence as them, notably the Orthodox, put the focus on other elements of the Eucharist's meaning: union with Christ, communion with the other members of the Communion of Saints, true penitence for sin, spiritual nourishment.... The list could be endless; the Eucharist is rich in its meaning for all to whom it is important, Catholics included.
I understand the need to address the question of 'sacrifice' in the Eucharist, but let's not let that become a red herring. Cranmer's phrase of "a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" was used almost universally by Anglicans nd Methodists until very recently, and I think is preserved as an alternative liturgy in both cases. There is a parallel to the Aaronic priesthood, to be sure, but it's one small slender thread in a very rich tapestry.
Let me also add, with no intent to pour obloquy on my Catholic brethren, that they are quite heavily focused on the Eucharist as sacrifice. But others who hold to as solid a belief in the Real Presence as them, notably the Orthodox, put the focus on other elements of the Eucharist's meaning: union with Christ, communion with the other members of the Communion of Saints, true penitence for sin, spiritual nourishment.... The list could be endless; the Eucharist is rich in its meaning for all to whom it is important, Catholics included.
I understand the need to address the question of 'sacrifice' in the Eucharist, but let's not let that become a red herring. Cranmer's phrase of "a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" was used almost universally by Anglicans nd Methodists until very recently, and I think is preserved as an alternative liturgy in both cases. There is a parallel to the Aaronic priesthood, to be sure, but it's one small slender thread in a very rich tapestry.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
chestertonrules
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
Yes, but what Im looking for is an early document,(100AD-400AD) that says the real prescense is not real and no transformation or sacrifice takes place, and hence it is just spiritual..Im looking for a bold declaration that claims it is heresy or whatnot..
Is there any document that says this from any father? or even any christian? It would at least bring some support to their "its symbolic only" position..Not symoblic comparisons, but an actual denial of "Christ's flesh and blood are not really present in the bread and wine and that the early fathers who thought so are heretical"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
is that seriously it? lol...I don't see any open denial of Christ's presence in those. Not to mention the scholarship is horrid..
Ill go through each one
“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” 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 Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”
No where does it deny this in this sentence? He calls the Eucharist a mystery even
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. 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…”
Nothing here on the bread and wine, just a comparison of the Holy Spirit with Christ's flesh, and the blood with the Word..
“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.”
This supports the real presense, I don't even know why he posted this, It says "And to drink the blood of Jesus"
“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?‘”
Again, no real understanding of what a bloodless sacrifice is and the material nature of the bread and wine.He is defending the accusation against human cannibalism, not denying the transubstancial nature of the Eucharist..
not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.“
and he claims this supports his position? where?? This is a quote many theologians cite to support the eucharist actually. Doesn't he read "not as common bread and common drink"?
Anyway the post is quite long, but you can see the quote mine is a very desperate attempt..
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Already cited the Didache. Already cited Ignatious (indirectly). Already cited Irenaeus. Here't Theophilus.
Theophilus c175 bishop of Antioch
Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf...ght=eucharist,flesh,blood#highlight#highlightflesh.
640640 [The body of Christ is human flesh. If, then, it had been the primitive doctrine, that the bread and wine cease to exist in the Eucharist, and are changed into natural flesh and blood, our author could not have resented this charge as most barbarous and impious.]
But further, they say that our doctrine has but recently come to light, and that we have nothing to allege in proof of what we receive as truth, nor of our teaching, but that our doctrine is foolishness. I wonder, then, chiefly that you, who in other matters are studious, and a scrutinizer of all things, give but a careless hearing to us. For, if it were possible for you, you would not grudge to spend the night in the libraries.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.iv.html
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
actually, she cut off the 2nd and 3rd sentence off too late. She didn't post the whole 2-3rd sentence in comparison to the first one
here is the real lightfoot translation
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html
They abstain
from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they
allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
Here is the FULL charles hoole one
6:8 They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer,
6:9 because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
7:1 They therefore that gainsay the good gift of God perish by their questionings.
That isn't cool jazmyn what you did..
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
