Posted on 05/30/2013 5:28:14 AM PDT by NYer
Sources, please.
(Augustine, Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)
(Ser. 227)
(Ser. 272)
NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25.
NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11,
NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
(Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.””The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.
(Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18)
(Against Heresies, 5:33:1)
(Festal Letter, 4.19)
Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
(You’ll find the appropriate citation attached to each quote)
Live sources — clickable — Religion Moderator likes it that way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3025320/posts?page=40#40
I don’t see a live source in this post.
“Live sources — clickable — Religion Moderator likes it that way.”
Please stop badgering me. This is the second time you’ve accused me of not sourcing. And here is what the RM said THAT time:
““Quotes that are commonly recognized do not need to be sourced, e.g. “Ask not what your country can do for you...”
Ancient manuscripts or documents may be sourced briefly, e.g. 2nd Amendment, Didache, Polycarp to the Philippians.
If it is a modern source, title, date, author etc. are necessary to examine copyright restrictions. But simply noting the url or hotlink is faster and easier - and it strengthens your arguments since your correspondents can examine your excerpts in context.”
Looks like me and the other fellow are in the clear.
There was also another matter I wanted to address, which was on the concept of “remembrance” in Justin’s works. I only mentioned it before briefly, and not in any kind of detail, though it was meant as a subtle jab at your assumption.
Here’s another quote by him which gives a different sense to the Eucharist:
“The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, “that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypo, CHAPTER LXX)
Notice it says rather explicitly, “in remembrance of His being made flesh” and “the cup... in remembrance of his own blood.” That makes it perfectly clear on the biblical roots of Justin’s commentary, as well as his real position on the Eucharist. If the body and blood of Jesus Christ are really transubstantiated in communion, then it stands to follow that it is not “in remembrance,” it is, actually, another sacrifice for the purpose of gaining eternal life. It’s not a memorial to the blood and body of Christ, but really is the body and blood of Christ. It is a rite for salvation. If, on the other hand, it is only done in remembrance of that body and blood, then it fulfills what the scripture teaches on the Lord’s Supper:
Luk_22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
We are never told to partake in communion for the purpose of having eternal life. We are told to do it “in remembrance of me.” This is all the scripture teaches on the matter, which leaves all of Rome’s thoughts and opinions are simply extrapolations. Augustine really has the best commentary on the matter, as he sees in the Eucharist the entire church and a call to true unity, but this only “signified” by the bread, and not a literal eating of Christ or ourselves.
Exactly. And he knows that. You are all wasting your time and energy. Move on to posters that actually have sincere desires to know the Truth of the Catholic Faith.
Yup. You speak the truth yet again.
Thanks.
Somewhat disproven on this thread. It’s more like the opposite is true.
Your conclusion does not follow, because every single thing that is real can also be symbolic "in one sense." It's not an either/or situation.
Thus when Augustine (or any other Catholic "Father of the Church") speaks of signs, outward manifestations, he's not speaking of something like a marker (like a red octagon means "stop") but something with greater semiotic depth, like the way an acorn symbolizes an oak but also is an oak.
"Forma rei" and "ipsissima rei" are the same thing, although appearances may vary --- and in fact appearances vary all the time. (That's why the consecrated Host doesn't "look like" an 180-lb swarthy bearded Semitic male who spent a lot of time outdoors.)
Wait. It's not fair to write basic metaphysics without stopping to define every term, and that would end up being beside the point, because Jesus wasn't teaching on the subject of Metaphysics, but on the subject of Himself.
As it is written:
"For from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, my Name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my Name, and a pure offering: for my Name is great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts."
Malachi 1:11
Now just what is God's prophet prophesying? First (earlier in Ch. 1) he reproaches the Israelites for offering unsatisfactory sacrifices upon the altar; then he lifts up his eyes and sees something astounding: all gentile nations around the world offering a truly pure, acceptable sacrifice.
1599 Geneva Bible
What would this sacrifice be? What is this perfect sacrifice? It is the sacrifice of Our Lord. Who is offering it continually, everywhere, at all times, from the rising of the sun to its setting? Gentiles. Not offering in the name of some heathen god, but in the name of the True God: in "My Name," says the Lord of Hosts.
Gentiles who offer a Pure Sacrifice? A truly Eucharistic vision. It would be rewarding for me and for you to ponder this.
Off to an all-day singing tomorrow, Mass and Corpus Christi procession Sunday, I may not get back to this strange alternative reality known as FReeperland til Monday. Meantime, God bless you all.
'Bye! I'm off to weed my beans.
“Oh, you rascal. Now you’ve got me thinking Metaphysics, when”
You’re thinking metaphysics, with a dash of quantum mechanics, in order to reverse the Oppenheimer principle to create Einsteinium particles with which to pass through the Asimov space curtain into a dimension where your arguments make sense.
You write: “Thus when Augustine (or any other Catholic “Father of the Church”) speaks of signs, outward manifestations, he’s not speaking of something like a marker (like a red octagon means “stop”) but something with greater semiotic depth, like the way an acorn symbolizes an oak but also is an oak”
By this logic, when Augustine writes that the “the firefeeder, oil” is the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit,” he does not mean that the oil merely represents the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit is transubstantiated into oil.
And when Augustine says that the Eucharist resembles the realities, yet is not that higher reality that it “signifies,” and that the body and church of Christ isn’t actually consumed, why, he must mean that the Eucharist is transformed into the higher reality that it doesn’t actually signify, and is well and truly eaten per his spiritual dictate “Why ready your teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou has eaten already.” By which he really means “Ready your teeth and stomach. Believe, and thou shalt surely then eat in communion on Sunday.” (Actually, in the same letter, he talks of the Eucharist as being eaten every day.)
I’ll go ahead and take the time to increase the context around that one quote from Letter 98. I’ll include the entire paragraph now:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letter 98)
So, when Augustine explains that in “common parlance” that the Lord’s passion is the following day, or that “this day is the Lord risen,” by your Aristotelian First Principle of Catholic Metaphysics, when Augustine ACTUALLY means is that Christ is literally risen again every Easter because it is “sacramentally celebrated.” Even though, the appearance of his words would suggest that he is explaining that he believes the exact opposite. And when Christ is not “likewise offered up,” upon the same logic of the Easter parlance, what he ACTUALLY means is that he IS offered up, again and again, in mass.
” all gentile nations around the world offering a truly pure, acceptable sacrifice.”
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is offered by Himself, and only once.
Heb_10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
The sacrifice offered by the faithful is... ourselves. Our devotion to God, the faith in our hearts, and the praise on our lips.
Rom_12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Heb 13:15-16 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (16) But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
I thought you said you were Bible literate. Perhaps you were referring to the reading of the bible in only the literal-historical sense. There are two major ways in which to read Scripture; the Literal and the Mystical.
Littera gesta docet; quid credas allegoria.
Moralis quid agas; quo tendis anagogia.
A rough translation is:
The Letter tells of the deeds; the Allegory what we are to believe.
The Moral what we are to do; the Anagogical whither we are to tend.
With the exception of typology, the mystical sense is largely ignored by Protestantism. But since you bring up St. Augustine so frequently we ought to turn to what he had to say on the subject, rather than to speculate and infer. St. Augustine argued that reality could be divided into “signs”, realities that had signification, pointing beyond themselves to something else, and “things,” which are realities that had no signification. He wrote that the words of Scripture were “signs” that pointed to “things” beyond themselves, usually to historical realities. He said that only when one fully understands all the “things” to which the “signs” refer, can one achieve an understanding of the literal sense of Scripture. If you do not understand the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist you cannot understand the signs, i.e.; “the firefeeder and oil” reference.
"It is a matter of history when deeds done—whether by men or by God—are reported. It is a matter of allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when the conformity of the Old and New Testaments is shown. It is a matter of etiology when the causes of what is said or done are reported. - St Augustine, On Genesis
“With the exception of typology, the mystical sense is largely ignored by Protestantism. “
Actually, I find myself agreeing with most of your post. There is very little in it that bothers me. The disconnect, of course, is that you yourself do not apply it. When Augustine, in one breath, speaks of the typology of the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit,” and then in the next breath speaks of the typology of the “sacrament of the Eucharist,” and even explicitly tells us that his phrases “the bread is the body of Christ” is no different than his other symbolic language (and compares the symbology of both), I fail to see in your post an explanation of why we should think he was only kidding.
As for “Biblical literacy.” I think the correct phrase is “literacy” in general, as none of your teachings actually exist in the scripture. In fact, your entire theology on the Eucharist is built on a few lines in scripture that conclude with the reason: “Do this to remember me.” And from this, you have imagined complicated systems to explain how “do this to remember me” actually means “do this as a rite of the Roman Catholic Church to secure for yourself eternal life.”
If Augustine had no problem saying that the Eucharist is the body of Christ, yet say in the same sermon that it only signifies the body of Christ, I don’t think anyone else would either.
But nowhere does Augustine state that the Eucharist only signifies the Body of Christ. You are inserting this in like manner as Luther inserted "alone" in the passage that "we are saved by faith." Nothing that Augustine states contradicts his assertion that "That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ."
The only thing ambiguous about them, and of the assertions by that Pope and other Bishop on the “substance” of the bread and wine remaining the same, exists in your own mind since you will not explain them.
As to Pope Gelasius and Theodoret, not having the full documents from which your quotes were derived I must comment only on what you have posted. You would be wrong to attribute the precise late medieval scholastic meaning of "substance" to these writers of the 4th and 5th centuries. This is clearly seen in the quote from Theodoret which you give. Using the term "substance" he refers to the figure and form of the Eucharist, what in scholastic terminology would be referred to as their "accidents." He expressly states that the bread and wine do change:
But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.Notice that he states that they are to be worshipped, something which would be denied if they were only bread and wine. Again when speaking of the substance of our Lord's resurrected Body he states that this is its "form, figure, and limitation." Again, these are what the scholastics would call its accidents, not substance.
In his letter to the Romans St. Ignatius states that his desire for the bread of life is for the flesh of Jesus Christ, not for his death or sacrifice. This is what he would have received in Communion during the celebration of the Mass, just as stated by St. Justin Martyr. Nor would his inability to actually receive Communion take away his desire. Those imprisoned desire freedom even though they cannot achieve it.
Given that the major concern of Ignatius in his letter to the Smyraeans is the denial that our Lord possessed a body or suffered, nevertheless he does point out their rejection of the Christian understanding of the Eucharist:
[T]hey do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.You mischaracterize the meaning of your first quote from St. Irenaeus. The Greeks mistook the Christians' sacramental Body and Blood for carnal flesh and blood. But this misunderstanding could only have happened because the Christians spoke of the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Jesus.
As for your second quotation, the Eucharist does indeed have two realities, a divine substance and earthly accidents.
Your quote from St. Athanasius takes nothing away from his statement that "after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ."
St. Cyril's use of the term "figure" refers to what the scholastics would call the accidents of the sacrament. Again notice how he insists:
[T]he invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ.And:
He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, "This is My Body," who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, "This is My Blood," who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?Can there be a stronger statement that the bread and wine changes and becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
“But nowhere does Augustine state that the Eucharist only signifies the Body of Christ.”
Actually, that’s exactly what he does. See my previous post to Mrs. Don.O, as well as review the quotes already given. It’s pointless to go on if you won’t even attempt to address them.
“In his letter to the Romans St. Ignatius states that his desire for the bread of life is for the flesh of Jesus Christ, not for his death or sacrifice. This is what he would have received in Communion during the celebration of the Mass,”
Which would not be possible, since he was on his way to be martyred. It’s doubtful that Ignatius would have the same mechanical view as the RCC does on the Eucharist. He also speaks of loving Christ with the word “eros,” all designed to explain his desire to have Christ completely (though not in the sexual sense, as the word sometimes implies). It’s a shame to reinterpret Ignatius in such a way that his desire to have Christ is reduced to merely a desire to have communion, rather than his desire to give his all for Christ as a martyr.
“You would be wrong to attribute the precise late medieval scholastic meaning of “substance” to these writers of the 4th and 5th centuries....As for your second quotation, the Eucharist does indeed have two realities, a divine substance and earthly accidents.”
In theory, the RCC has always believed in transubstantiation. Therefore, if Augustine is a symbolist, and if Gelasius or Irenaeus believe in consubstantiation, (two substances) when the RCC only allows the “form” to be the same, but not the substance, and no sense of symbolism here, I think we can safely assume that there was no monolithic tradition passed down to the Apostles on the matter. Just men developing their theological ideas, some disagreeing, some agreeing, slowly, over a thousand years. In fact, not even Trent even actually defined what they meant by “sacrifice” in the first place, probably because of the scripture in Hebrews which declares that Christ already made a sacrifice, once and for all.
“Your quote from St. Athanasius takes nothing away from his statement that “after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
It takes everything away from it, because Athanasius denies the RCC interpretation of John 6, by which the RCC justifies making the command for the Lord’s supper to be done “to remember me” into “for everlasting life” instead. If Augustine and even Christ Himself can speak figuratively of the Lord’s supper, it’s only natural for believers to do the same.
It is not my theology, it is Christianity as taught by Jesus, the Apostles, St. Paul and 100% of the Early Church Fathers. The Eucharist has been an integral part of Christianity since the beginning and will continue to be so long after Protestantism joins Adoptionism, Albigensism, Antinomianism, Apollinarism, Arianism, Audianism, Bogomilism, Catharism, Circumcellionism, Docetism, Donatism, Ebionitism, Euchitism, Eutychianism, Fraticellism, Febronianism, Free Spiritism, Gallicanism, Gnosticism, Henricianism, Iconoclasm, Jansenism, Josephinism, Luciferianism, Manichaeism, Marcionism, Melchisedechianism, Messalianism, Monarchianism, Montanism, Monothelitism, Naassenes, Ophitesism, Patripassianism, Paulicianism, Pelagianism, Pneumatomacianism, Priscillianism, Psilanthropism, Sabellianism, Semipelagianism, Sethian, Valentianism, and Waldensianism on the trash pile of failed and forgotten heresies.
Peace be with you
I am amazed how anyone can manipulate Scripture to deny the Real Presence, one of the most significant Revelations of Scripture, while insisting that we accept a litral interpretation of Genesis.
Peace be with you
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.