Irenaeus on transubstantiation

[Clearly]

Hi Christos -

Again I thank you for your patience since I have limited time to post.


Christos Said in Post #20

"Jesus may not have been speaking Greek but the Gospels were authored by the Apostles in Greek. They felt it appropriate to use the phrase "Touto estin to soma mou". For that reason I think it does make sense to take into account the meaning of the phrase."

I am not sure how much to say nor how gentle to say it since I do not know how much you know, or WANT to know about the text of the New Testament. First, may I say that I strongly agree with your suggestion that we should seek to both know and understand what Jesus and the Apostles said. However, therein is the historical rub.

No one can TELL US from the current manuscripts what specific words either Jesus OR the apostles actually said, nor can we tell what they actually wrote since original autographs no longer exist.


What we have are translations of translations; a competing series of corrections and an almost unmanageable tangle of thousands of differing greek texts, almost all of which have some external disagreements and multiple changes from their original form. The difficult purpose of the textual critics is to try to get the best sense of what the original words might have been.

Though you quoted some very nice Greek words and then claimed that they were the original words that the apostles themselves actually wrote. The truth is, that you are probably quoting a bible you are familiar with, which gives the greek words from a greek which is simply one Greek manuscript from a multitude of other Greek manuscripts. However, such manuscripts are NOT original Greek, nor do we HAVE translations from an Original Greek manuscript but rather such translations are made from the consideration and consensus of a group of translators who are considering a limited number of picked early Greek manuscripts, ALL of which differ in particulars and are themselves simply translations of translations.

The view of translator-Scholars on this point is worth considering. For example, the wonderfully bright Dead Sea Scroll Scholar, James Sanders, served on the committee that produced the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) that many of us read. During a commentary period at a symposium sponsored by the resident associate program, smithsonian institution. (biblical archaeology society, washington dc. ) he commented regarding the early texts that make up various versions of sacred texts :

“Do we use the word “original” or do we just drop the word because we do not have autographs of anything? We have only apographs [copies]. That throws the focus back on the communities again. They were copied for whom? They were copied for what reason? They were copied for communities of faith, in Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, we have to say that we don’t really know exactly the inception of any of these texts, but they develop into what we call “traditioning process”. Then the various parts of the bible became important enough to various believing communities that they were copied more accurately, which starts in the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century of the common Era. .... It was a progressive process as Judaism began to see the need to work out Oral Law from the stabilized text of Torah. The move was from sacred story, which is always adaptable, to sacred text which is considerably more stable. The same thing happened with the nationalization of Christianity in the early fourth century C.E. when the earlier texts were relatively fluid but there began to be accurate copying when Constantine became a Christian, and later when Christianity became an official religion.

Sanders later suggested that we allow multiple versions of texts to exist in the same Bible since we often have no right to represent one version as being more correct than another. He mused :

“I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.”

One important consideration was how much true principles the non-historians will stand without suffering unnecessary doubts about the Core issues of Christianity.

Still, If one makes claims regarding specific historical issues, then one must allow others to look at specifics as well. If you are going to attempt to base your theory on specifics (such as a word “estin&#8221, then you will have to provide sufficient specifics to allow us to analyze the data upon which you are going to base your theory.

For examples :

You do not tell us what manuscript you are quoting from (Most individuals are both unaware of the manuscripts which underlie the translations they read nor do they even understand the significance of this point.) nor offer any comparison texts to any other manuscripts and then offer data as to why your preferred text is superior to another text.

In some cases the differences between the thousands of different greek manuscripts are significant and important to specific portions of text. For example, the earlier (and presumably more original) Alexandrian texts do not contain the later addition of the story of “the woman taken in adultery” (the addition of this story into the evolving New Testament text, was attributed by Lightfoot, to Papias, an apostolic father rather than to whoever edited the Gospel of John) Thus this entire New Testament story, which forms a basis for many typical Sunday school lessons on forgiveness of moral sins, does not even exist in the earlier New Testament texts. (The Old Testament is even more subject to changes since there are entire CHAPTERS in the old testament that are changing due to Qumranic textual discoveries)

If there are entire Stories in the later versions of the Greek New Testament that were added by later, non-apostlic writers, then one may ask : "What reason, other than simple faith, do you have for believing in your quote as the very words that the apostles themselves penned? Especially when world renown textual critics have never been able to make such a claim?

You have not told us regarding potential contributions of correctors to your specific greek translation. How many “corrections” have been made to your text and, is your quote possibly part of a prior “correction” of the text? If your quote is a “correction”, then why is the correction deemed more correct than the earlier text? If your quote is NOT a correction, then why is the current text more correct than a potential correction from another text?

For example, the wonderful manuscript, Codex Sinaticus had at least three correctors trying to “fix” errors they found in the text. (Corrector designated as “B” was infamous for his incompetence and damage to the manuscript he wrought). The famous scholar Tischendorf (who brought the text from the monastery originally), counted at least 14,800 corrections IN JUST THE ST. PETERSBURG PORTION OF THE TEXT. Most always the corrections were “against” other texts that were considered by the correctors, to be “more correct” than the earlier greek text they were working with!

Remember also, that a corrector who is working on the text in the sixth century may correct against HIS pet manuscript while another “corrector” working on the SAME manuscript in the seventh century may make “corrections” to the very SAME manuscript, using an entirely different manuscript. In the case of Sinaiticus, the 12th century correctors may have been using a copy corrected by Pamphilius (who was, in his turn, working from the hexapla). This is part of the reason the descriptions of early manuscripts show so much mixing between Alexandrian; byzantine and multiple other readings. It becomes very, very, very complicated.

I am surprised you are able to simply give a quote and then claim that a few specific words were "what the apostles said” when none of the worlds best textual critics are able to do this. It frankly feels like you are simply unaware of these historical and textual issues and are using simple “Sunday school” information and trying to apply the claim to support a personal theology and neatly sidestep all of the more difficult problems involving textual criticism of a more profound nature.

If you ARE somehow able to tell us what the original words of either the Savior OR the apostles were, when none of the worlds experts on textual criticism can, please, tell us how you did what they have never been able to do. Please to NOT mistake my intent. I do NOT want to introduce unnecessary doubts into the truth of a core issue of Salvation through Jesus, but am saying that once you enter into a discussion of textual criticism and claims regarding very specific and “original words” of Jesus or of his apostles, then the claim itself will quickly enter a murky bog that will not support it's own weight.

One wonders what the apostles would say if they could hear what they are quoted as having said in various versions of biblical texts. Regarding the various Old Testament texts and Isaiah, the biblical translator Sanders said :

“The Hebrew text is still in the process of standardization, but I wonder if it would not be proper for there to be an effort afoot to provide our people with the differences all along. I have been told by some that that would just destroy the Bible because lay folk still want to think of the Bible as somehow “inerrant.” The truth of the matter is that all biblical passages have been community property almost from the first repetition. It may well be that if there should ever be the possibility of discussing the text of Isaiah with Isaiah, he might very well say, “But I did not say that.” It has nonetheless become community Isaiah property and he might just have to live with it.”.

Remember, Sanders served on the very committee that produced the NRSV bible...

Christos, I think that textual criticism is another bog that few people are going to negotiate publicly without risking misunderstanding in the hearts and minds of readers who have never been even introduced to the subject. Still, if you want to travel into textual areas, I will follow you as far as I am able (which, admittedly, is not very far) if this point is important to you.


Having said all of this, I still agree with you that it is very important to consider all possibilities not only of what the text might have said but what it actually MEANT, and I thank you for the good intent underlying your suggestion in this regard.



Clearly

futzsirp

 

[razeontherock]

Very interesting points here!

 

[MrPolo]

“concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows. First, concerning the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever.” And concerning the broken bread” “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.” (The Didache 9:1-4)

The symbolism regarding the eucharist continues in the next sentence : “ Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; The Didache 9:1-4. These are clearly symbolic principles (though they represent important realities)

This quotation from the Didache in no way denies the concept of the literal Body and Blood. Partly because the Apostolic teaching on the Eucharist includes the symbolism of the many grains of wheat coming together to form one body, which is symbolic of the members of the one Church.

St. Augustine similarly called the Eucharist "sign of unity". The Catholic Catechism quotes him saying this. Yet, St. Augustine in saying this did not in any way deny belief in a literal sacrifice of Christ in the sacrament. Neither did the Catechism in quoting him. It is erroneous to find an ECF's mention of symbolism in the Eucharist and presume that exhausts that ECF's scope of belief about the Eucharist. St. Augustine believed in the Real Presence as well as symbolic dimensions like the unifying sign of the bread. Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this very subject in Ecclesia de Eucharistia in which the grains of wheat represent the members of the Church. Does that equate to a denial of a Real Presence? Was the Pope denying belief in a real sacrifice present in the Eucharist? Of course not.

In the same way, the Didache elsewhere calls the Eucharist a "clean/pure sacrifice."

On the Lord's Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: "In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am Great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles." (14:1-2)​

That also fits in the context of history with subsequent writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, etc... believing in a "literal" Eucharistic sacrifice. And it also fits in the context of history prior to the Didache, such as in 1 Corinthians 11:29 in which Paul writes of "discerning" the bread as "the body of the Lord."

 

[Clearly]

Hi Mr. Polo -

Mr Polo said " This quotation from the Didache in no way denies the concept of the literal Body and Blood. Partly because the Apostolic teaching on the Eucharist includes the symbolism of the many grains of wheat coming together to form one body, which is symbolic of the members of the one Church. “

A claim that the Didache “doesn’t deny” cannibalism is meaningless rhetoric. The Didache CANNOT deny all other impossible theories.

1) “Cheese Theorists” may very correctly point out that the Didache does not deny the theory that the moon is made of cheese. Still, this lack of denial lends NO support to the theory that the moon IS made of Cheese.
2) “Flat earth Theorists” may also correctly point out that the Didache does not deny the theory that the earth is flat, yet this lack of denial lends NO support to the theory that the earth IS flat.
3) “Alien Apostle Theorists” may point out that the Didache does not deny the theory that the 12 apostles are aliens from the planet Zygog, who have taken over human bodies. Still, this lack of denial on the part of the Didache does NOT support the theory that the 12 apostles WERE aliens.
4) “Literal Blood and Literal Flesh Theorists” may certainly point out the didache’s lack of a SPECIFIC denial of cannibalism in early Christianity. Still, this lack of specific denial does NOT SUPPORT eating the literal blood or eating the literal flesh of another human being.

What is important is not what it denies, BUT WHAT IT TEACHES about early Christianity. Importantly, the didache does NOT teach that the eucharist is eating the flesh nor drinking the blood of another human being.

Rather than asking what the earliest Christians themselves believed, you are explaining what a specific brand of later christianity believed and then attempting an uncomfortable “retrofit” of dissimilar ideas.


Scholars such as Wordsworth, Walters, C. Taylor, Rendel Harris have published wonderful analyses of the Didache and none of them were able to find evidence of belief in the text, supporting the teaching of Literal eating of Blood nor literal Eating of Flesh of another human being in this example of earliest of orthodox christianity.

Quite the contrary. The LACK of this teaching was one of it’s defining points regarding the sacrament. This point was not lost on the Scholars. For example : Walters commented regarding the sacrament/eucharist/communal meal :

“It is, however, deeply interesting to see that the words, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” were not used at this epoch”...Still, in the words of consecration - perhaps the oldest liturgical forms which have come down to us - we find no shadow of any doctrine distantly resembling transubstantiation, no conception of any participation which is not purely and absolutely spiritual.”

The Scholars analysis in this regard are the same regarding all three chapters that referred to the sacramental meal. Regarding chapter nine Walters commented :

“This eucharistic consecration-prayer is as significant for what it says as for what it leaves unsaid, and cannot but have weight in modern controversies. There is not a gleam of anything distantly resembling or approaching the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any analogous doctrine; nor is there even a reference to the words, “This is my body”; “This is my blood.”

Regarding chapter fourteen :

“On the Lord’s-Day, assemble together, and break bread and give thanks, after having confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a difference with his fellow join himself to you till they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled.”

Your attempt to “retrofit” the single word “sacrifice” to your belief of eating and drinking of another persons blood and flesh are an obvious misapplication of a metaphorical term, hijacked to support a personal belief. Even Walters points out that “Nothing can more clearly prove that the use of the term “sacrifice,” metaphorically applied to the Eucharist in the fourteenth chapter has the same meaning as our own use of the term...” which obviously referred to a personal sacrifice of the ancient Christian Saint himself. Thus the words say “after having confessed YOUR sins, that YOUR sacrifice may be pure...” and the ancient christian is to reconcile himself with HIS fellow “...that YOUR sacrifice may not defiled.”

History is NOT always comfortable, and what individuals wrote and believed may not always BE comfortable to us with different sets of modern Biases. Still, they believed what THEY believed and no desperate attempt to fit their doctrines into our modern paradigms will change the underlying historical truths.

Please Mr. Polo. Understand that I am NOT trying to offend you, but one MUST allow the ancient to speak for THEMSELVES, rather than to put modern words and concepts into the mouths of the ancients. I do not believe the ancient Christian Saints believed they were literally eating Jesus’ Flesh nor drinking Jesus’ blood when they were taking part in a symbolic ordinance.

All of the references you offer from Later Christianities simply support the point that such doctrines were taught by some of the LATER Christianities.

Clearly

I’m out the door and gone for another three days or so.
fufudrhu

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

What is important is not what it denies, BUT WHAT IT TEACHES about early Christianity. Importantly, the didache does NOT teach that the eucharist is eating the flesh nor drinking the blood of another human being.

Rather than asking what the earliest Christians themselves believed, you are explaining what a specific brand of later christianity believed and then attempting an uncomfortable “retrofit” of dissimilar ideas. -snip-

Irenaeus also wrote:

Irenaeus c175 bishop of Lyons wrote
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]?”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.xiii.html

And the library is always a good idea:


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

Eucharist is thanksgiving.

 

[MrPolo]

claim that the Didache “doesn’t deny” cannibalism is meaningless rhetoric. The Didache CANNOT deny all other impossible theories.

You used the Didache as evidence that the Church did not teach a literal presence, but the Didache did not.

Your attempt to “retrofit” the single word “sacrifice” to your belief of eating and drinking of another persons blood and flesh are an obvious misapplication of a metaphorical term, hijacked to support a personal belief.

My use of the term sacrifice is evidence that this is not merely symbolic. Walters just says "what we mean by sacrifice is what they meant" but that opinion is not evidence. He's hanging his hat on the word "your" sacrifice, but that hardly detaches it from Christ's sacrifice because even in the mass today we refer to "our sacrifice" but we also believe in the real presence. As well, it Christ through the minister who delivers the sacrifice to the altar. Participants must be pure because of the reality present, not because of a symbol present. We know the sacrifice refers to a truly pure offering (which only Christ can provide) because of the end of the Didache quote I provided which echoes Malachi 1:11. This isn't simply memory-remembrance-only language.

All of the references you offer from Later Christianities simply support the point that such doctrines were taught by some of the LATER Christianities.

No, I said the real presence taught in the Didache is consistent in both directions of time. Earlier as well as later. It is the interpretation of "symbolism-only" imposed on the Didache that fragments it from the fluidity of history. We could even get into the OT typology of the manna, the lamb, etc...

 

[Clearly]

Mr Polo;

You are still attempting to describe this earliest period of native Christianity by describing your modern church’s belief's and offering them to us as early Christianity. It will not do for the historians among the readers.

Mr Polo Said : “My use of the term sacrifice is evidence that this is not merely symbolic. Walters just says "what we mean by sacrifice is what they meant" but that opinion is not evidence. He's hanging his hat on the word "your" sacrifice, but that hardly detaches it from Christ's sacrifice because even in the mass today we refer to "our sacrifice" but we also believe in the real presence.

You are leaving the boundaries of what is “good and objective history”. For example,

1) You claim the scholars opinions are not evidence, then offer your non-scholar’s opinion AS evidence.

2) You are starting to mis-apply meanings to the early “non-cannibalistic” Sacrament as a “detachment” from Christ’s sacrifice. In reality, the sacrifice of Jesus was always the central theme of the Sacrament. The issue is not "detachment" or "non-detachment", the issue is “cannibalism” versus “non-cannibalism” within the Bread and Water/Wine.

3) You offer your personal "mass today" as an example, and then arbitrarily plug it, (with a host of personal beliefs, contexts and social bias,) into this earliest text, and then offer it to us as equivalents. Your modern liturgy is not even equivalent in the words used (which are the main objective data sets we can compare). Historically, they are two very different liturgies from two entirely different time periods and contexts.

I do not think the Didachal text supports a “cannibalistic” version of the sacrament where one eats the flesh and drinks the blood of another human being.

Mr Polo said : “I said the real presence taught in the Didache is consistent in both directions of time. Earlier as well as later.”

And I, with four world class scholars in agreement, said that the eating of literal flesh and drinking the literal blood of another human being was NOT taught in the didache.

1) You are welcome to interpret documents as you wish and make any claim for them that you wish. You may even interpret the owner’s manual to your car to be consistent with your belief that you are eating the literal flesh of Jesus and drinking the literal blood of Jesus when you practice your eucharistic liturgy. However, IF WE ALLOW OURSELVES TO INJECT AND IMPOSE CONTEXT FROM MODERN DATA, ONTO THE ANCIENT TEXTS, then we distort history to the point where it is meaningless and we cannot maintain credibility.

You are welcome to discuss a pope's opinion, and your priests opinion and to discuss your modern liturgy and plug the modern bias to ancient texts, but that sort of distortion will come at a price.

Others are welcome to side with the most able translators and recognized first-century scholars who see NO support for your modernized "cannibalistic" interpretation of the word “sacrifice” within the Didache’s text regarding their early Judao-Christian sacrament / eucharist / communal meal.

I have read multiple opinions regarding the Didache, but I have never read a single scholar give credence to such a “drive by” interpretation. Can YOU quote a single significant scholar that believes in this specific interpretation of the Didache you’ve come up with?

I’ve offered four scholars who are world-renown who do NOT agree with your personal interpretation. I think you are grasping at a single word and attempting to clothe it with a modern context and meaning that simply do not fit.

You’ve offered what a "Pope" thought and what your "minister" thought. This is a historical thread. The core issue is NOT what your minister thinks, or what you think, nor is it what I think. The specific issue is what the earliest Judao-Christian believed when he/she was putting the water to their lips and eating the bread in their mouth.

I think the earliest Christians believed they were eating and drinking bread and water as SYMBOLS of Jesus in a thankful remembrance of his sacrifice made for them and you think they believed they were eating and drinking the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood of Jesus during the eucharist.

The extremely short “chapters” in the Didache (just a few sentences each) dealing with this earliest version of the sacramental meal outside of the New Testamental text (chapts 9, 10, & 14) are available to anyone who desires to read a translation of the text and then judge for themselves as to what they are to believe in regards to the “cannibalistic” vs “non-cannibalistic” sacrament/eucharist/ communal meal issue. I am very, very comfortable to allow our readers to do this.




2) However, you and I DO agree that at some point, some later versions of Christianity DID develop a belief in a version of the eucharist where they believed they were eating the literal flesh and were drinking the actual blood of another human being in their sacramental meal.




3)

Mr Polo Said : “It is the interpretation of "symbolism-only" imposed on the Didache that fragments it from the fluidity of history. We could even get into the OT typology of the manna, the lamb, etc...”

I believe it is already clear to readers that this early Symbolism within the text only fragments the Didache from YOUR version of history. This symbolism does NOT fragment the Didache from history for translators and scholars and historians who do not share your set of bias'. For them, it forms a fairly seamless and coherent and supportive framework to early christian theology.


Mr. Polo, I think you have been fairly patient and I very much appreciate this on your part. However, if you have no real data other than your own symbology, we remain where we started. Thank you for your input. However, if we are going to leave objective history, then I don't have much interest in simply bantering over a modern Christianity's view on the sacrament / eucharist / communal meal. My interest, in this context, lies in the earliest christians and what they believed.


Clearly
seeisiis

 

[Clearly]

Standing Up;

I very much agree with you that the Sacrament / Eucharist / communal meal was always a thankful consideration of the Messiah whether the liturgy was practiced by Dead Sea Scroll Jews in anticipation of the Messiah, or by Judao-Christian Apostles AT the pascal feast as taught to them by Jesus, or by post resurrection Saints who looked back on his Sacrifice in gratitude.

I do NOT think the Dead Sea Scrolls Jews believed they were eating the actual flesh and blood of a Messiah who may not have been born as yet, nor do I think the Apostles believed they were eating the actual flesh and blood of the Savior who stood before them, nor do I think the earliest Saints felt they were eating nor drinking the actual flesh and blood of another human being when they partook of the Sacrament.


Clearly

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-



2) However, you and I DO agree that at some point, some later versions of Christianity DID develop a belief in a version of the eucharist where they believed they were eating the literal flesh and were drinking the actual blood of another human being in their sacramental meal.

-snip-

Clearly,

You may be aware also of the later rise of the office of the NT priest who is similar to the OT priest. The Didache for example mentions only two offices of bishop and deacon. It is the same with Polycarp's letter and Clement of Rome's letter. As well, NT scripture talks of deacon, but uses bishop/presbyter interchangeably.

Additionally, presbyter was once only considered an elder. But the term itself changed over time to mean priest. This definitional change also occured with eucharist from thanksgiving only to the added notion of sacrifice.

From the little research I've done, it seems clear that the evolution of the two notions, eucharist as sacrifice and presbyter as priest, go hand in glove.

"Ignatious" is the only early witness to the bishop, priest, deacon idea. Many consider all of the Ignatian letters as later interpolations attached to his name.

Hope that helps.

 

[Clearly]

Standing Up;

Standing up wrote : “Additionally, presbyter was once only considered an elder. But the term itself changed over time to mean priest. This definitional change also occured with eucharist from thanksgiving only to the added notion of sacrifice.

From the little research I've done, it seems clear that the evolution of the two notions, eucharist as sacrifice and presbyter as priest, go hand in glove.”

Thank you for your insight.

I very much agree with an evolution in Church offices and doctrines in later Christianities (such as in the Roman Church). I believe that some of these changes drove some very important changes in specific theologies. Just as the City of Rome attained Political and social pre-eminence, the Christian Congregation of Saints of Rome (with it’s Bishop) obtained Political and Social pre-eminence over other Christian Churches of the period. As the Roman Church won the struggle to pre-eminence over other congregations, then it’s influence and it's claim to “orthodoxy” also increased in strength over other congregations and other Christianities.

Having gained pre-eminence and control of the media for so many years, the Roman “model” and it’s western Bias affects many of us since we’ve inherited it’s characteristics and concepts. I have not seen many well done studies regarding how politics and sociality and even our innate psychological natures drove early changes in christianity, but the correlation is undeniable and such research would be fascinating.

For example : If one claims to be a “priest” and thus have “priesthood authority”, and actually believes himself to BE a "priest", then it follows that one is driven to interpret and then develop or change ordinances so as to take on a “Priestly” nature. What better model to follow than the more ancient model of Jewish Priesthood and it’s association with literal sacrifice?

I’d like to read some well-researched and well done studies on how psychology and bias and our innate imperfections drove the many Changes in Early Christian Doctrines and organization.

In light of this specific thread, I would think it interesting to see specifics of how the sacrament evolved from the Christian partaking of two tokens of Jesus, in remembrance and profound gratitude of his sacrifice, and commitment to him, evolved into actually eating his flesh and drinking his actual blood.

I also think this thread is a wonderful object lesson in how personal bias determines to a great extent, how we interpret textual history. If our interpretation affects textual history, then it changes textual history. If it changes textual history, then it changes history to fit our biases rather than allowing history to speak for itself.

Again, Standing up, I appreciate your insight

Clearly

 

[MrPolo]

You are still attempting to describe this earliest period of native Christianity by describing your modern church’s belief's

Just so you know, repeating that I'm imposing onto the text and "distorting with a price" without really addressing what I say tells us very little. Appealing to Protestant scholars is fine and their arguments can be considered, but simply saying they are right because they are scholars is a species of the fallacy of appeal to authority. I'm over half-way to a master's in theology degree myself, which doesn't make me right, but if you like credentials, there you go. And neither is the Catholic Church lacking in "scholars." So anyway, I can't therefore respond to the vast majority of your post.

As for a scholar who sees a real sacrificial interpretation of the Eucharist in the Didache, I don't think you would consider such a person a valid scholar, since they would in all likelihood believe in the Real Presence and be Catholic or Orthodox.

Bernadeane Carr, STL and Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego both endorsed the Catholic apologetic on the Didache as sacrifice at Catholic.com. Aloys Dirksen, theological author of Elementary Patrology also links a real sacrifice to the Didache. I could go on, but I'm not appealing to them simply for being scholars. Eastern-Orthodoxy.com, orthodox.cn, and The Catholic Encyclopedia all give credence to a true sacrifice and the same Didache citation of Malachi 1:11 that I mentioned.

This connection to Malachi needn't be ignored, especially when considered with another parallel passage in Corinthians.

In the context of making a pure sacrifice of breaking the bread, the Didache states: "In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice." Malachi 1:11 states: "In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the Lord Almighty."

The reason this is significant is because we have to ask whether or not Malachi is prophesying of a "symbolic" sacrifice, as the "scholars" who believe the Didache is "symbolic-only" say. Of course, Christ's offering was quite real.

So the simplified thought process of the Didache/Malachi connection goes like this.

• Malachi predicted Christ's pure sacrifice.
• Christ's pure sacrifice was real.
• The Didache links the sacrifice from Malachi to be the same as the one in the breaking of bread.
• The Didache therefore speaks to the real sacrifice in the breaking of bread.

Now onto another passage resembling the Didache.

The Didache states: "break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord."

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 reads: Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So the simplified thought process of the Didache/Corinthians connection goes like this:

• The Didache and 1 Cor 11 say before partaking in the bread, one must be in worthy standing with God.
• 1 Cor 11 says what is bread is to be "discerned as the body and blood of the Lord."
• Therefore when the Didache says we must be found in worthy standing with God prior to eating the bread, it's because it is really His body.

 

[Clearly]

Regarding the "appeal to protestant scholars". I did not know, nor did I care if Scholars are Protestant or if they were Catholic, or if they are Muslim or if they are athiests. I simply picked them because they were the best scholars on the Didache at the time they wrote. If the data concerns Qumran, or the newer concepts regarding genesis and creation, then the Catholic Scholar Cross is superb in his area of expertise, In patrologia and it's texts, the catholic Migne is wonderful in his area of expertise. I do not care what church they attended, I DO care that they are objective and know their subject. I wish you had not assumed I had hand picked scholars, or that it mattered to me in this specific issue.

Secondly, and importantly : You claim that you have found scholars that have found the didachal text to teach the literal eating of flesh and drinking of actual blood of another person. This is NOT a bad thing if it is really true. It gives us additional data to consider.

Give us the text and the data your scholars use from the didache that tells us one is actually drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Jesus.

If your scholars have actually shown the text to teach the of eating the flesh and blood of Jesus in the text, then we MUST pay attention to their data and give the doctrine consideration within this early time period.

If however, their data is tenuous and dependent upon the acceptance of and use of later roman symbology, (such as your data does), then we can dismiss your scholars as non-historians who are simply spouting their party line and their personal opinions as simple bias and historically insignificant.

The rest of your last post is not historical data, but rather it is yet another repeated explanation of your personal theology. Your connections are very tenuous and personal to YOUR theology. As I said, I do not have interest in what you believe nor how you justify your personal beliefs. My interest lies in early christian theology, NOT your modern theology.

I AM interested in what data your scholars have seen that others might have missed. I am honestly hoping that you are not going to “bait” with the offer for objective data that actual blood and actual flesh are consumed, and then”switch” to personal opinion based on vague topological connections that actual blood and actual flesh are consumed. Any "Bait and Switch" will leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.


If you HAVE data showing this, I will be grateful to have seen it and to have been able to consider this new data. I Do appreciate your time and effort to locate any such data if it exists.

Clearly

 

[Hairy Tic]

Jesus consecrated His Body and Blood at the Last Supper. This teaches the Real Presence. However, He did not teach Transsubstantiation that the bread and the wine are no longer present at all, that only Body and Blood are present. This was not believed in the early Church. Even RC and EO admit that the elements still look and taste like bread and wine.

## Which is exactly what the CC teaches as dogma.

[My emphasis]

 

[Hairy Tic]

The early Christians simply took the Lords words at face value that the bread and wine was the Body and Blood of Christ. They had no need to come up with a strict philsophical definition of exactly how this took place. Look at the quote from St Ireneaus at the start of this discusion. He simply notes that the bread and win IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He has no need to use the vocabulary of "essence" vs "accidents" or anything of that nature. Those debates came later. The fact that those debates came later in no way implies that the early Christians didn't accept the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ it simply shows that there was no real debate on the nature of how this took place and it was held to be a mystery beyond easy definition.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

"For anyone who eats of the bread and drinks of the cup without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself""
1 CORINTHIANS 11:29



Why?

## Don't you just love the way they fight to protect (say) the deity of Christ, while ignoring the Church that gave them that dogma & so many more ? Is that selective, or what ?

"He has no need to use the vocabulary of "essence" vs "accidents" or anything of that nature." Precisely - that came later; what is essential is not the philosophical categories, but the meaning those categories point to: that is, the conversion with the exception of the appearances, of the Bread & Wine into the Body & Blood, by the Words of the Lord & the Power of the Holy Spirit

The reality of transubstantiation is not dependent on the use of the word - what matters most, is what the word designates, points to.

 

[sensational]

Regarding the sacred meal / Eucharist in earliest Judao-Christian culture (of say, the first, and pre-first century writings). The ordinance was certain an authentic part of Judao-Christian culture as described in the first century writings though I think the doctrine of “trans-substantiation of bread and wine into actual body parts of Jesus” was NOT part of the earliest Christian doctrine, but the theory that the bread and wine Actually BECAME THE FLESH AND BLOOD of Jesus, was developed in later Christian theories, such as developed in some second and third century Christianities. Thus, one can benefit of the study of the type of Christianities that existed BEFORE IRENAEUS, and what sort of doctrines THEY taught.


1) I believe that in the earliest Christianities, it was more clear that the Bread and Wine was SYMBOLIC of the Body and Blood of Jesus, (rather than bread and wine becoming actual flesh and blood of Jesus which was then eaten by his followers).


Many of the early Judao-christian texts speak of the sacred, communal meal as a TYPE, or a SYMBOL, by which Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement was to be remembered. For those christianities, the eucharist meal was in obedience to the principle Thus the early and orthodox christian Didache, describes the Eucharist in clear SYMBOLIC terms as a THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE of God’s son. For example : The symbolism regarding the eucharist continues in the next sentence : “ Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; The Didache 9:1-4. These are clearly symbolic principles (though they represent important realities)

In this context as a THANKFUL REMEMBRANCE the didache relates And, after describing first the cup, and then concerning the bread it relates (Since the Eucharist involved an ordinance; a thankful remembrance; AND a covenant to live by Jesus’ teachings, then those who were NOT making the covenant, were NOT to partake of the eucharist, thus the line in the early christian Eucharist prayer said :.
.
.
.
2) This Communal “meal”, in it’s context and symbolic connection to the messiah was an integral part of the Jewish remembrance of the expected messiah as well. Thus the dead sea Jewish Charter says : (It was such “christian-like” descriptions that caused the Dead Sea Scrolls such discomfort among the Jewish Scholars after their discovery. Thus some Jewish scholars attempted to claim that these pre-70 a.d. scrolls were “christian”.)


In the same prohibition contained in the Christians Didache, the Jewish Charter prohibited unbelievers from partaking of ordinances without FIRST making the covenant central to the ordinance. In the context of baptism for example, they said regarding those who refuse to enter their society : Thus, of the Jewish Baptism it was taught

THE JEWISH “EUCHARIST” “eucharist” or communal meal which thankfully and SYMBOLICALLY, ANTICIPATED THE COMING MESSIAH had deep parallels to THE CHRISTIAN “eucharist” or communal meal which thankfully and SYBOLICALLY REMEMBERED THE RESURRECTED MESSIAH.

Not only were unbelievers prohibited from participation in the eucharist or baptism, but BOTH were to be done only under proper priesthood authority, Thus Ignatius taught By the way, lest it seem to be simple “elitism” on the part of the Christians, who prohibited unbelievers from partaking of ordinances of baptism and eucharist, one might remember that there were individuals who professed to be Christian, but who had no “works of Christianity” (who were thus seen as counterfeits by early Christianities) who still wanted to engage in the authentic ordinances of authentic Christianity. Of those, Ignatius said : Thus, just as there exists a great deal of counterfeit christianity nowadays, there were counterfeit christians in the first century who neither understood nor partook worthily of the Eucharist.

One may certainly argue that the earlier Christians were incorrect in their belief that the bread and wine were SYMBOLS OF JESUS’s flesh and blood they were eating, rather than eating ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS of later christianities, still, for those Christians, the bread and wine were symbols.



Clearly
twactzcv

hi twactzcv,

Do you not see any realism in addition to symbolism in Paul's theology of the Eucharist?

In Christ,
JMS

 

[sensational]

Here is 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 4:33–32 [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 unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes 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 which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Here r some interesting additional quotes from the ECFs from Phil Vaz's site.

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 80 A.D.)
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have OFFERED ITS SACRIFICES [or offered the gifts, referring to the Eucharist]. (Letter to Corinthians 44:4)
========================================================================
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
========================================================================
ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
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 which 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 nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)
========================================================================
DIDACHE or TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES (c. 80-140 A.D.)
On the Lord's Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE PURE. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: "In every place and time let there be OFFERED TO ME A CLEAN SACRIFICE. For I am a Great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles." (14:1-2)
========================================================================
ST. IRENAEUS (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
...He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...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, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES 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 which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
========================================================================
TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE... (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations... WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries.... We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground... (The Crown 3:3-4)
A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband...Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)
========================================================================
ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)
You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)
But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)
You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish....how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)
...now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)
========================================================================
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)
========================================================================
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)
And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body...
He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)
Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured...The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)
If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)

Its IMO hard to intepret these writings as purely symbolic on the Eucharist. Creative exegesis is required to do so.

In Christ,
JMS

 

[Clearly]

Hi Sensational;

I apologize that it’s been a while between your post and this response. I don’t visit this site much.

My belief is that the earliest Christians believed that the earliest version of the christian sacrament/eucharist was NOT a cannabalistic ordinance in that it did NOT involve the actual eating of another person’s flesh, nor did it involve drinking the actual blood of another person.

I believe that the doctrine of trans-substantiation INTO actual flesh and blood became popular not long afterwards as the later christian theories were floated as later christianities were trying to solidify what they were to teach without having apostles and prophets to explain and guide them. Origen, for example, says that in his time, Christians had not yet decided important teachings, such as whether the Father had a body or not, etc.

You may want to take another look at the greater context of some of your quotes, as well as translations which differ markedly from those offered on the web site you sourced your references from. The proper contexts are shifted in many of your quotes AND, importantly, the words used in the translations you are offering are NOT the same as those I’ve typically seen.

For example, your first reference was St. Clement of Rome, Cor 44:4. You only provided just a small portion of the context. The actual context is very important as it is the context that demonstrates that your statement refers to the controversy surrounding the dismissal from the ministry; those who’ve served well in the past. I have highlighted the portion of the quote in blue which corresponds to your quote.

Though you offer the quote as “those who holily offered it’s sacrifices”, you will see that the greater context does NOT merely concern the sacrament, but the more accurate rendering and translation “those who holily fulfilled it’s duties” is more accurate since the text refers to multiple duties. I’m not sure where your site acquired it’s translation, but I have given you the standard translation and as you read the paragraphs surrounding your quote, you will see that it refers to many duties of the ministry.

The Chapter is entitled “The Ordinances of the Apostles, That There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office” and the text is as follows :

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”

The contextual error in your quote might ONLY be seen and understood if one allows the original quote, it’s original surrounding context.

You are making a similar contextual error in your quote by Justin Martyr, who, in his debate with Trypho is speaking quite symbolically. Even the chapter’s name makes clear that he is speaking to Trypho the Jew about types and symbols. The name of the chapter is “chapter 41—The Oblation of Fine Flour Was a Figure of the Eucharist”. Justin speaks first of the ancient jewish offering and then uses this as a figure or type of the Christian eucharist.

"And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.

The “fine flower” was a “type” of the bread which christ prescribed “in remembrance” of his suffering and sacrifice. The Christian, at this time period, did NOT believe he was re-sacrificing Jesus by drinking Jesus actual blood nor eating the flesh of another person, but these are “types” or “symbols” of Jesus sacrifice just as the blood and body of the ancient lamb sacrificed by the jews was NOT Jesus blood, nor was the lamb Jesus actual Body.

Justin further discusses the partaking of eucharistic symbols “affirming both that we glorify his name...”. Justin says :

“Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.' He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane.”

He then continues to speak in the context of “types” and “symbols” as he discusses circumcision as a “type” of the “true circumcision”. It is clear that he is speaking figuratively of ”types” since the Christian circumcision whereof he speaks is NOT the actual, literal circumcision whereof the Jews spake, despite the words being the same. THIS is the context of the discussion they are having as we enter the later chapters such as the chapter 66 on the Eucharist where Justin speaks of the wine and bread as the blood and flesh of Jesus.

Again, your quote from the didache loses it’s original context in your example if we do not offer the words surrounding your quote. When one reads the words surrounding the quote it is clear that the ordinance of the sacrament was to be performed by loving people who were to have forgiven one another any faults or offenses before partaking of the symbols of bread and wine. Even the name “eucharist” means “true-love” or ‘true charity (in lightfoot it is spoke of as the true “thanksgiving”. In any case, the early christian saints were to be “one” and unified as they partook of these symbols of Jesus’ sacrifice just as Jesus was unified and agreed with his Father. The larger quote is below :

“But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

The quote does NOT tell us that these saints thought they were drinking Jesus actual blood nor eating the flesh of another human being. In fact, both the coptic translation and the apostolic constitutions make clear, in their versions that another offering of ointment was made, saying :”And concerning the ointment, give thanks as follows : We give you thanks, Father, for the fragrant ointment which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant: to you be the glory forever. Amen” Again, this is symbolic, just as the other symbols are symbolic of a greater truth. They are not really simply glade of smelling good.

You quoted Clement in pedagogus (but I cannot find your specific quote - perhaps the reference organisation in your quote is either not the standard one or I simply missed it - though I searched by word as well). However, Clement makes quite clear to the new members (who he is speaking to) that his speech is figurative. For example he says ch 5 pedagogus)

“But if the new man in Scripture is represented by the ass, this ass is also a colt. "And he bound," it is said, "the colt to the vine," having bound this simple and childlike people to the word, whom He figuratively represents as a vine. For the vine produces wine, as the Word, produces blood, and both drink for health to men—wine for the body, blood for the spirit.

The man is REPRESENTED by an ass, yet never becomes an ass just as the childlike people are represented as a vine, just as the blood is represented as giving the spirit health. Clement never indicates in this reference that he is switching from figurative or typological language to literal language regarding the blood.

And in fact, as Clement moves into Chapter 6 he expressly teaches the new members that he is speaking metaphorically when he discussed the sentence : “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood.”

“How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, 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? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, "I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for ye are not yet able," regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. 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, 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 soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. “

Clement OBVIOUSLY explains that these are SYMBOLS in early Christianity and in fact the entire remainder of this chapter continues to speak of blood in various metaphors.

Though Irenaeus also uses these same words in speaking of the Eucharist/sacrament, he also makes it clear that the early christians were misunderstood on this issue of figurative blood, much to their dismay. In “fragments” of ireneaus (XIII), Ireneaus speaks of the slaves of Christian converts making the mistake of assuming the Christian figurative speech regarding Flesh and Blood was literal. He relates :

“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]?"

In the same way the slaves heard their Christian masters use terms that were confusing, I do not blame modern Christian for having the exact same confusion regarding many early Christian beliefs which Christians nowadays argue about.


However, regarding the sacrament/eucharist and it’s symbols, I believe that this exact mistake which Irenaeus says the slaves made in “imagining that it was actually flesh and blood” is the same mistake the later christians themselves made in “imagining that it was actually flesh and blood” that was meant by the symbols of the sacrament / eucharist.

Sensational; in any case, I wish you the best of luck in coming to your own belief of these matters and in your spiritual journey.


Clearly
eiacsiseen

 

[sensational]

Hi Sensational;

I apologize that it’s been a while between your post and this response. I don’t visit this site much.

My belief is that the earliest Christians believed that the earliest version of the christian sacrament/eucharist was NOT a cannabalistic ordinance in that it did NOT involve the actual eating of another person’s flesh, nor did it involve drinking the actual blood of another person.

I believe that the doctrine of trans-substantiation INTO actual flesh and blood became popular not long afterwards as the later christian theories were floated as later christianities were trying to solidify what they were to teach without having apostles and prophets to explain and guide them. Origen, for example, says that in his time, Christians had not yet decided important teachings, such as whether the Father had a body or not, etc.

You may want to take another look at the greater context of some of your quotes, as well as translations which differ markedly from those offered on the web site you sourced your references from. The proper contexts are shifted in many of your quotes AND, importantly, the words used in the translations you are offering are NOT the same as those I’ve typically seen.

For example, your first reference was St. Clement of Rome, Cor 44:4. You only provided just a small portion of the context. The actual context is very important as it is the context that demonstrates that your statement refers to the controversy surrounding the dismissal from the ministry; those who’ve served well in the past. I have highlighted the portion of the quote in blue which corresponds to your quote.

Though you offer the quote as “those who holily offered it’s sacrifices”, you will see that the greater context does NOT merely concern the sacrament, but the more accurate rendering and translation “those who holily fulfilled it’s duties” is more accurate since the text refers to multiple duties. I’m not sure where your site acquired it’s translation, but I have given you the standard translation and as you read the paragraphs surrounding your quote, you will see that it refers to many duties of the ministry.

The Chapter is entitled “The Ordinances of the Apostles, That There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office” and the text is as follows :

The contextual error in your quote might ONLY be seen and understood if one allows the original quote, it’s original surrounding context.

You are making a similar contextual error in your quote by Justin Martyr, who, in his debate with Trypho is speaking quite symbolically. Even the chapter’s name makes clear that he is speaking to Trypho the Jew about types and symbols. The name of the chapter is “chapter 41—The Oblation of Fine Flour Was a Figure of the Eucharist”. Justin speaks first of the ancient jewish offering and then uses this as a figure or type of the Christian eucharist.
The “fine flower” was a “type” of the bread which christ prescribed “in remembrance” of his suffering and sacrifice. The Christian, at this time period, did NOT believe he was re-sacrificing Jesus by drinking Jesus actual blood nor eating the flesh of another person, but these are “types” or “symbols” of Jesus sacrifice just as the blood and body of the ancient lamb sacrificed by the jews was NOT Jesus blood, nor was the lamb Jesus actual Body.

Justin further discusses the partaking of eucharistic symbols “affirming both that we glorify his name...”. Justin says : He then continues to speak in the context of “types” and “symbols” as he discusses circumcision as a “type” of the “true circumcision”. It is clear that he is speaking figuratively of ”types” since the Christian circumcision whereof he speaks is NOT the actual, literal circumcision whereof the Jews spake, despite the words being the same. THIS is the context of the discussion they are having as we enter the later chapters such as the chapter 66 on the Eucharist where Justin speaks of the wine and bread as the blood and flesh of Jesus.

Again, your quote from the didache loses it’s original context in your example if we do not offer the words surrounding your quote. When one reads the words surrounding the quote it is clear that the ordinance of the sacrament was to be performed by loving people who were to have forgiven one another any faults or offenses before partaking of the symbols of bread and wine. Even the name “eucharist” means “true-love” or ‘true charity (in lightfoot it is spoke of as the true “thanksgiving”. In any case, the early christian saints were to be “one” and unified as they partook of these symbols of Jesus’ sacrifice just as Jesus was unified and agreed with his Father. The larger quote is below : The quote does NOT tell us that these saints thought they were drinking Jesus actual blood nor eating the flesh of another human being. In fact, both the coptic translation and the apostolic constitutions make clear, in their versions that another offering of ointment was made, saying :”And concerning the ointment, give thanks as follows : We give you thanks, Father, for the fragrant ointment which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant: to you be the glory forever. Amen” Again, this is symbolic, just as the other symbols are symbolic of a greater truth. They are not really simply glade of smelling good.

You quoted Clement in pedagogus (but I cannot find your specific quote - perhaps the reference organisation in your quote is either not the standard one or I simply missed it - though I searched by word as well). However, Clement makes quite clear to the new members (who he is speaking to) that his speech is figurative. For example he says ch 5 pedagogus) The man is REPRESENTED by an ass, yet never becomes an ass just as the childlike people are represented as a vine, just as the blood is represented as giving the spirit health. Clement never indicates in this reference that he is switching from figurative or typological language to literal language regarding the blood.

And in fact, as Clement moves into Chapter 6 he expressly teaches the new members that he is speaking metaphorically when he discussed the sentence : “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood.”
Clement OBVIOUSLY explains that these are SYMBOLS in early Christianity and in fact the entire remainder of this chapter continues to speak of blood in various metaphors.

Though Irenaeus also uses these same words in speaking of the Eucharist/sacrament, he also makes it clear that the early christians were misunderstood on this issue of figurative blood, much to their dismay. In “fragments” of ireneaus (XIII), Ireneaus speaks of the slaves of Christian converts making the mistake of assuming the Christian figurative speech regarding Flesh and Blood was literal. He relates : In the same way the slaves heard their Christian masters use terms that were confusing, I do not blame modern Christian for having the exact same confusion regarding many early Christian beliefs which Christians nowadays argue about.


However, regarding the sacrament/eucharist and it’s symbols, I believe that this exact mistake which Irenaeus says the slaves made in “imagining that it was actually flesh and blood” is the same mistake the later christians themselves made in “imagining that it was actually flesh and blood” that was meant by the symbols of the sacrament / eucharist.

Sensational; in any case, I wish you the best of luck in coming to your own belief of these matters and in your spiritual journey.


Clearly
eiacsiseen

Thank you for your encouragement and the lengthy response. I appreciate it. You have given me some things to chew on, I will respond shortly with some thoughts.

In Christ,
JMS