It is wise of you to flee to Pelikan, but your failure to engage the substance of the issue, their own testimony that even their own doctrine should not be accepted unless it can "be brought out of the Holy scriptures," makes your attempt here to be totally in vain. Kelly is with me on Cyril and the others referenced, but what about Ireaneus and Tertullian? (You don't speak of Tertullian, but Kelly puts them together.)
Kelly notes that Ireaneus and Tertullian responded to Gnostic claims of a secret tradition with their own tradition, designed to support their claims of the authentic Gospels and New Testament. IOW, we know that our Gospel of John is authentic, and your Gospel of Thomas is a fake, because we have have a succession from the very beginning where we received this book, and an oral tradition which, though independent, confirms all the doctrines of Christianity. IOW, if the Gnostics have their own "secret" tradition to backup their interpretations and books, so do Christians, and it is a superior one. We know that our doctrines are correct, because the tradition handed down to us confirms it. This same "tradition," in theory independent of the scripture, was itself, however, still viewed as a summary of what was already written, and can be confirmed out of the holy scriptures, provided it was "taken as a whole."
"The whole point of his [Irenaeus] teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of revelation. If tradition as conveyed in the canon is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously." (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 39)
This is favorable to us, since tradition is again limited to that which can be "shown out of all the scriptures," since it is only the teachings of the scripture itself, making tradition and doctrine subservient to the Word of God, and not tradition over scripture, as the Papists must maintain to support their extra-biblical doctrines.
"In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the Apostles, and he [Tertullian] never contrasted tradition so understood with scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrine not discoverable in it." (Ibid, p. 39).
Next, let's note explicit examples of what tradition are for Ireaneus and Tertullian. They are not the same traditions held today by Rome:
Tertullian -- Against Transubstantiation
On John 6, no literal enjoinment to eat Christ:
"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ch. 37)
Tertullian-- "Show me where it is written." Against adding to or removing from the scripture:
"I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. John 1:3 But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. Revelation 22:18-19"(Tertullian,Against Hermogenes,Ch. 22)
Tertullian -- Babylon in John's Revelation is Rome
"So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints." (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 9)
Tertullian -- Confession is to be done in public at the feet of the brethren, not alone in secret:
"But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear, joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father, why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member, 1 Corinthians 12:26 it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in labouring for the remedy. In a company of two is the church; but the church is Christ. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren's knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy. What a son asks is ever easily obtained. Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! To wit, if we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgment of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par? Is it better to be damned in secret than absolved in public?" (Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch. 10)
Tertullian -- Against both the making of images of things in heaven and their worship
"Every form or formling, therefore, claims to be called an idol. Hence idolatry is all attendance and service about every idol. Hence also, every artificer of an idol is guilty of one and the same crime, unless, the People which consecrated for itself the likeness of a calf, and not of a man, fell short of incurring the guilt of idolatry.[...] God prohibits an idol as much to be made as to be worshipped. In so far as the making what may be worshipped is the prior act, so far is the prohibition to make (if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition. For this cause— the eradicating, namely, of the material of idolatry— the divine law proclaims, You shall make no idol; and by conjoining, Nor a similitude of the things which are in the heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea, has interdicted the servants of God from acts of that kind all the universe over." (Tertullian, On Idolatry, Ch. 3-4)
Tertullian- Early traditions
"To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week... We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful." (Tertullian, The Chaplet, Ch. 3)
Tertullian- Anti-Romish definition of the church
"For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three. And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church, from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops" (Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 21)
In short, he states, Rome was on the side of every matter that was orthodox, and it became apparent early on whatever side Rome took was going to win.
As a matter of fact, Rome has lost many times. On top of the Cyprian example from Augustine, here's another example:
"“Fifth Ecumenical Council
A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote “These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.”[104] German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called “ …without the assent of the Pope”[105]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#Orthodox_arguments_from_Church_Councils
I have been through it with Jerome already. He was a loyal Catholic, so if you see in duress force, I don’t.
Who cares what you see? Let the reader judge Jerome's words and response for themselves.
I understand the concept of Primacy is viewed differently in the East vs. the West.
Not only is it viewed differently, their opinion is actually supported out of the Pope's themselves. Again, let the reader judge who is right-- the Papist or the Pope! The Church Father or the modern true believer and his liberal Pope!
So the debate of the role and Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome is actually a legitimate one, but there is not debate that Rome had a “Primacy” .
There is certainly a debate on "primacy." After all, I've already presented one, which you've largely ignored. But if the definition of primacy really is up for grabs, this means that you are conceding the possibility that Rome really isn't the head of the church. This is a fatal position for the Papists to hold, though, perhaps they are hoping that no one figures out how different the definitions of "Primacy" is when they surrender to this. If the Bishop of Rome is not the "rock", as Augustine and others held, is not the universal head, might not have the keys, might not be the vicar of Christ, the one we must all be in communion with, then you have no church, no rule, no authority, no claims at all. Because what your church has been torturing and killing people for.. is a non-entity at worst, and a thing for debate, at best, by your own concession!
But Peter and Paul went there, built it to what it was when they both died there.
A mere repetition of what I replied to in my previous post. Reread my previous post as my second reply.
As for Jerome and his prefaces, no, the Church could allow him to write his views on the scriptures. That was well within the bounds so to speak.
IOW, the Church had not authoritatively taught against him, which you want us to believe is not the case.
Some like the Hebrews were debated for a long time [can’t make it on 1], some did not read it in Church,
As a matter of fact, Hebrews was not acknowledged by Rome, as Jerome reports. The Greeks, in their turn, refused Revelation.
As for the evidence you asked, I thought I linked the Councils of Constantinopile, both 381 and 382. In one of them, the opening Letter mentions the Council in Rome being held and that Constantinopile sends that council greetings. In another one, there is a mention of a Tome from the West. Now, that Tome is not defined, but it does mention a Tome from the West. This, some Catholic scholars argue, could likely be the Decree of Pope Damasus where he reminds the Bishops that gathered there that ROme, Alexandria and Antioch are the 3 major sees given their connection to Peter. I thought I had cited that statement earlier
IOW, you want us to believe that there is a tome, as confessed by you as "undefined," which only "some" Catholic scholars argue, "could likely" (they are not even confident in their own claims?) prove that the canon was sorted in Rome long before Trent?
You damage your own arguments even better than I can!
Greetings:
Now as for Tertullian, I tend not to site him, at least when he begins to go off the rocker, which is somewhere around 205AD. His works before that are generally orthodox, his ones around 205 to 215, he is in a transition, by 215 he is with the heretical Montanists.
As for show me in the scriptures, the scriptures themselves as what constituted the canon was not yet defined.
As for Rome, if a Council was called, that was fine, but unless Rome approved it, it never got the status of ecumenical. Nothing you cite goes against primacy. Primacy was operational as early as Clement of Rome in the late 1st century [it was a mustard seed, to use the NT image, but it is there]. For if he had no primacy at all, the Church of Corinth would have told Clement to get lost.
By the time of St. Ireneaus’s Against Heresies, he clearly cites Clements Letter to the Church of Corinth as an example of Rome’s preeminent authority and he does provide a list of all the Bishops from Peter till his day. Saint Irenaeus “Against Heresies” was written around 180AD, which still is in the 2nd century quotation.
The extant Letter of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth [dated circa 166AD] to Bishop Soter of Rome praising him for the ancient custom of the Rome of urging with consoling words, as a Father does for his children. He also makes reference again to the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth[Fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church Book 2, Chapter 23 and 25]. So at least this Church in the East saw Rome as “a Father who cares for her children], this is also in the 2nd century.
The Muratorian Fragment [155AD to 200AD] clearly uses the period of the Saint Pius, Bishop of Rome 140AD to 155AD to date why the Shepherd of the Hermas should not be included the NT books to be read in the Church at Rome [earliest NT canonical List!]. Now why is Pius Bishop of Rome important?
The issue of the Gnostic heretic Marcion, who was a wealthy cleric from the East and Son of a Bishop of an Eastern Church in what is now modern Turkey. In 144AD, he was excommunicated “unilaterally” by the Pius and the Church of Rome. There was no council, no protest from the Eastern Churches. So my questions to you are
1)On what authority Did the Church of Rome and Pius act in excommunicating Marcion, who was the son of a Bishop in the Eastern Church, and may have been himself elevated to Bishop?
2)What evidence do we have from any Eastern Churches that Rome acted incorrectly or usurped a role that should have been handled by say the Church in Antioch [which would be the closest major Patriarchal See] or Alexandria?
3)Take the Arius situation. Arius was a Priest Trained in Antioch who moved to Alexandria and preached the doctrine that there was a time when the Father was not a Father, for he was once Alone. The Bishop of Alexandria acting with a Synod of Bishops from all of Egypt “excommunicated Arius”. Arius doctrine had support near Antioch, where he had studied Theology and now you had rival parties, the orthodox, Arians and semi-Arians, and thus the Arian crisis was born [and the crisis was over interpretation of scripture, namely Proverbs 8:22-31].
It would take the Council of Nicea to condemn Arianism and reaffirm Bishop Alexander and the Synod of Bishops in Egypt, and even then, he still had supporters well after Nicea.
So while Arius’s excommunication by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the Synod of Egyptian Bishops was affirmed by Nicea in 325, it was still challenged and questioned and the Council of Nicea ultimately had to resolve the crisis [Even after the Council of Nicea, Arius still had supporters]. Conversely, there was never a question that Pius, Bishop of Rome did not have the authority to excommunicate Marcion [who again, was the son of a Eastern Bishop, a wealthy one at that].
So given Pius Bishop of Rome and the Marcion excommunication [144AD], that is evidence of some form of Papal Primacy well before the middle of the 2nd century.
So if we date the Apostle John’s death at around 90AD and we date Pius, Bishop of Rome’s tenure from 140 to 155AD, what we are talking about is whether or not we can find in the writings of the Fathers whether anyone cared who was the Bishop of Rome between that 50 year period. It is quite clear, given the Marcion excommunication, that Pius, Bishop of Rome’s authority carried significant weight. So even you have to concede the “Papists” theory of Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is operational in Church practice and discipline by the time of Pope Pius [140AD to 155AD].
Now, the 50 year period between 90AD [Apostle John’s death and Pius tenure as Bishop of Rome, 140D to 154AD]. The only extant writings are the Letter of St. Clement to Rome [93AD] and the 7 extant Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Clements Letter is consistent with Rome having some authority to correct the problems in at least 1 Church in the East, i.e. the Church in Corinth [again a Church in the East]. St. Ignatius Letter to the Romans does not mention the Bishop of Rome at that time [Saint Alexander I 105 to 115AD] but it does state that the Church at Rome “Presides in Love” and “You have envied no one; Others you have taught”
So there are clear examples of the basic principle of Primacy of the Church of Rome in the late 1st and 2nd century.
As Pelikan The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: 100AD to 600AD ; Chapter 2 Outside the Mainstream] states, it is becoming increasingly that this primitive Catholicism with its movement from kerygma to dogma was far more explicitly at work in the first century than previously thought [p. 71]. He goes on to freely acknowledge in in the later part of Chapter 2 that the Church of Rome was chief among the churches in authority and prestige [p. 118].
Now, since you raised an issue about citing J. Pelikan. Rev. Henry Chadwick, The Anglican Patristic Scholar [Taught at Oxford and Cambridge] writes, with respect to the Church of Rome, that its role as a natural leader goes back to the early age of the Church. Its leadership can be seen in their brotherly intervention in the dispute at Corinth before the end of the first century. Chadwick continues and states that the first seeds of Rome’ s future development can be seen in St. Paul’s independent attitude towards the Church in Jerusalem and his focus on building up a Gentile Christendom focused upon the capital of the Gentile world. The standing of the Church of Rome was enhanced by its important part in the second century conflicts with heresy [I documented those earlier], and by it consciousness, expressed as early as 160AD in the monuments erected to the memory of St. Peter and St. Paul. By the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor insisted, in a manner that others thought autocratic , that all churches should observe Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome.. Chadwick continues that before the 3rd century, there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of leadership. All were brethren, but the Church of Rome was accepted First among equals. He points out that the Petrine text of Matthew 16:18 cannot be seen to play a Role in Rome’s leadership till the mid-3rd century when there was a disagreement between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome over baptism but by the 4th century, Pope Damasus, Rome would then be seen as using this text more and more for the theological and scriptural foundation of Rome’s leadership [Chadwick, The Early Church Revised Edition, 1989, page 237-238].
In volume 2 of Pelikan’s work [The Spirit of Eastern Christendom], he starts out by stating the schism of Western and Eastern Christianity was one of the greatest calamities in the history of the Church [I agree] and it seriously undermined the powers of resistance in the Christian East against the advances of Islam and on the other hand, it hastened the centralization of Western Christendom which resulted in many abuses and provoked widespread discontent so that the Reformation itself, which split Western Christendom into two hostile camps, was one of its consequences. [I tend to agree with his analysis here].
He then goes on to discuss the Orthodoxy of Old Rome starting out by saying dominating the discussion between East and West was the massive fact of Rome’s spotless [or nearly spotless] record for doctrinal orthodoxy. The Pope’s made use of this record quoting the Petrine text [Mt 16:18-19; John 21-15-17] and Pope Agatho [678-681AD] would rely on Peter’s protection, etc. Pelikan then states that the positive evidence of history was certainly cogent and Pelikan cites his earlier work in Volume 1 noting that the East had to admit that Pope Leo [Church of Rome] had been hailed as the “pillar of Orthodoxy” and had been remembered ever since [p. 148 of Volume 2].
Pelikan continues on and notes that Rome had been on the side that “emerged victorious from one controversy to another”, and “eventually it became clear that the side Rome chose would be the one that would emerge victorious.”
Pelikan continues on by referring to the two issues discussed earlier in this work [Volume 2] and states that in the two dogmatic issues that we have discussed thus far, the person of Christ and the use of images in the Church, the orthodoxy of Rome was a prominent element, in the first of these perhaps the decisive element, so that when the relation of East and West itself became a matter of debate, the Latin Case could draw from the record established in the early centuries and the immediate past [p. 150].
Pelikan goes into the Monothelite issue and notes that even though Pope Honorius was said to have fostered it by his negligence [he never defined it, he said nothing in reality], what “Rome had sad in local councils in 649 and 680: became the orthodox definition stated at Constantinople in 681 and states Peter was still speaking thru the Pope.
So Their is a Doctrine of Primacy and it is well attested to by the 2 Protestant [well 1 former Protestant patristic scholars that I cited above. Primacy is non-negotiable and there is clear evidence for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Now, what does that Primacy entail and how it has been exercised in the past and how it could be exercised in the future is I think an interesting theological question and one I think the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church will one day have to sit down and honestly address if there is to be a Full Communion between our 2 Apostolic and historic Churches.
Former Pope Benedict [writing then as Cardinal Ratzinger] in Principles of Catholic Theology (1987, p.217) notes that when Patrirach Athenagoros met the Pope in 1963 in Phanar by stating “Against all expectations, the Bishop of Rome is among us, first among us in honor, he who presides in love [Saint Ignatius of Antioch, epistle to the Romans ). It is clear, Pope Benedict writes [then Cardinal Ratzinger] that the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Church or acknowledge the primacy of the West. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank, of the equal Bishops in the Church and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but does confess a primacy of honor and love might be a formula that recognizes the place of the Church of Rome in the Universal Church.
As then Cardinal Ratzinger noted, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the Doctrine of Primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium (p.199).
So, in closing, the Primacy of Peter as First among the Apostles and thus the Church of Rome has a basis in history and is supported by NT Text, Church Fathers, and the Councils of the Church, as Pelikan noted in his work. However, how that Primacy is exercised, it seems, is still something that can be adapted, while still holding to the Doctrine of Primacy. Even then Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that as I noted above. So a model where the Pope is the only Bishop that can call a council or if it is called by Other Bishops, the Pope approves their request, and when a council is convoked, the Pope presides over the Council appears, if I am reading Pope Benedict correctly, a model for the Doctrine of the Primacy that would be able to help heal the schism of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.
So does the Pope micro manage ever area of the Church, if that is what is Universal jurisdiction, then the Popes today do not do that. Universal jurisdiction would only apply to ensuring orthodox doctrine is preserved. The Pope does not have the authority to tell the Eastern Church how to do their Liturgy. The Eastern Liturgies are as valid as the Roman Rite.
As for the Eucharist. Here we go again. The celebration of the Eucharist, is the representation, in an unbloody manner, of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The Catholic Church reads the entire Scripture, with Christ as the reference point, thus everything in the Old Testament points to Christ and everything in the NT epistles are understood in reference to Christ.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
The CCC discusses Typology in section 128. Typology is the Catholic view of reading Sacred Scripture as a unified whole, with the person of Christ as the center. Thus, Catholic theology sees OT persons, events, signs, as prefigurements or “types” of persons and events that occur in the NT all understood in reference to Christ. So, King David prefigures Christ the King of the new Israel. So I would like to look at Eucharist using the Catholic Biblical principle of Typology
In Genesis 14:18, we read “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram.” Later in Genesis, we read where Abraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac and he tells his son, that God will provide the Lamb. Of course, God command Abraham to not sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham later sacrifices a Ram (c.f. Gen 22:7-14). So, two themes are already developed here, Melchizedek a priest offering Bread and Wine and the image of the Lamb.
As we move to Exodus, we see the Passover ritual described in Exodus 12: 1-20. Some key themes emerge in this text, “the blood of the Lamb is spread on the doors” (c.f. Ex. 12: 7) and the Jewish People “should partake of the Lamb and eat unleavened bread” (c.f. Ex 12: 7-8). Later in the text, we read “This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generation shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the Lord, as a perpetual institution” (c.f. Exodus 12”14) and again, “keep the custom of unleavened bread…celebrate as a perpetual institution” (c.f. Ex 12:17). So some themes emerge hear, that connect back to the passages in Genesis. The blood of the Lamb is put on the door, and the angel of death passes over God’s people. To celebrate and actually participate in this saving action of God, God prescribes a Liturgy/Rite whereby the Jewish People are to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread as a “Perpetual Institution”, i.e. a celebration that transcends time and space. For the record, the reading from Exodus 12 is read every Holy Thursday in Catholic Churches ,which is when Christ celebrates the Last supper with the Apostles.
As the Jews cross the read sea in Exodus 14 [a prefigurement of Baptism], we see them on the journey to the promise land and they are without food, so what do we read in scripture. We see in Exodus 16:13-15, God providing his people with “manna”, i.e., “bread from heaven” as Moses states “This is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat” (c.f. Ex 16: 15). So again, the sign of God giving his people bread to sustain them on the journey to the promise land is coming into play here again. As we get to Exodus 24: 6-8, we see the covenant ratified in blood as we see Moses taking blood and sprinkling it on the altar [a sign of the presence of God among the people] and then taking the same blood and sprinkling it on the people. So, from this text we have a covenant being made in blood and the mingling of the blood on the altar and people now indicates that God and the people are one, i.e. in communion. Again, for the record, this OT passage is read in Catholic Liturgy on the Feast of Corpus Christi, which was celebrated a few Sunday’s ago.
Two Psalms have strong Eucharistic imagery, as well as sacramental imagery. For example, in Psalm 104:14-15, we read “You raise grass for cattle and plants for our beasts of burden. You bring bread from the earth and wine to gladden our hearts, Oil to make our faces gleam, food to build our strength.” In Psalm 110:4 we see the connection to Melchizedek again as we read “The Lord has sworn and will not waver: like Melchizedek, you are a priest forever.” In addition, the Prophet Malachi (c.f. Mal 1:11) writes “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, a pure offering.”
So again, the signs of bread and wine are in the Psalms and the Psalmist makes a prophetic statement about Christ being like Melchizedek, you are a priest forever and later the prophet Malachi indicates that a sacrifice will be offered everywhere.
In closing with respect to the OT, the themes, signs, persons and events in these passages, which include bread and wine, priest, sacrifice, Lamb, Passover, unleavened bread, and Melchizedek, through typology, point to the person of Christ and find there fulfillment in his person.
So, staring with the New Testament, John the Baptist identifies Christ as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (c.f. John 1:29). In St. John’s chapter 6, we see Christ giving the bread of life discourse, where he cites manna that God gave in the OT and now indicates that he is the true bread from heaven. In the Gospels we read that Christ Passion took place in the context of Passover (c.f. Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Luke 22: 7; John 19:14) and all them make the point to indicate that it was the “feast of unleavened bread and St. Mark and St. Luke make the point that this was when the Passover lamb was sacrificed. We also read in the three synoptic Gospels that Christ celebrated the Last supper with his Apostles (c.f. Mk 14: 22-26; Mt 26: 26-30; Luke 22: 14-20), using bread and wine, and stated “This is my Body; This is my Blood and do this in memory of him” and Christ stated that the bread and cup were the new covenant of his blood (c.f. Luke 22:20). St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-29, which interestingly, is written before any of the Gospel accounts gives a strong narrative on the Tradition of the Eucharist as he writes that Christians are to celebrate the Eucharist and indicates that it is a covenant in Christ blood and each time you celebrate the Eucharist, you proclaim the death of the Lord. St. Paul also clearly states that partaking of the Eucharist must be done worthily and a person should examine himself/herself before receiving the Eucharist (c.f. 1 Cor 11:27-28).
In St. Luke’s Gospel, we see the post resurrection account of the road to Emmaus (c.f. Luke 24: 13-35) Christ appearing to two of his Apostles (who are not named) and they do not recognize him until Christ celebrates the “Eucharist” as we read “And it happened that while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him…….and the two recounted how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread (c.f. Luke 24:30-35). St. Luke, in Acts of the Apostles, gives us an account of Church life as he writes “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” (c.f. Acts 2:42). We see the importance of gathering to break bread again in Acts 20:7 where we read “On the first day of the week, when we gathered to break bread” and Paul again breaks bread before he leaves (c.f. Acts 20:11).
So, taken collectively, the Catholic Church sees the Eucharist as the ritual, sacramental action of thanksgiving to God which constitutes the principal Christian liturgical celebration of communion in the paschal mystery of Christ and the celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life (Catechism paragraph 2177). The Eucharist then fulfills all of the Old Testament signs and events in the person and actions of Christ, and thus it is the celebration commanded by Christ to make present the sacrifice of Christ throughout the ages until Christ comes again. Christ entrusted this memorial of his body and blood to his spouse, the Church and thus it is an action of both Christ and His Church and it again, re-presents [makes present] the sacrifice of the cross and an because it is a memorial, it applies its fruits. The sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist are one in the same and as Christ once offered himself in a bloody manner on the Cross, the Eucharist as a sacrifice and an offering of bread and wine is the same offering in an unbloody manner.
So the notion that Christ’s Sacrifice is only “Past” is actually a limitation on God. Christ by his Incarnation entered into time and space and thus the Crucifixion happened 2,000 years ago yet God who is not bound by space and time can make the same “once for all Sacrifice” present in perpetuity because Christ is God. The Eucharist makes present through Sacred Mystery the Sacrifice of Christ 2,000 years ago.
As for the notion of Transubstantiation, this dogma has to be understood in the context when it was defined during the middle ages as it is a Philosophical Definition in response to Philosophical question about the Eucharist that arose during this period of history and thus should be understood as such. It is not the only way to explain or define the Eucharist because what we are talking about is a “Sacred Mystery” and thus the Eucharist can never be totally defined with theological language, which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church refers to Sacraments as “Holy Mysteries” consistent with the expression of St. Paul who referred to priests (i.e. St. Paul described his ministry as priestly, see Romans 15:16) those should be thought of as stewards as we read “Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (cf. 1 Corinthians 4: 1). In the Catholic Church, this expression is also used as you will often hear the Priest in the opening prayer before Mass/Liturgy saying we come to ‘celebrate these Sacred Mysteries”, etc.
While it is true to say that transubstantiation was not clearly defined in the Church Fathers, it is however, an “organic development” that is entirely consistent with the clear doctrine of the “real presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which no Church Father ever denied.
In addition, many of the best non-Catholic scholars of Early Church History, who have far more credentials than you and I both, indicate the evidence of the Early Church Fathers supports the Catholic and Eastern Orthdoox Doctrine on the Eucharist. Again, I will cite the same two to make my point, Henry Chadwick, a Professor of Church History at both Oxford and Cambridge [not sure if he is still with us], and the late Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, who taught at Yale University.
For example, Henry Chadwick, in the “The Early Church Revised Edition”, published by Penguin Press, writes “The Earliest second century-texts (Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr) agree that the regular Sunday worship of the Christians was first and foremost ‘thanksgiving’, eucharista, a term which gradually replaced the more primitive term of ‘breaking bread’ (p. 261).” The term breaking bread of course is used in Luke 24:35 (Road to Emmaus) and Acts 2:42.
Chadwick (pp. 261-262) elaborates further on St. Justin Martyr’s writing. Chadwick states “The Roman Eucharist of 150 is described by Justin Martyr in a passage to reassure pagan readers that Christian rites are not black magic. After readings from ‘the memoirs of the apostles’ and from the Old Testament prophets, the president (evidently the Bishop) preached a sermon…….Then bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together were brought to the President who ‘to the best of his ability’ offered a prayer of thanks to the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, concluding with the people signifying their ratification by saying Amen….The Communion followed at which each person partook of the break and wine distributed to them by deacons, and received it no as common food for satisfying hunger and thirst, but as the flesh and blood of Christ. Finally, pieces of the sacred bread were taken to the sick and those in prison. If is clear that, although attending the service meant risking one’s life and liberty, all Christians regarded it as an absolute obligation to be present each Sunday if it was in their power. Justin saw in the universal Christian custom of a weekly Eucharist a direct fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi 1: 10-11 that in every place a pure sacrifice would be offered to the Lord from the rising of the sun to its setting.”
The late Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a Distinguished Professor at Yale who again wrote an excellent 5 volume history of the Church entitled “The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine while he was a Protestant (Lutheran), as he later entered into the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a view of the Eucharist consistent with the Catholic Church [as I have already noted].
In Volume 1 of Pelikan’s series, entitled ‘The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), he reviews all of the early Church Fathers and their writings on the Eucharist. Pelikan (p. 167) states “Yet it does seem “express and clear” that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body of blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so)…Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence.” Pelikan uses the Liturgy to further show the belief in the real presence as he writes “yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence….The Theologians did not have adequate concepts with which to formulate a doctrine of real presence that was evidently already believed in the Church even though it was not yet explicitly taught by Creeds..(p. 168).
Pelikan concludes (p. 170) by stating “Liturgical evidence suggests and understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old Testament was one of archetype or type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation’ just as the bread of the Eucharist “re-presented” the Body of Christ.”
In closing, the evidence of the New Testament, the writings of the Early Church clearly do show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I stand by this belief and if you think I took a beating from you, that is in your own imagination.
As for the Tome of Damasus, Phillip Scaff in his Introductory notes clearly believes that the Tome that the Constantinople received from the West was from Pope Damasus. He is a Reformed Protestant and certainly would not make such a statement because he is sympathetic to the Papacy. I suggest you read his Introductory notes on the Council of Constantinopile.
As for the NT, Rome by 405 had defined the canon. It is interesting that regardless of what Church Father said here or there, and the ones who questioned the Deuterocanonicals were the Minority, the Canon defined by Rome or confirmed by Rome became the standard for ‘every Church in the West” So you have to ask yourself this question, leaving Pope Damasus aside and the Council of Rome in 382, given the regional councils at Hippo and Carthage [which asked for confirmation from Rome] and given Pope Innocent I Letter to Bishop Exsurpius in what is modern France, and given the Council of Carthage in 419 which directed that its canon be sent to Pope Boniface for confirmation, why is it that all those local Churches which had to some degree, different canons, all accept the same canon. In fact some of those in the East would actually accept longer canons of the OT than the Catholics [some Orthodox accept 9 of the Deuterocanonicals, I think 3 and 4 Maccabees]