ECF Contextual correctness....

[simonthezealot]

I am starting this thread as a way to find context on oft used snippets...
My desire is that this be ongoing research thread!

 

[simonthezealot]

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
or Aphrahat?


"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

 

[simonthezealot]

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
or Aphrahat?


"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

I found demonstrations which I was under the impression was the same but can't find THIS WRITING WITHIN IT!

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.iii.ix.html

 

[simonthezealot]

Augustine
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

AHA 2 years of online apologetics and I finally found it!
http://www.augustinians.org.au/news/bulletin0506.html
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james....uchBurns2.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=vLX...JXaYE#PPA39,M1


I've found more on Augustin's sermon, this has bugged me for awhile seeing everyone quoting the sermon but only snippets...

So here you go!


I haven't forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which yo can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostles 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. In this loaf of bread you are given clear to understand how much you should love unity. I mean, what that loaf made from one grain? Weren't there many grains of wheat? But before they came into the loaf they were all separate; they were joined together by means of water after a certain amount of pounding and crushing. Unless wheat is ground, after all, and moistened with water, it can't possibly bet into this shape which is called bread. In the same way you too were being ground and pounded, as it were, by the humiliation of fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it's not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That's the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.

(The up until now missing part is red!)

Notice how he avoids dwelling on the physical body of Christ and directs attention to His ecclesial body.

Here you are Wa!

 

[WarriorAngel]

But I see it another way.

Follow my course of thought if you would...

This;
That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive.

The latter you posted...only produces better knowledge of the epistle of Paul, that we are ALL in His Body.

See what I mean?

St Augustine is using an analogy that examines Paul's teaching of Him having One Body.
Which so corresponds to the actual Body and Blood [literal] St Augustine had just written... to mean as the loaf we are indeed part of His Body.

But it is an analogy... and it does not contradict. Although you are correct he goes no further to explain the Body and Blood, for his previous statement already covered that.

Make sense?

 

[simonthezealot]

But I see it another way.

Follow my course of thought if you would...

This;
That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive.

The latter you posted...only produces better knowledge of the epistle of Paul, that we are ALL in His Body.

See what I mean?

St Augustine is using an analogy that examines Paul's teaching of Him having One Body.
Which so corresponds to the actual Body and Blood [literal] St Augustine had just written... to mean as the loaf we are indeed part of His Body.

But it is an analogy... and it does not contradict. Although you are correct he goes no further to explain the Body and Blood, for his previous statement already covered that.

Make sense?

While the intent of this thread is really to uncover missing links (so to speak) I suppose some dialogue on each should be present, I think when you view this along with the complete context of sermo 272 you see that Augustin moves very very quickly away from the Messianic body and into the ecclesial body which is consistent with his other writings and the view that he saw the eucharist as more spiritual and less literal. While I would never deny he viewed a form of presence it was a far cry from modern Romes extreme literalness.

If you wish to pursue this debate further it can be found in the sacremental ordinance thread under ecf's and transubstantiation. I'll post the link shortly.

http://foru.ms/t6423324-early-church-fathers-on-transubstantiation.html

 

[simonthezealot]

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
or Aphrahat?


"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Can anyone link this to the full writing for context?

 

[simonthezealot]

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is 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" Augustine sermo 272

I found this one!!!

It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You've bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.” Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody's mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man's estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That's where he lifted his body up to; that's where he's going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that's where he is now, seated on the Father's right. How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.
So why in bread? Let's not bring anything of our own to bear here, let's go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it's as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it's as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it's as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That's what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn't said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves. Turning to the Lord, God the Father almighty, with pure hearts let us give him sincere and abundant thanks, as much as we can in our littleness; beseeching him in his singular kindness with our whole soul, graciously to hearken to our prayers in his good pleasure; also by his power to drive out the enemy from our actions and thoughts, to increase our faith, to guide our minds, to grant us spiritual thoughts, and to lead us finally to his bliss; through Jesus Christ his Son. Amen.

 

[TraderJack]

I found this one!!!

It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction. The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9). I mean, you can now say to me, “You've bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand.” Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody's mind: “We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man's estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. That's where he lifted his body up to; that's where he's going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that's where he is now, seated on the Father's right. How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.
So why in bread? Let's not bring anything of our own to bear here, let's go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it's as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it's as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it's as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That's what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn't said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves. Turning to the Lord, God the Father almighty, with pure hearts let us give him sincere and abundant thanks, as much as we can in our littleness; beseeching him in his singular kindness with our whole soul, graciously to hearken to our prayers in his good pleasure; also by his power to drive out the enemy from our actions and thoughts, to increase our faith, to guide our minds, to grant us spiritual thoughts, and to lead us finally to his bliss; through Jesus Christ his Son. Amen.

Mark

 

[WarriorAngel]

I will futher go into St Augustine, and show the entier passage...when i have time.
But let me explain St Augustine's only example of 'symbolic' and that was the USE of the Bread and Wine...and not the changed form itself.

He uses bread and wine as symbolic of Melchizedek...
And He becomes the High Priest of Melchizedek...

The symbol is only the matter that He changes...and not that the matter changed is symbolic.

If you want contextual correctness you need all of St Augustine's writings.
Which i have read....and have made clear for you above.

Neverhtless; what do you make of this ECF?

St. Maximus of Constantinople

Known as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662. He is one of the chief names in the Monothelite controversy one of the chief doctors of the theology of the Incarnation and of ascetic mysticism, and remarkable as a witness to the respect for the papacy held by the Greek Church in his day.



The Ecthesis of Heraclius was published in 638, and Sergius and Pope Honorius both died in that year. A letter of Maximus tells us on the authority of his friends at Constantinople, that the Roman apocrisiarii who had come thither to obtain the emperor's confirmation for the newly elected Pope Severinus, were met by the clergy of Constantinople with the demand that they should promise to obtain the pope's signature to the Ecthesis, otherwise they should receive no assistance in the matter for which they had made so long a voyage:

Having discovered the tenor of the document, since by refusing they would have caused the first and Mother of Churches, and the city, to remain so long a time in widowhood, they replied quietly: We cannot act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith. But we assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated, and if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his slgnature to it. But do not therefore place any obstacle in our way now, or do violence to us by delaying us and keeping us here. For none has a right to use violence especially when faith is in question. For herein even the weakest waxes mighty and the meek becomes a warrior, and by comforting his soul with the Divine Word, is hardened against the greatest attack. How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotallaw. And so when without fear but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is, of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome, had so replied to the clergy of the royal city, they were seen to have conciliated them and to have acted prudently, that the others might be humble and modest, while they made known the orthodoxy and purity of their own faith from the beginning. But those of Constantinople, admiring their piety, thought that such a deed ought to be recompensed; and ceasing from urging the document on them, they promised by their diligence to procure the issue of the emperor's order with regard to the episcopal election . . Of the aforesaid document a copy has been sent to me also. They have explained in it the cause for being silent about the natural operations in Christ our God, that is, in His natures, of which and in which He is believed to be, and how in future neither one nor two are to be mentioned. It is only to be allowed to confess that the divine and human (works) proceeded from the same Word of God incarnate, and are to be attributed to one and the same (person)." ​

This passage does not call the prohibition of "two operations" yet by the name of heresy and does not mention the "one Will" confessed in the Ecthesis. But it gives verv clearly St. Maximus's view that the smallest point of faith is to be held at the risk of one's life, and it demonstrates the ample admission made at Constantinople, before the struggles began, of the prerogatives of Rome. When in 641 John IV wrote his defence of Pope Honorius, it was re-echoed by St. Maximus in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus. He declares that Honorius, when he confessed one will of our Lord, only meant to deny that Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence, since he was conceived and born without stain of sin. Maximus appeals to the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm


Pyrrhus was in Palestine and Peter had restrained him from putting forward his heretical views. Pyrrhus had declared that he was ready to satisfy Maximus as to his orthodoxy. The latter says he would have written to Peter before

but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holylawsif I were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the CatholicChurch, and rule it with order according to the divine law. ​

The new Ecthesis is worse than the old heresies- Pyrrhus and his predecessor have accused Sophronius of error- they persuaded Heraclius to give his name to the Ecthesis:

they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessedpope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the CatholicChurch. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her -- nay, to our Lord -- by a pious confession and orthodoxfaith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessedpope of the most holyChurchof the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holysynods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holyChurches of Godwhich are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.​

 

[lionroar0]

I am starting this thread as a way to find context on oft used snippets...
My desire is that this be ongoing research thread!

Just an FYI. Some things are just not online.

When you start really diggin for info alot of stuff is in books.

Peaece

 

[simonthezealot]

Just an FYI. Some things are just not online.

When you start really diggin for info alot of stuff is in books.

Peaece

Yes and it would be great if those who have access could do there best to at least fill in and type accurately a paragraph or 2 before and after some of these chosen snippets if you have it in reference in any particular books.

 

[simonthezealot]

I will futher go into St Augustine, and show the entier passage...when i have time.
But let me explain St Augustine's only example of 'symbolic' and that was the USE of the Bread and Wine...and not the changed form itself.

He uses bread and wine as symbolic of Melchizedek...
And He becomes the High Priest of Melchizedek...

The symbol is only the matter that He changes...and not that the matter changed is symbolic.

If you want contextual correctness you need all of St Augustine's writings.
Which i have read....and have made clear for you above.

WA,
The purpose of this thread is truly for finding missing links...Let's not sidetrack.
Thanks,
Simon

 

[simonthezealot]

Aphraahat the Persian Sage
or Aphrahat?
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

What i've found so far...
from The Faith of the Early Fathers By W. A. Jurgens pg 304

"For our Savior ate the passover with His disciples on that night celebrated on the fourteenth. And the sign of the Passover He fulfilled in truth with His disciples. For after Judas had departed from them, He took bread and blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, and said to them: "This is My Body; take, eat of this, all of you." So too He pronounced a blessing upon the wine, and said to them: "This is My Blood, the new covenant, which for many is poured out, to the remission of sins. In like manner do this in memory of Me, whenever you gather together."
But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His Blood as drink; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross."

 

[lionroar0]

Yes and it would be great if those who have access could do there best to at least fill in and type accurately a paragraph or 2 before and after some of these chosen snippets if you have it in reference in any particular books.

This is one of those things that I learned while in college but not from any class that I took. This was my experience when looking for information.

Because religious studies is a relatively new field in comparison to other academic fields alot of of the information are in books that one has to buy either through a catalog or direct through the publisher.

They can be quite expensive.

Also some of these books are just no available through the public library system. They are only available through the university college library system.

Also somethings are just no in english.

Sadly there are alot of barries for the layman to overcome.

Peace

 

[simonthezealot]

This is one of those things that I learned while in college but not from any class that I took. This was my experience when looking for information.

Because religious studies is a relatively new field in comparison to other academic fields alot of of the information are in books that one has to buy either through a catalog or direct through the publisher.

They can be quite expensive.

Also some of these books are just no available through the public library system. They are only available through the university college library system.

Also somethings are just no in english.

Sadly there are alot of barries for the layman to overcome.

Peace

Lr,
Things are quickly becoming more available on google book, many of the seemingly out of context snippets are beginning to be available...The intention here is for the long term.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Those are ecf writings...
And they can hardly be misread.
Not sidetracking, BUT putting the ecf's into the right perspective.


Here is a thought.

Protestants cannot use the ecf's to proove sola fide or scriptura.
In fact, they cannot use them at all unless they believe in Tradition of the Church.

 

[simonthezealot]

Those are ecf writings...
And they can hardly be misread.
Not sidetracking, BUT putting the ecf's into the right perspective.


Here is a thought.

Protestants cannot use the ecf's to proove sola fide or scriptura.
In fact, they cannot use them at all unless they believe in Tradition of the Church.

In patristics if you wish to start a thread regarding sola fide and the ecf's I am all for it, sola scriptura too for that matter. Not gonna sidetrack this one though.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am starting this thread as a way to find context on oft used snippets...
My desire is that this be ongoing research thread!

I do not see where you stated any certain ecf or snippet.

SO i added some.

And they are clear in their content...correct?

 

[simonthezealot]

I do not see where you stated any certain ecf or snippet.

SO i added some.

And they are clear in their content...correct?

Hi sis,
I guess I am not being very clear, the idea with this thread is to take a snippet that others use during debate and place it on this thread if you can't find the proper context...Then we'll take that tidbit and continually search until we can lay down some context for it, it is not a polemical thing rather a historical and contextual thing we are after...OKAY?
Thanks Sis!
Simon