Follow
One does not have to study the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation very long before finding how important Ignatius of Antioch is to its defense. As a martyr of the late first, or early second century, he is alleged to be the first witness in the sub-apostolic era for Transubstantiation and the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. Fr. John Hardon, in his The History of Eucharistic Adoration lists Ignatius first after the apostle Paul in defense of the doctrine:
“At the turn of the first century, Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom in Rome, had to warn the Christians not to be taken in by the Gnostics—a good modern term would be ‘visionaries,’ who denied the Real Presence. Ignatius said these people abstained from the Eucharist because they did not accept what true Christians believe, that in the Eucharist is the same Jesus Christ Who lived and died and rose from the dead for our salvation.”
A Roman Catholic inquirer at Just For Catholics, an online Evangelical outreach to Roman Catholics, lists Ignatius first, citing his letter to the Smyrnæans:
“The early church fathers believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, as the following quotations confirm.
‘They 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.’ (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans). “
In Mysterium Fidei (para. 44), Pope Paul VI’s treatise on Eucharistic Adoration, he cites the same passage of Ignatius’ letter to the Smrynæans to support the doctrine. The importance of Ignatius to the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the “real presence” cannot be overstated. A casual reading of Ignatius bears this out. Ignatius did, after all, say that true Christians “confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” But a casual reading is all that Rome can stand. Upon closer inspection, Roman Catholic reliance on Ignatius falls apart.
The Epistles of Ignatius
Ignatius is said to have written seven letters to the early church:
- To the Ephesians
- To the Magnesians
- To the Trallians
- To the Romans
- To the Philadelphians
- To the Smyrnæans
- To Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna
He is also alleged to have written other letters that have long since been dismissed as spurious, and of dubious origin. Of his ostensibly authentic letters, they exist in two versions—the long version and the short version—the larger and shorter Greek recension. Their authenticity is not beyond question. As Phillip Schaff explains in his History of the Christian Church, the “Ignatian Controversy” is due in no small part to “the existence of so many different versions of his letters” (History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325., § 165, “The Ignatian Controversy”). Roman Catholics originally accepted all letters as genuine, and Calvin originally rejected them all as “nauseating … absurdities” (Institutes, Book I, Chapter 13, Section 29). Roman Catholics eventually “surrendered at least eight as utterly untenable” (Schaff, “The Ignatian Controversy,” 1)
The later discovery of a Syriac version of three of the epistles—To Polycarp, To the Ephesians, and To the Romans—brought the authenticity of four of the seven authentic epistles into doubt, but militated positively for the authenticity of the shorter Greek recension vis-à-vis the longer versions (Schaff, “The Ignatian Controversy,” 3).
We share Schaff’s conclusion that early corroborating evidence from Church Fathers weighs favorably for some authentic version of Ignatius’ epistles, but that “the integrity of these epistles, even in the shorter copy, is not beyond all reasonable doubt” (Schaff, “The Ignatian Controversy,” 2.d). Nevertheless, today we will examine the seven epistles listed above, assuming for the sake of argument the authenticity of the shorter Greek recension.
Ignatius’ Use of Metaphor
Ignatius’ alleged defense of the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist falls apart when we examine his prolific use of metaphor in his letters. A metaphor is a figure of speech “in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.” His letters are positively riddled with them.
Protestants eagerly embrace Jesus’ use of metaphor in John 6, and have no qualms with consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in the context of the meaning He assigned to the metaphors. “Eating” His flesh and “drinking” His blood (John 6:53) are metaphors for “coming” to Him and “believing” in Him (John 6:35). Christians must therefore “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood” if they are to live eternally. To refuse to “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood,” is the metaphorical equivalent of refusing to come to Him and refusing to believe in Him, and that is a rejection of the Father Himself (John 12:48-49).
But if Ignatius is to take the stand in defense of a complex doctrine like Transubstantiation—in which Aristotelian substance theory and its essence and accidents are elucidated to explain the substance of flesh and blood under the accidental appearance of bread and wine—then his penchant for metaphorical flourish will have to be brought forward as well. Ignatius cannot be used to dismiss a Protestant metaphorical interpretation of John 6 when his own preferred mode of communication was itself metaphorical. That is to say, Rome cannot use Ignatius’ use of figures that are “not literally applicable,” in order to prove that he believed the figures were “literally applicable.”
Ignatius used metaphors prolifically, even when it was unnecessary and in fact a hindrance to do so. We provide these several examples from his epistles:
On his way to Rome, he is “bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers” (To the Romans, V).
With his death not far off, “there is no fire in me desiring to be fed,” and by fire, he means a desire for “the pleasures of this life.” Rather, “there is within me a water” that signifies his desire for the pleasures of the next. (To the Romans, VII).
The congregation of the Ephesians “is fitted to the bishop as the strings are to the harp” (To the Ephesians, IV).
In our walk with Christ, we are “drawn up on high … making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope” (To the Ephesians, IX).
It is for Christ that Ignatius bears “these spiritual jewels,” by which he means “these bonds,” or his chains (To the Ephesians, XI)
The Ephesians must not be “anointed with the bad odour of the doctrine of the prince of this world,” but with the ointment of Christ (To the Ephesians, XVII).
“There are two kinds of coins, the one of God and the other of the world,” by which he intends to convey that “[t]he unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have [been stamped with] … the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ” (To the Magnesians, V).
He worries that those who give him compliments “scourge me” with their affirmations (To the Trallians, IV), and that the Trallians might be “strangled” by his too much teaching (To the Trallians, V).
Nevertheless, they should “abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy,” for the heretics “mix up Jesus Christ by their own poison” (To the Trallians, VI).
“Even as the harp is with its strings” so is the bishop “in harmony with the commandments” (To the Philadelphians, I).
Therefore they must avoid “wolves that appear worthy of credit,” by which he means deceivers and purveyors of “division and wicked doctrine” (To the Philadelphians, II).
Indeed, they must keep themselves “from those evil plants,” by which he means, those tares “which Jesus does not tend” (To the Philadelphians, III).
The church at Antioch must be congratulated because “they have now reached the harbour,” which is to say, they are now “at peace,” having endured the persecution and have obtained “tranquility” (To the Smyrnæans, XI).
Polycarp must be “sober as an athlete” for “[t]he times call for thee, as pilots do for the winds, and as one tossed with tempest seeks for the haven” (To Polycarp, II).
Polycarp must “[s]tand firm, as does an anvil which is beaten,” for “[i]t is the part of a noble athlete to be wounded, yet to conquer” (To Polycarp, III).
Polycarp must not “be found a deserter,” but must rush into battle with “baptism … as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply” (To Polycarp, VI).
Clearly, Ignatius’ literary style employed metaphor so much that he found himself occasionally even having to explain the metaphor itself. Likewise, in some cases when he had already spoken literally, he added a metaphor for good measure. When given the choice between clarity and metaphorical flourish, Ignatius clearly preferred the flourish to the clarity. As we shall see next, he used the metaphors of bread, flesh and blood quite liberally as well.
Ignatius’ Use of “Leaven,” “Bread,” “Flesh” and “Blood” as Metaphors
In addition to the above sampling of his impressive use of metaphor, we observe that he also used as metaphors what Roman Catholics would call the “elements” or “species” of the Lord’s Supper. We are particularly interested in his use of them when he was not talking about the Eucharist and when it served no clarifying purpose to do so. For example, in his letter to the Magnesians, he admonishes them to “Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ.” Here he is not speaking of the Eucharist, but of avoiding bad company, for “[i]t is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize” (To the Magnesians, X). This is an odd use of “leaven” to be sure. When Paul used the metaphor in this same context, it was not to recommend that they switch leaven, but to insist that his flock avoid leaven and remain unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). Where Paul exhorts Christians to remain unleavened, Ignatius insists that they switch to a new leaven.
It is an unremarkable metaphor, we acknowledge, as Jesus said the kingdom of God “is like leaven” (Luke 13:21). But in his use of it, Ignatius described Him who fulfilled the feast of unleavened bread as “new leaven,” which is certainly inappropriate. Nevertheless, we notice that Christians here are exhorted to be changed into “new leaven,” and that new leaven is Jesus Christ. He speaks not of bread being changed into Christ, but of Christians being changed into bread.
Then, in his letter to the Trallians he exhorts them with a similar metaphor: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Christ” (To the Trallians, VIII). The allusion appears to be to 2 Corinthians 4:14-16 which instructs us that “we faint not” because “the inward man is renewed day by day” and He Who “raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus.” Ignatius proceeds in precisely this fashion in his next paragraph:
“He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus…” (To the Trallians, IX)
His point, in any case, was that each person avoid “the snares of the devil” by avoiding grudges “against his neighbour” and “[g]ive no occasion to the Gentiles, lest … God be spoken evil of” (To the Trallians, VIII). We note, therefore, that Ignatius appealed metaphorically to the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in an exhortation to a changed life by faith in Jesus Christ, but not in reference to the Eucharist.
Then, in his letter to the Romans, he looks forward to being fed as “food for the wild beasts,” which is to be taken literally of course, as he was about to be fed to the lions, but Ignatius was not one to miss the opportunity for a metaphor. “I am the wheat of God,” he continues, “and let me be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ” (To the Romans, IV). Jesus was “that bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:31-58), and Ignatius desires to follow in His footsteps, that is, to be ground like “the wheat of God” and become “the pure bread of Christ.” It was a metaphor that was simply too good to pass up.
What we see in all of these examples is that in some way or another, Christians are exhorted to be more like Christ by use of a metaphor in which we are “changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ,” or become the “wheat of God” that is the “pure bread of Christ,” or are called to a changed life in the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ, which is to say, “in faith … and in love.” We invite the reader therefore to make note of how freely Ignatius appropriates the figures of flesh, blood, bread, wheat and leaven when he writes. Certainly he had no intention to suggest that Christians literally become the “new leaven” and the “bread of Christ,” and would be surprised if some future generations understood him to say as much. He appropriates figures and symbols with reckless abandon, and his epistles must be read in the manner in which he wrote them. As we shall see next, what he does with so many other figures and symbols as metaphors, he does with the Eucharist as well.
The Eucharist as a Metaphor for His Message
As central as the Lord’s Supper is in the passion narrative, and as irresistible as metaphors were to Ignatius, we are not surprised to find that he employs the Eucharist itself as a metaphor in his letters. The meaning of the metaphor is different for each letter, and each use of it was finely tuned to match his theme. Writing to the Ephesians, the emphasis is on unity, and the Eucharist is applied as a metaphor for unity. Writing to the Romans, the emphasis is on his looming martyrdom, and the Eucharist is employed as a metaphor for his acceptance of death. Writing to the Smyrnæans, his emphasis is against the Gnostics who denied that Jesus came in the flesh, so the Eucharist is pressed into service as a metaphor for His actual flesh and blood. Let us examine these three letters more closely.
• Eucharistic Metaphor in His Letter to the Ephesians
In this epistle he addresses them as “united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father” (To the Ephesians, Introduction), and then presses on with his message of unity throughout the letter. The Ephesians are “stirring up yourselves by the blood of God,” (To the Ephesians, I), and because Ignatius has been “stirred up by you in faith,” he returns the favor, exhorting them to “run together” (To the Ephesians, III). “Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop. … Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung … taking up the song of God in unison, ye may with one voice sing.” “It is profitable,” he continues, “that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus ye may always enjoy communion with God” (To the Ephesians, IV). Thus, “so all things may agree in unity … if any one not be within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.” (To the Ephesians, V). He rejoices to hear “that no sect has any dwelling-place among you” (To the Ephesians, VI) and that “there is no strife raging among you” (To the Ephesians, VIII). “For when ye assemble frequently in the same place … the powers of Satan are destroyed … by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace….” (To the Ephesians, XIII).
In other words, his theme throughout the letter is unity. We are not surprised, therefore, that Ignatius closes his letter with a Eucharistic metaphor on unity. He will be encouraged to hear, he writes, “that ye come together … in one faith … breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying” (To the Ephesians, XX). The Eucharist here serves as a figure of their unity, a unity in which he has been rejoicing throughout the letter.
• Eucharistic Metaphor in His Letter to the Romans
In this letter, Ignatius is on his way to be martyred in Rome, and the finish line is within view. His looming death is his constant theme. “I hope as a prisoner in Christ … that I be thought worthy of attaining to the end” (To the Romans, I). He seeks nothing more “than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared” (To the Romans, II). “I shall no longer appear to the world” (To the Romans, III). “I shall willingly die for God” and “when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to anyone” (To the Romans, IV). “May I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray they may be found eager to rush upon me…” (To the Romans, V). “It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ … Him I seek, who died for us: Him I desire, who rose again for our sake” (To the Romans, VI). “For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die” (To the Romans, VII). “I no longer wish to live after the manner of men” (To the Romans, VIII).
In sum, his constant theme throughout the letter is his inevitable martyrdom and his urgent desire to move on to the next life. We are not surprised, therefore, that Ignatius closes his letter with a Eucharistic metaphor related to his coming death and his desire for heaven:
“My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (To the Romans, VII)
The Eucharist here serves as a metaphor for his longing to pass into the next world. As the metaphors of fire and water clearly demonstrate, the “fire” of earthly life and food has been doused with “water,” so that his only remaining passion is for heavenly life and food, “the bread of life.”
• Eucharistic Metaphor in His Letter to the Smyrnæans
In this letter, Ignatius is battling the Gnostics who taught that Jesus came only in spirit, and that He only appeared or seemed to suffer in the flesh. It is his constant theme in the letter:
“For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ … nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh.” (To the Smyrnæans, I)
He focuses on the flesh and the spirit throughout the letter, and never lets up. “He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]” (To the Smyrnæans, II). “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. … And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit…. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.” (To the Smyrnæans, III). “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?” (To the Smyrnæans, V). “Let no man deceive himself. … if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation” (To the Smyrnæans, VI). He closes with salutations, “in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual” (To the Smyrnæans, XII), and asks for prayers that a certain member “may be confirmed in faith and love, both corporeal and spiritual” (To the Smyrnæans, XIII).
In other words, his theme throughout the letter is the Gnostic error that denies that Jesus came and truly suffered, died and rose again in the flesh, and not in the spirit only. Thus, he constantly affirms that His passion and resurrection actually happened, and were “both corporeal and spiritual.” We are not surprised, therefore, that Ignatius applies the Eucharist as a metaphor against the Gnostic heresy, using it as a metaphor for his coming and suffering in the flesh:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. … It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.” (To the Smyrnæans, VII)
It is notable that Ignatius did not speak of the Eucharist as Jesus’ “flesh” to the Ephesians. His message to them was not anti-Gnosticism but unity, as they were of “one faith … breaking one and the same bread.”
And he did not speak of the Eucharist as “breaking one and the same bread” to the Romans. His message to them was not unity but his looming martyrdom, in which case the Eucharist signified his hunger for “heavenly bread.”
And he did not speak of the Eucharist as “incorruptible love and eternal life” to the Smyrnæans. His message to them was not to emphasize Jesus’ effectual ministry in Heaven, but to counter the Gnostics by emphasizing His effectual ministry on earth, in the flesh “which suffered for our sins.”
The Context Shows the Meaning of the Metaphor
As we noted above, a casual reading of Ignatius of Antioch only appears to support an early sub-apostolic teaching on the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. But when a Church Father was as devoted to the use of metaphor as Ignatius was, a casual reading is grossly inadequate. Because Ignatius applied metaphor so liberally throughout his letters—and we have shown that examples of this are not wanting—we are not surprised that he used such a prominent Biblical theme of bread, wine, flesh and blood as a source for his metaphorical applications.
In particular, because he used the Eucharist as a thematic metaphor in his letters, varying its meaning according to the message, we can see that Rome’s understanding of Ignatius is grossly deficient. Roman Catholicism relies on Ignatius for support of Transubstantiation when he was simply wielding the Eucharist as a metaphor for the actual flesh of Christ against the Gnostics who said He had not really come in the flesh, and had not really suffered. Had Ignatius been less metaphorical in his writing, and had he been less prone to apply the metaphors of flesh, blood, leaven, wheat and bread so freely, Roman Catholic apologists, priests and popes might have had a case for early belief in the “real presence.” As matters stand, they do not.
As we noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, the religion of Rome struggles mightily to prove that her doctrines originated any earlier than the latter part of the fourth century. On the matter of Transubstantiation and the “real presence,” Ignatius was their last, best hope to bridge that 300-year gap. As thin as the evidence is for early Roman Catholicism, we are tempted to be sympathetic to their apologists who must stretch Ignatius to the breaking point to fill in centuries of missing dogma. But Ignatius is of no help to them.
As regards the actual content of the Ignatian epistles, we recommend that Christians eat Ignatius with relish. By which we mean he should be read with enjoyment, and read for what he was, without the fear that his sacramentalism was prohibitively Roman Catholic. Roman Catholic, he certainly was not, and no defender of the “real presence” was he. Our only caution—to Christian and Roman Catholic alike—is that he be read in the grand metaphorical style in which he wrote. To read him otherwise is to martyr him again before the lions, by which we mean… etc., etc., etc.
Tim, No doubt God put you on this earth to contribute mightily in the reversal of Roman Doctrine. You just took another step. Mans real problem has always been idolatry. And Rome has their big three Mary, the bread God, The Papacy. Reformed theology holds that ma’s sinful inclination ( idolatry) itself will incur God’s judgment, and it imprisons the whole person. No one can overcome this thru the inclination of the will. Cooperation with grace will not heal the soul, only the gospel.
Your sources appear to be peace-mil at best. Use longer quotes from the church fathers, so we have context.
Prove it with primary sources only. No secondary or third hearsay sources.
Daniel, you wrote,
You’ll have to be more specific. I quoted Ignatius’ letters. Were there some quotes taken out of context? If so, which ones? In your opinion, what is the proper context?
You continued,
Again, you’ll have to be more specific. All of my citations of Ignatius are citations of Ignatius’ actual letters. I am not sure what your point of contention is.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim, it seems to me whether it is the bread worship, Mary worship or praying to saints, the church, the papacy, its all symptomatic of a refusal to worship the one and only true God in an accepable way tru faithalone inChrist alone thru thSpirit of God.
Kelvin, Thanks for turning me on to greenbaggins. Now I can spank ’em over there ( but that damn Bryan Cross is always ahead of me in commenting).
Tim,
Kinda’ like the way the guys who hated Daniel and Shadrack, Mishac and Abedendigo ate their flesh, huh?
Are you suggesting we eat the Flesh of Christ ( or even Igantius ) the same way?
Jim, what Tim is saying is Ignatius used metaphors just like Jesus who told us the words I tell you are spiritual. Ignatius didn’t believe He was eating the literal body of Jesus substantively under the appearance of bread. But that Christ nourishes our faith spiritually.
Yes, Kevin, that is precisely the point. If we are to read Ignatius, let us read him in his context in accordance with his lavishly metaphorical style. Using Ignatius to prove early belief in the real presence is like using e e cummings‘ works to prove that early 20th century American poetry was bereft of capitalization and punctuation. Cummings had his own style and should be read accordingly. The same is true of Ignatius.
Tim
kelvin,
Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. Ever hear of Chuck Swindoll? He says to eat someone’s flesh in the Bible means to slander and revile. 30 years ago I heard him give talk on Daniel. I have never forgotten what this Protestants minister said. The expression is still used today in Palestine.
( and to think you guys accuse Catholics of checking our minds at the door! )
Jim, do you know a guy named Guy Fawkes? Michael says that you on another blog?
Yeah but don’t tell anyone.
Tim!
Give it to me straight. don’t hold back. I can’t take.
Over on Stellman’s blog, Kevin has been saying you have not only exposed the Whore for her worship of the Mother Goddess and the bread in the 4th century, but that the Harlot also violated all fire codes by smuggling candles into the list of heretical doctrines. Are candles doctrines?
I mean, Goddess worship is bad enough but candles? WOW!
Tell us more.
Jim, are you losing mind. I have directed RC to Tims site to read his articles. Especially the one on The rise of RC. Whatsk with the Guy Fawkes masks? Have you been handing those out with the plastic Rosaries? Come clean Jim or whatever your name is.
No Stupid, I hand out wooden rosaries. By the way Tim, I was just in Fatima on Sunday and got a bunch of those rosaries to dole out next week when I am in America. Kevin hates your mom and doesn’t want her to have one. Forget him, I will send her one if you give me her contacts.
Jim, ya I’m sure Tim believes if she just gets that Rosary she’s ok. All along he probably thought it was the gospel that saves. Who knew it was owning thing.
Kelvin,
That was a bit harsh. Let me change “Stupid” to ” Silly”. You are getting your arse kicked over on Stellman’s by about 6 guys on the nature of justification. Whenever you can’t put forth an argument, you throw “Falloni Knee Uppercuts” below the belt with your slurs. The “plastic” rosary business was intended to be snotty, wasn’t it? No real apologetic purpose involved. Just pettiness.
No offense taken. You are so pathetic Kevin. Living on blogs, slurring Catholics, it’s all you’ve got. I am going to take Kenneth’s advice and love you to pieces, you big lovable galoot!
Tim, I have brought up your site numerous times to those on Jason’s blog often directing many to read your articles.. Many, including Jonathan, have called me and you every name in the book. Its just amazing that opposing Roman Catholicism, although today does not bring killing, it still brings vitriol among them. To me its the evidence that Reformed doctrine and the Gospel has NO connection to Roman catholicism. The words that you have so often spoke here that God has marked out his church and He is calling people to come out of her ring loud. Not many wise according to the flesh. , not many mighty, not many noble. We are reminded in Mathew 7 narrow is the gate into heaven and few are there who enter by it. 1 billion Catholics. How many lost? K
Interesting. I stopped by to check it out. Thanks for the heads up.
Tim
Tim I opened the door ( or I should say God did) you stepped in, let him have it all. Jonathan is the kingpin. He just thinks we are pond scum for going after their sacred cows. Notice when he gets squeezed he uses big words and dismisses other views and fantasy etc. I have been praying you would take this on the road to that blog. Challenge everything, you are in my prayers.
Tim, I bet you don’t have the chutzpah to click on Jason’s right now answer my post in which I call you a liar.
Do it! Do it now! I call you a liar over there. Get me over there. And take Bozo with you to help.
Grow up
Jim,
You lie to yourself. For whenever you eat this bread…1Cor.11:26 You worship bread whenever it is called Jesus. Assigning His name with adoration is an act of worship. Even your senses are ordered to this worship when they perceive the accidents. My God ! You better hope Rome is telling the truth because this act would be a great indignity for an image of God. I render you to God because you are God’s image.
Eric W. and Kevin,
Why didn’t your mighty paladin roar over on Stellman’s last night?
Tim sure struts his stuff on this blog but was as quiet as a mouse or a pink bunny over there.
TIMID TIM! You failed to denounce the Mark o’ the beast last night. You denied your gospel.
Three or four times I asked you if I worship bread. You were posting while I was. You stayed in the shadows.
You know perfectly well Catholics don’t worship bread. You are ashamed of the stupidity of saying we do ( only Kevin and Eric W. follow you like the Pied Pier’s mice ).
Retract this foul nonsense on your blog as you won’t say it anywhere but here.
Tim acquitted himself well on that blog as always. Jonathan actually agreed with him on the 4th century stuff.. When your prepared Jim, what can someone say. When you have done the homework, well?
Jim, incidentally, your sorta of like Debbie when she came on here. She couldn’t refute the Tim’s points so throw a hissy, call a bunch of names and storm off. Tim asked you a good question, when are you going to address his stuff, instead of your mamma stuff. Cmon Guy!
My “mamma stuff” Kevin?
You hyena. You and Tim pull up your pants to your solar plexus, thumb your noses and strut around on this blog with your bread worship crap but “over there” it’s all yes sir Mr. Jonathan, no sir Mr. Jonathan, whatever you say sir, sorry sir if I said anything wrong sir, can I lick that mud off your shoe sir?
CK sees it too. Did you like my answer to Tim?
By the way Tim, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when you had your chat with Father Dominic.
Were you up front with what your phone call was about? Or did you feign respect or even reverence?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. You spend your energy and talent in hating the Church and undermining the simple devotional Faith of rank and file Catholics. You had a chance to argue theology with a skilled apologist ( Nick ) months ago but opted out. Instead, you heckle rank and file Mass goers, rosary sayers, scapular wearers, in short, people like your mother and my late mother, with your pretense at being a scholar or historian. You, a Baptized Catholic, use an unbeliever like Kevin Falloni, to say blasphemous things that you hesitate to say yourself for fear of revealing your low brow Jack Chick mentality.
You know you need to contact Fr. Dominic again and make an appointment to visit him and make a general Confession.
Jim,
Thanks for your comment. There are many things about which to write, and I address them in the order and at the time of my preference. I told Nick that I will address his arguments in due time, and I will.
If you are of the conviction that one must respond in full at the moment one is asked a question then I would ask that you tell me which papal statements are ex cathedra, and whether Adam and Eve had sex in the garden of Eden, as you alleged last week. May I ask why you do not answer these questions? Why do you hesitate?
Thanks,
TIm
Tim,
Did I allege Adam and Eve had sex in the Garden? I think I made some response to Michael Taylor or Robert but I don’t recall the context. NFP right? I find the question strange. Cain and Abel were born after the Fall and since they came into the wold fallen I assume they were conceived the same way. Satisfied?
Which teachings are infallible? Ge t a Denziger’s. That should help.
You will answer Nick in due time? How many month’s longer must we wait? You have written quite a bit on the Eucharist since taking a time out with Nick so don’t tell us you have been busy with work or family.
The truth is Tim, your whole existence revolves around hating Mary and the Mass. That is your sole area of expertise and that is why Kevin, like the pagans who wanted to sacrifice a bull to Paul and Barnabas, idolizes you. Tell him, like the angel told John, to worship God, not you.
Jim,
Yes, you did. Here is your statement:
It seems to me that either you are saying that Adam and Eve enjoyed “marriage and it’s renewal in the conjugal act” in the garden because they “looked upon each other without shame” and used their bodies “to convey love and the mutual exchange of one to the other,” (which is contrary to Roman Catholic church teaching) or you are saying that Adam and Eve were virgins until the Fall and Jesus “restored marriage to its original state as it was ‘in the beginning,'” which is to say that He restored it to perpetual celibacy (which is contrary to Scripture).
So which is it?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Huh? Contrary to Church teaching? What are you referring to? I said Adam and Eve LOOKED UPON EACH OTHER WITHOUT SHAME. Yes, and your point is…? I know of no teaching contrary to this.
I believe we say Adam and Eve were married in Eden. How long were they in Eden Tim? A day? A week? I don’t know. Do you?
Were Adam and Eve virgins before the Fall? You are asking me? It is like your stupid and dirty question about Joachim and Ann.
Perpetual celibacy? Adam and Eve? What? They didn’t vow perpetual celibacy. They were told to be fruitful and multiply. Did that start immediately? First tell me how long they were in Eden. How many evenings did Adam walk with God? Was every embrace fruitful? Tim, clarify your question if you want me to try to answer it.
As far as showing love through our bodies, we are incarnate beings. Of course we do. Are you denying it?
Tim, I am not Kevin. Don’t me play for a fool.
You had you chance to call me a bread worshiper a few nights ago. Kevin was jumping up and down for you to spank Jonathan. Your 4th century nonsense flopped a a lead balloon. Now you are trying to restore yourself in Kevin’s adoring eyes by making me look silly.
First Saturday Tim.
Jim, Lumen Gentium (56) says Eve was a Virgin at the Fall:
Your comment earlier, as well as this one today, says that they “embraced” before the Fall. Your answer above is responding as if I asked if Eve conceived before the Fall (i.e., “Was every embrace fruitful?”), which was not my question. I asked you if they had sex before the Fall, and you clearly believe they did. The Roman Catholic Church has taught otherwise.
So, to my point, when you say that Jesus restored sexual relations to their pre-Fall estate, you are either saying that Adam and Eve had sex before the Fall (i.e., He made marital sex pure again), or you are saying that Jesus restored marriage to the condition of perpetual celibacy (i.e., to back when Eve was still a virgin). So which is it? Did they have sex before the Fall? Or is the natural estate of marriage one of perpetual celibacy?
Tim
Tim,
You sallied forth on Jason Stellman’s blog to impress Kevin last night. You got your nose bloodied by CK and Jonathan and high tailed it back here to your site to lick your wounds.
Go back over there. A quick cameo appearance doesn’t count. Those guys are hankering to talk about your St. Ignatius stuff. They are not going to come over here to do so, you have to go there to present your theory. ( I would really love to see you lay out your zany views on Revelation that you wasted 24 years of your life dreaming up! )
Stay here and have Kevin shine your shoes where you are safe.
Stay here and wind Kevin up to blaspheme.
I agree with Kevin. You should broadcast your views. That way people can see real anti-Catholic hysteria for what it is.
Have a great day now!
Jim,
You may characterize my writing as zany hysterical rants as much as you like. I’ll let each reader make his own judgment. You are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim,
As you were slipping into heresy, did you ever talk to a priest?
I don’t believe your problem is theological. Something happened. If you were a happy man, you would not even think about retaliating against Catholicism. There is something you are keeping secret. Go tell it to Fr. Dominic. Call him up. He can’t absolve you over the phone, but you need to get home where you belong.
Tim, I want to commend you on taking the time to post on Jason’s site. I really believe it is a witness. I believe the focus on the changes that took place in the 4th century with the rise of these non biblical doctrines. It would be tragic if these people who stare at the Roman Eucharist, pray to the Mother of Jesus, and submit to the Pope and his religion hear the words from our Lord ” be gone form me i have never known you.” A man must come to God on his terms in faith forsaking a lll things of himself. Jesus told the rich young ruler that with man it is “impossible” but with God all things are possible. I think this verse “impossible” and Ephesians 2 ” not that of yourself” cannot be overcome by the Roman Gospel.
A witness Kevin? It sure was. Tim is exposed. Why was he not forthcoming? Four times I challenged him on my bread worship in order to give him an opportunity to say in front of everybody what he feels so passionately about. His silence was deafening.
You thought he was going to kick butt and all he did was have his 4th century stuff dismissed as meaningless speculation on his part.
He let you down Kev. And it is a good sign as Tim must be embarrassed, ashamed of or doubting his views on the Eucharist. ( And you sure cowered when Jonathan told you to stand down. ) You are a jackal Kevin. You have no shame of looking like a fool or hyena in front of your enemies or friends. You are repulsive. with your shots through the internet. You slur on line and tip your hat when you meet men face to face.
You speak Italian, yes? Then you should understand the Portuguese. “engraxa”.
Tim,
They 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.’ (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans). “
I think, if Ignatius believed in the “Real Presence”, then he also believed in the Eucharist as an unbloody sacrifice. Abstaining would have ceased on account of the Eucharist’s unbloody mode. Eucharistic flesh didn’t suffer.
Thats a great point bro!
Kevin,
Thanks son of encouragement…I’m amazed at their abstaining from prayer….Not giving “Eucharist” or thanks is a mark of the unbeliever (Rom.1:21). I always keep aloof from people who don’t give or share their thanks. I can feel a stir within to puff up in knowledge.
Yeah, It is the same great point as the Passover lamb would be sacrificed once and then the sacrifice would continue for eight days ( symbolizing in perpetuity ) using bread.
Jim, you wrote:
Yeah, It is the same great point as the Passover lamb would be sacrificed once and then the sacrifice would continue for eight days ( symbolizing in perpetuity ) using bread.
Did they offer/sacrifice bread BEFORE the Passover lamb was sacrificed ? Jesus allegedly offered the unbloody sacrifice BEFORE the bloody. Prot. believe the eucharist is done in perpetuity using bread. It is a true memorial of the Passover Lamb’s anti-type. This makes my point greater than before.
Tim,
I just scrolled up to what I had written earlier today. I don’t see where I said they embraced. I do see where I said I demurred to answer that. ( My “was every embrace fruitful” was an ” How should I know”. Now that you have so kindly supplied me a magisterial statement, I can positively say Eve was a virgin ( Like the Fathers said when they compared Eve to Mary ). Much obliged.
By the way, what was that icky and irreverent stuff about Joachim and Ann all about?
Shall we talk about the various bedroom behavior of some more people? Please, don’t tell me about your personal life with your wife. I neither want to know nor should I know. And don’t ask me.
Shame on you Tim. I still can’t fathom what that was all about.
Tim,
I’m back. I am jumping to and fro as Michael Taylor needs some instruction too at the moment.
Tim, what are you saying, I said? Adam and Eve were perpetual celibates? I said no such thing. Obviously, you are trying to trip me up on something. Blurt it out.
Tim,
Okay, Michael stopped responding so i am back here for a while.
Too bad Kevin is reading our exchange as he always makes such stupid remarks.
Anyway, as it is 1st Saturday, they did the Consecration over at the Portuguese parish this morning. I was thumbing through the booklet they use and was fascinated to see something I had never realized before.
As you might recall, all the Fatima stuff gets pretty involved. I never really got into all the minutiae for whatever reason. Anyway, in the booklet I saw that it was the boy Jesus and not Mary who asked for reparation of the the 5 Saturdays for the 1. Denial of the Immaculate Conception, 2. Attacks on Mary’s Virginity, 3. Denial of Mary’s title of both Mother of God and Mother of men. 4. For the outrage of teaching children to be indifferent or even hateful to Mary and 5. Insults given to images of Mary. ( Yes Tim, I thought of you just as you would like).
Anyway ( and I won’t be surprised to see you do an article on this mocking it next week ), I saw that it was in 1925 in a convent in Ponte Vedra, Spain that Jesus and Mary appeared to Lucia with the 5 Saturday reparation message. I remembered visiting that room with some pilgrims in the mid 80’s. I remembered the mural on the wall depicting this event.
You know Tim, this is going to sound strange but of all the devotions/apparitions my least favorite was Fatima!
Thanks to you and your site, I have come to appreciate it and the message of reparation more than I ever had. Your articles and Kevin’s slurs have been instrumental in my internalizing what I had previously just scanned over.
Had it not been for the Fatima message of the Angels Prayer for reparation for outrages against the Blessed Sacrament and this request for reparation for the slurs against the Immaculate Heart that you “target” in your articles, I would never have bothered to badger Jason Stellman to come down on Kevin’s slurs.
I guess, in some strange way, I owe you a thank you. You have made me a devotee of the Fatima Message to a much deeper degree than I ever had been.
Hi Tim.
I was told about your blog by Kevin Failoni who has lately contributed to discussions on my blog – onefold.wordpress.com. You come highly recommended and I am happy to say I can see why. It’s refreshing to find fellow Christians who care enough about our Christian history to bring context to the deceptive practices of Roman apologists’ quote-mining techniques.
I enjoyed your article very much and found myself nodding in agreement all the way through, except where you mentioned “Just for Catholics,” but I’ll get to that in a minute.
I liked how you drove home the point that Ignatius used metaphors extensively and with that a consistency in thought. But even Rome’s favorite quote from his letter to the Smyrnaeans could be understood in isolation if only the meaning of the term, “eucharist” hadn’t become so distorted. Rome has so distorted the word, eucharist, that many Protestants are afraid to even use it because it has become somewhat synonymous with real presence.
I am a huge proponent of context which is essential in early church study, but I also understand that many people find the thought of delving into the ancient ecclesiastical writings overwhelming. Roman apologists understand this too, which is why they quote-mine. Fortunately the real defense against the quote-mining tactic is not years of early church study, but rather it’s having a solid grounding in Scripture.
For instance, when we read the infamous quote from Ignatius having a solid biblical perspective we will automatically analyze what we read through the lens of Scripture. When Ignatius said, “Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes,” we understand from a biblical perspective that the gift of God is the giving of His only begotten Son who suffered and died for our sins, and through believing in Him we have eternal life. From this perspective it’s easy to see that the Docetists abstained because they denied this gift of God, not because they denied the real presence.
On a different note, The “Just for Catholics” website is an evangelical outreach to Catholics not a Roman Catholic apologetics ministry. It is run by Joe Mizzi who is a former Catholic with a strong desire to reach Catholics for Christ. What you quoted was actually from an email he received from a Catholic to which he gives a detailed response. If you read his response I think you will see that he is in agreement with your point of view.
Thank you for the insightful article on Ignatius. I pray it will help many to open their eyes and hearts to the word of God to protect them from the deceptions of Rome.
God bless,
Brian
Thank you, Brian. I appreciate you pointing out the misattribution. I will correct it as soon as I can.
What I frequently find in the field of Roman Catholic apologetics is the assumption that Roman Catholicism “owns” the Fathers and the Early Church. That assumption is invalid, yet Protestants, yes even Protestant scholars, often buy into it as a condition of entering into conversation on the topic.
But as we see on doctrine after doctrine, the Early Church was not Roman Catholic.
I have been blessed by your blog as well.
Thank you for your excellent work.
Tim
Tim,
My monicker is two days old and already I am tired of it.
I am going back to my baptismal name for a while.
But “Jim” is so lackluster. Any suggestions?
Brian wrote:
“I am a huge proponent of context which is essential in early church study, but I also understand that many people find the thought of delving into the ancient ecclesiastical writings overwhelming. Roman apologists understand this too, which is why they quote-mine. Fortunately the real defense against the quote-mining tactic is not years of early church study, but rather it’s having a solid grounding in Scripture. ”
Wow, this is one of the best points I’ve ever read on this blog. It makes it clear that one should not define Scripture using the early church fathers as the source document to timeline eschatology as so many do. They are not called to ministry but on a part-time basis because prophets, teachers and preachers of the Word of God in error. It is great to master the knowledge and writings of the early church fathers, but wholly another thing to use it to define Scripture.
excellent! I remember reading Ignatius long ago for the first time and noticing that he viewed himself as being ground as wheat and eaten as bread by the wild beasts; and now you put it all together for me.
It is taking me too long to get to reading your articles. I am enjoying the insights.
Ken Temple
Ken, thanks for giving me the link to Tim Kaufman’s article which I looked over this week. Unfortunately I did not find the article as strong as you did for denial of the real presence as you apparently did. Tim spends most of his time discussing the fact that Ignatius uses metaphorical language in his letters. A number of examples are given but there is never an explicit quote from Ignatius denying a belief in the real presence. I also find that Tim undermines his own argument by trying to explain the quote that is obviously the most damning to the argument that Ignatius did not believe in the real presence. Note that in the metaphorical quotes from Ignatius provided by Tim there is no need to explain the metaphor, it is obviously metaphorical language. But Tim undermines his argument when he explains the quote that is used so often to show Ignatius’s belief in the real presence. I quote, Tim writes
“In other words, his theme throughout the letter is the Gnostic error that denies that Jesus came and truly suffered, died and rose again in the flesh, and not in the spirit only. Thus, he constantly affirms that His passion and resurrection actually happened, and were “both corporeal and spiritual.” We are not surprised, therefore, that Ignatius applies the Eucharist as a metaphor against the Gnostic heresy, using it as a metaphor for his coming and suffering in the flesh:”
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. … It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.” (To the Smyrnæans, VII)
Why does Tim feel the need to explain the metaphor before giving the quote? Because there is no metaphor! And if this was metaphorical language it would serve no purpose in refuting the belief of the Gnostics. If it’s all symbolism and metaphors why would the Gnostics have an issue? The Gnostics loved the concept of symbolism, metaphor and stressing spiritual concepts ignoring the material world which they felt was evil.
Go back and place the word “Metaphorically speaking” in front of the quotes provided by Tim where Ignatius is obviously speaking metaphorically and the metaphor is obvious Now do the same with the quote from Catholic apologist
Metaphorically speaking
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. … It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.” (To the Smyrnæans,
The metaphor doesn’t pop out at you unless you have already made up your mind that there is a metaphor. And note Tim leaves out the next line. “They who deny THE GIFT OF GOD are perishing in their disputes.” Brian Culliton tries to argue that “The Gift of God” is Christ’s suffering and being raised again” but obviously he is showing his Protestant bias as the main topic of the preceding sentence is “They abstain from the Eucharist”. The Eucharist is the gift of God and when the Church Fathers discuss the Eucharist they don’t just speak of the real presence but in their discourses point out that this Gift of God brings about eternal life, (Ignatius wrote “and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death”) that a change takes place after the words of consecration where the bread is no longer common bread, that the consecrated bread must be very carefully handled as stated by Origen and Tertullian. Cyril of Jerusalem compares the Eucharist to grains of gold in his description of the Mass, “For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss.”.
Speaking of the Mass, during the Mass the Eucharist is at time spoken of metaphorically, Does that mean that Catholics do not believe in the real presence? Of course not.
As pointed out it is only out of desperation that Tim must try to extract a metaphorical meaning out of Ignatius’ rebuttal of the Gnostics . This desperation to find a metaphor where one does not necessarily exist can be found in Brain Culliton’s article on the Eucharist where he starts his denial of the real presence with Clement of Alexandria who never saw a metaphor he didn’t like. From Brian’s article, Clement states
““Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)
Brian writes
Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.
Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. ”
In the first quote Brian has to find a metaphor otherwise his belief system falls apart.
But after quoting John 6 Clement states “O amazing mystery”. When Christ described himself as the Gate, The Way, The Light, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God no one responded “O amazing mystery”. There is no mystery, it’s metaphorical language. But the real presence in the Eucharist is an “O amazing mystery”.
Brian also states
“Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half”
But Clement wrote
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally, “Hear it also in the following way.”
The “O amazing mystery” establishes Clement’s belief in the real presence, now Clement is going to give a metaphorical interpretation to the passages. It’s not either/or, but both/ and.
There is a similarity between Brian and Timothy’s articles in that one encounters these convoluted explanations to try and negate the clear teachings of the Church Fathers on the Eucharist. Brian claims that Catholics quote mine, taking the quotes out of context to support their positions. When I asked him to provide a list of Quotes from the Church Fathers that deny the belief in the real presence taken “IN CONTEXT” he refused to provide such a list. The beauty of the Catholic position is that the quotes stand by themselves. No explanation needed. But just as Tim’s article shows, he obviously already has decided to ignore the plain teaching of Ignatius and has to go into this long discussion to establish that Ignatius used metaphorical language which has never been denied by Catholics. And in the end Tim is stuck with trying to explain how if Ignatius was using metaphorical language it refutes the position of the Gnostics. The Truth is simple, it is not convoluted.
The Church Father testimony is so overwhelming that it is interesting that we are even having this discussion but I welcome an examination of their writings. Actually however the strongest testimony to belief in the real presence is that it was never seriously debated until after the Protestant Reformation. Denial of belief in the real presence is a man made tradition!!!. This is not just a Catholic Protestant debate, all Apostolic Churches that can trace their origins back to the time of the apostles believe in the real presence, Coptic, Orthodox and Catholic are the largest groups. Imagine if I entered into a Protestant Church that denied the real presence and stated trying to argue that Christ was literally present in the Eucharist Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. All hell would break out. But we see in early Church History that there was no debate over the belief in the real presence, they were arguing over such issues as the date Easter should be celebrated on, and how to explain Christ’s divinity. It’s like infant Baptism, if the Apostles taught only believer’s Baptism how is it the even before the New Testament canon debates was settled the universal ie Catholic Church was baptizing infants. Either the Apostles were the worse teachers ever known to man or the earliest Christians many of who gave their lives for their faith were the dumbest pupils ever.
Tim, is you want to continue this debate I would love to go over each Church Father, I would provide Explicit quotes that attest to their belief in the real presence and you could provide Explicit quotes that deny the real presence and then we could argue who is taking quotes out of context. Does that seem fair?
Thank you, Tim. I appreciate your comment. I am a little unclear on what your point is, however, since you seem to be objecting to something neither I nor Ken Temple said. You wrote,
But neither I nor Ken Temple suggested that the point of my article was to prove that Ignatius denied the Real Presence. Ken wrote that the article “shows that Ignatius did not teach the ‘real presence'” (which is true), and I wrote, that Ignatius “is alleged to be the first witness in the sub-apostolic era for Transubstantiation and the ‘real presence’ … [but] Upon closer inspection, Roman Catholic reliance on Ignatius falls apart.” (which is also true). What you may notice if you re-read those statements that neither of us said that the article shows that Ignatius denied the Real Presence. Yet you have objected on the grounds that I did not show how Ignatius denied the Real Presence. In other words, you have imagined a specific objective for the article, imputed that imagined objective to me, and then argued against that objective as if I had failed to achieve the imagined objective:
I’ll grant to you that I did not prove that Ignatius denied the Real Presence. That said, it was not my objective to do so.
In any case, since your approach to each text is to interpret it as if it supported Roman Catholic doctrine, your position must be that any interpretation that does not align with Roman Catholicism is “out of context.” The “context,” in your view, is Roman Catholicism. Thus, I find your statement to Brian not a little humorous:
I think what you mean here is that the Beauty of the Roman Catholic position is that it is the Roman Catholic position. What I mean is that I could as easily provide for you a list of Roman Catholic patristic and conciliar citations that are plainly taken out of context, but since they are taken out of context for the purpose of advancing the Roman Catholic position, they are not really “out of context,” per se. For example:
Memoriale Domini was written explicitly as “Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion” and in particular to reject the movement toward reception in the hand. Cyril was cited specifically to explain why Catholics no longer receive communion in the hand, for even when they did receive it in the hand, they received it reverently. Yet Cyril, one of the most vocal advocates for reception in the hand in the early church, also advocated for rubbing, as you would say, “Jesus” on one’s face before consuming “Him.” Here is Cyril “in context”:
And of the Cup:
What I have quoted in bold, above, is what Memoriale Domini left out. Do you think they cited Cyril “in context”? If so, do you believe Memoriale Domini cited Cyril in order to advance the practice of rubbing “Jesus” on your face before partaking of Him? Is it proper to do so? Is it irreverent? Why do you suppose Memoriale Domini left out the part about taking the bread in your hand and touching it to your eyes and forehead before eating it? Was it an intentional omission?
Or another example. Pope Benedict, in an argument as to why kneeling must be retained during the Sunday Mass wrote,
But the 20th of Nicæa actually prohibited kneeling on the Lord’s day all year long, not just during Eastertide. A significant omission by Benedict, don’t you think? Was it intentional? Do you believe we should kneel on the Lord’s day? Did Nicæa? Do you think Benedict’s quote is “in context”? Do you think Benedict’s belief that we should kneel on Sunday’s is consistent with Nicæa’s prohibition of it?
Memoriale Domini and Pope Benedict, of course, are excused from context because their decontextualizations occurred in the defense of Roman Catholicism. To the Roman Catholic, Roman Catholicism is the context. That is why I find your challenge to Brian so humorous.
That said, you are making your case from the assumption that Roman Catholicism is the religion Christ founded. My frame of reference is that Daniel warned us of a wicked empire that would succeed the fourth empire of his visions. As did Jesus, Paul and John. As Roman Catholic apologists are ever eager to inform us, Roman Catholicism succeeded the Roman Empire. Of that we are in complete agreement. Since the religion to which you would have me convert is the very religion Daniel, Jesus, Paul and John warned me to avoid, that is the only acceptable “context” from which to reason. With that in mind, can you provide a list of statements from the Early Church Fathers, before 350 A.D., that say Roman Catholicism is the True Church and is not the Antichrist? But remember: all statement must be IN CONTEXT. If you are unwilling to provide such a list, just let me know.
Thank you,
Tim
Tim Kaufman Thought maybe you could digest this quote from Irenaeus where he repeatedly shows his belief in the real presence, salvation conferred on those who partake, and emphasis on the change that takes place after the Word of God is pronounced over the elements. Note also the “mingled cup”, all the Apostolic Churches mix the wine with water. Hope to respond to your response later today, but if you could come up with a quote from Irenaeus where he explicitly denies the real presence that would be helpful. I provided the whole quote so as not to be accused of taking the quotes “Out of context”
Irenaeus
When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.
1. And vain likewise are those who say that God came to those things which did not belong to Him, as if covetous of another’s property; in order that He might deliver up that man who had been created by another, to that God who had neither made nor formed anything, but who also was deprived from the beginning of His own proper formation of men. The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man, restoring to His own handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning, that man was made after the image and likeness of God; not snatching away by stratagem the property of another, but taking possession of His own in a righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him. And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might gather us into the bosom of the Father.
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, 1 Corinthians 15:53 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, 2 Corinthians 12:3 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?
Timothy P,
Am I to take from your diversion into Irenæaus that you are conceding that Benedict took Nicæa out of context and Memoriale Domini took Cyril out of Context? And that it’s ok with you that they did? Why no defense of their gross decontextualizations? Why the switch to a debate on Irenæus when I was answering your specific objection about decontextualization? Or what about Pope Leo’s intentional deception, claiming that the Canons of Sardica were from Nicæa? Was it not you who, just a day ago, said “The beauty of the Catholic position is that the quotes stand by themselves”? Why did Cyril, Nicæa and Sardia not “stand by themselves” without being decontextualized for the purpose of advancing Roman Catholic teaching? I respond to your specific objection, and instead of answering, you switch to Irenæus?
May I also understand that you have refused to provide a list of Early Church statements from before 350 A.D., explicitly affirming Roman Catholicism as the true church, and explicitly denying that Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist? Why no list?
I’m being a little facetious here, but I hope you can see why such statements about yours regarding Brian carry very little weight around here. Roman Catholic apologists are always demanding a list of this and a list of that, every request carefully tailored to elicit some concession of Roman Catholic authenticity in the Early Church. But where Roman Catholicism itself claims the only authority to provide a list (say, with a Canon of Scriptures—the list of which was for some reason withheld from the world for 1500 years, or a list of ex cathedra papal statements—the list of which cannot be, and never will be, produced), Roman Catholic apologists suddenly conclude that such demands for a list are unseemly and carnal.
Likewise, the Roman Catholic apologist’s knee jerk reaction to any adverse citation from a Church Father is to claim decontextualization. I note, for levity, that in your citation of Irenæaus, Book V, chapter 2, that you intentionally omitted chapter 1! Had you quoted the entire book, I could accuse you of intentionally omitting Book IV! Had you cited Against Heresies in their entirety, I could respond that you intentionally omitted his lost Fragments!
But when Roman Catholics, and their popes no less, are guilty of the very gross decontextualization the apologist decries, the apologist waxes philosophical on the need for a hierarchy and an infallible earthly shepherd, but that popes themselves are not infallible in all circumstances, but nonetheless deserve our submission in some form, or whatever else may dilute the inconsistency, etc., etc., etc..
In any case, regarding your citation from Irenæus, you asked me to “come up with a quote from Irenaeus where he explicitly denies the real presence that would be helpful,” but you did not indicate at any point where he explicitly affirms it. Can you help me out? Where does Irenæaus even mention the “real presence” in the citation you provided? He doesn’t even say “real” or “presence,” much less “Real Presence”? What is it that you think he is explicitly affirming, and what evidence can you provide to support your belief that he is affirming it?
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy P said
“Actually however the strongest testimony to belief in the real presence is that it was never seriously debated until after the Protestant Reformation. ”
False.
BEFORE the Reformation, the ones refusing the cannibalism of the transubstantiation were for example the Vaudoises/Waldensians:
————————————–
The 13th-Century inquisitor Reinerius Saccho accused the Waldenses of denying transubstantiation:
They do not believe the body and blood of Christ to be the true sacrament, but only blessed bread, which by a figure only is called the body of Christ, even as it is said, “and the rock was Christ.” [6]
——————————-
http://www.abaptistvoice.com/English/Books/Waldenses.htm#Chapter-3
Catholicism preferred to devour the Vaudoises, assassinating with anti-Christian crusades also women and children, instead to be un-masked as the ancient worship of Baal.
I do stand corrected, although I guess technically the first Christians to denounce the Real Presence would have been the Gnostics because they denied that Christ truly had a body. From what I can gather Peter Waldo believed in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead and infant baptism, so he doesn’t sound much like an evangelical Christian. But as in Protestantism as time goes on the follower of the new religion start making their own dogmas and doctrines. You are aware of course that Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence.
I was interested Edoardo about your charge of cannibalism against Catholics. You are aware that that was the same charge made by Pagan Rome aren’t you? And I would be interested in what you think about the 7 statements I gleaned from Irenaeus. Bob gave us quite a list of quotes from the Church Fathers discussing their belief in the real presence. Do you have a similar list from the Church Father’s denying belief in the real presence? And I asked Timothy K what would happen if someone came into his Church and told them Christ was present Body, Blood, Soul and divinity in the Eucharist. Would there be any protest?
TIMOTHY P–
Great challenge! I wonder is Tim J. is up to it. I gave him a huge list of quotes concerning the Catholic belief in the Real Presence. He didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it. Maybe he was overwhelmed.
Bob,
Would you be so kind as to let us know when you provided that list?
Thank you,
Tim
Tim, unfortunately I have come to expect the type of response you gave to my initial posting having seen the postings on Brian Culliton’s One Fold site. It is bothersome that one would write an article questioning the Early
Church Fathers belief in the real presence and then when challenged try to divert the discussion completely away from the point of the article. On Brian’s website 90 % of the comments have nothing to do with the article Early Church Refutes Real Presence, as their is no attempt to keep the blog focused. I will briefly respond to you last comment first which is a good example. You wrote
“That said, you are making your case from the assumption that Roman Catholicism is the religion Christ founded. My frame of reference is that Daniel warned us of a wicked empire that would succeed the fourth empire of his visions. As did Jesus, Paul and John. As Roman Catholic apologists are ever eager to inform us, Roman Catholicism succeeded the Roman Empire. Of that we are in complete agreement. Since the religion to which you would have me convert is the very religion Daniel, Jesus, Paul and John warned me to avoid, that is the only acceptable “context” from which to reason. With that in mind, can you provide a list of statements from the Early Church Fathers, before 350 A.D., that say Roman Catholicism is the True Church and is not the Antichrist? But remember: all statement must be IN CONTEXT. If you are unwilling to provide such a list, just let me know.”
Hmmmm. Not sure what this line of questioning has to do with the Church Fathers belief in the real presence and given the weakness of your position I can understand why you would want to discuss other matters. Now I know you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the AntiChrist but if Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, who is supporting the AntiChrist? Actually your question shows a lack of understanding of the historical background for the title Roman Catholic and your American and English bias. The term Roman Catholic came about after the English Church broke off and became known as AngloCatholic. Those who remained with the Pope where then called Roman Catholic. So to ask for a quote from the Fathers unfortunately shows your ignorance. But interestingly the term Catholic first appeared in the writings of Ignatius “wherever Jesus Christ is, there in the Catholic Church” . Earlier Ignatius wrote “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father: and the presbytery as you would the apostles: and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. ” So the “True Church” must have a 3 tier level of authority. Does your Church have that level of authority? Let’s see if I can find the entire quote in context?
Here is the whole quote in context
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Now I found it interesting that you go on this rant about what in context means, and the subject matter you provide has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please try to keep focused. I was reviewing some of your previous posting under your article and was amused to find a discussion on rather Adam and Eve had sex before they were thrown out of the garden of Eden. Seriously?You also appears to have a misunderstanding concerning the difference between dogma and doctrine and ecclesiastical practices. Why are you trying to divert attention away from the Early Father’s writings and belief in the real presence! Let’s examine each quote In context. I provided the quote from Irenaeus, now give me a quote from the same Church Father where he explicitly denies the real presence.
Thank you, Timothy P. You wrote,
The subject matter I provided had to do with popes and a Sacred Congregation taking things out of context. I don’t understand why you think the definition of “in context” has no bearing on a conversation which I am commanded to provide quotes “in context.”
Your original invitation (or so I understood it to be) was:
Was that a question or a command? I have yet to accept the invitation, especially since you are unwilling to define what “IN CONTEXT” means to you. And now you have proceeded with a debate that I have not yet accepted. Is this a conversation, or am I simply to bow to your commands?
Timothy P, my comments about conjugal relations in the garden of Eden were directed to a Roman Catholic commenter who alleged that Adam and Eve enjoyed conjugal relations in the garden. Am I not free to interact with participants on this blog without your permission?
Honestly, you presume to dictate to me the purpose of my article, you demand that I refrain from asking you to define your terms, you insist on proceeding into a debate (the invitation to which I have not yet accepted), and then criticize me for interacting with people who comment on the blog.
Talk about diversions.
You have asked me to provide citations “IN CONTEXT.” What does “IN CONTEXT” mean to you? Do you demand of your infallible popes what you demand of Protestants? If not, why not?
Tim
Timothy P, you wrote,
But what was the point of the article? You seem to think the point of the article was to show that Ignatius explicitly denied the Real Presence. That is the imaginary purpose you assigned to the article, and then you criticized me for not providing a single quote where Ignatius explicitly denied the “Real Presence.” Now you find it bothersome that I am refusing to concede to you the prerogative to declare the purpose of my article. You may note that I did not “write an article questioning the Early Church Fathers belief in the real presence.” I wrote an article showing that Ignatius’ penchant for metaphor calls into question how literally we may take his Eucharistic metaphors. In other words, I wrote a different article than the one you are criticizing. I would be happy to interact with you on the one I wrote, but because your initial accusation was that my approach was one of decontextualization, I have responded to your original accusation, decontextualization, asking what you mean by it. Are you really saying that my response to your criticism is itself a diversion from your criticism?
You continued,
Do you really mean to say that my request that you provide something that I know very well you cannot provide is evidence of my ignorance? Very well, ignorant I am then. I’ll take this to mean that you are unable to prove from the Early Church fathers that Roman Catholicism is not the Antichrist. If you were able to do so, you would have provided a list of quotes from Church Fathers explicitly denying that Roman Catholicism is the antichrist, or explicitly affirming that Roman Catholicism is the true church. Since you are unwilling to provide the list, let the record show that I have repeatedly asked for a list, and you have repeatedly refused to provide one. (Please note that I am writing this facetiously to show the cavernous vacuity of your accusation against Brian. Of course, you can easily overturn my line of reasoning by providing a list.)
You continued,
It’s not as complicated as you’re making it. You asked for me to provide some citations “IN CONTEXT,” and I am asking you to define what you mean by “IN CONTEXT.” From my perspective, “IN CONTEXT” to you means “whatever it takes to affirm the early emergence of Roman Catholicism”. I am also asking you if “IN CONTEXT” only applies to Protestants, and whether Popes and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship get a pass on it? Do you think they should?
Perhaps you can imagine why I am asking you to define “IN CONTEXT,” since it is clear that you think Eating Ignatius was not in context, and that you expect my answers on the Real Presence to be “IN CONTEXT.”
What does “IN CONTEXT” mean to you, Timothy P? I strongly suspect that it means “Interpreted in a manner most favorable to the Nicæan and ante-Nicæan emergence of Roman Catholicism,” and under that precise definition, you can be assured that I will never be able to quote a Church Father “IN CONTEXT,” nay, not even if I provide the original autographs of the entire compendium of Early Church writers!
Tim
This has to be one of the most ridiculous articles I ever read disproving the Real Presence in Ignatius. Every scholarly work on the early church I had read pretty much shows and affirms that the overall view of the Eucharist is Realist in nature. Even Schaff himself thought that Ignatius is realist in his view to the point that it is to him akin to the tendency of the High Church.
McGowan in Ancient Christian Worship notes the same to regarding Ignatius’ view of the Eucharist and this is of modern scholarship in contrast to Schaff. He even wrote that most writings of the 2nd century manifest a realist viewpoint of the Eucharist.
Granted, some scholars do indeed see Ignatius use of the Eucharist to signify unity rather than to spell out any theology of it. But this only means that he cannot be used at all to support the Catholic or Protestant position on this issue since he doesn’t give us any answer. Nevertheless, scholarship such as in Schaff, JND Kelly, Mcgowan, Henry Chadwick and Rordorf all view Ignatius as having a “realist” view. Even Everett Ferguson who tries to downplay the realist view ends up creating an impression that the Eucharist is seen as something that becomes powerful given how he warns about the ancient conception between the symbol and that which is symbolized, pointing out a close connection between the two in the Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology.
If any, this article simply fails to even address how Ignatius denies the Real Presence. Just because he sees it as a sign of unity does it entail that he views it as Zwingli does. That’s simply the fallacy of the false dilemma.
Dear Ex Calvinist, you wrote,
Indeed! In short, it fails to address something that it did not claim to address. I do not deny it. However, you have made the same mistake as Timothy P, who imputed an imagined purpose to the article, and then criticized the article for failing to live up to his imagined purpose. Were I to adopt your approach I might criticize your response for failing to address the early church’s rejection of the immaculacy of Mary. But I digress.
My point in the article is, as I have noted in the article itself, that Ignatius’ penchant for metaphor calls into question how literally we may take his Eucharistic metaphors. But if you wish to object that the article does not satisfy its promise to show how Ignatius denied the Real Presence (a wish I will not begrudge you), at least start by showing that was the stated intent of the article.
You wrote,
I was not aware that all scholarship on Ignatius ceased with Schaff, Kelly, McGowan, Chadwick, Rordorf and Ferguson. Since you clearly believe that it did, why did you express your opinion rather than cut and past from scholarly sources? Pardon my frankness, but your response supposes that all scholarship on Ignatius is exhausted, and there can be no more. I reject that supposition.
You concluded,
I suppose it would be, if I had even constructed that dilemma. Where did I do that?
In any case, just because he uses the Eucharist metaphorically to support his opposition to the gnostics does not mean that he views the Eucharist as Rome does. Agreed?
Thank you,
Tim
In your own response to Timothy P, you claimed that,
“Ken wrote that the article “shows that Ignatius DID NOT teach the ‘real presence’” (which is true), and I wrote, that Ignatius “is alleged to be the first witness in the sub-apostolic era for Transubstantiation and the ‘real presence’ … [but] Upon closer inspection, Roman Catholic reliance on Ignatius falls apart.” (which is also true). ”
So are you contradicting yourself? At one moment you are saying that your intent is to show how Ignatius did not teach the Real Presence doctrine. Then suddenly you said that it isn’t the case. If your claim here is as you claim then your purpose is only simply to show that Catholics are guilty of taking him out of context rather than to show that Ignatius did not teach a doctrine of a “Real Presence” since we cannot infer whether he did or did not, leaving this an open question.
My mention of scholars is a reminder that this article’s intentions is really one that is misguided and inadequate. Even the very scholar referenced agrees with the Catholic viewpoint as he explains here,
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rTWTBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT884&dq=philip+schaff+ignatius+eucharist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm49rXlIXMAhXDDxoKHd0wCYwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=philip%20schaff%20ignatius%20eucharist&f=false
But of course somehow magically it presupposes that all scholarship on Ignatius has ceased which I never mentioned at all. I even noted how there are indeed views that prefer to see Ignatius as focusing on unity rather than formulating a theology of the Eucharist. I guess this somehow slipped past your mind. Regardless, more weight is placed on the view that Ignatius is indeed referring to a realist perspective with regards to the Eucharist. The scholars I had mentioned cover a broad spectrum of time with Schaff being the earliest and Mcgowan and Ferguson being of the present day.
Now I had already agreed that assuming that Ignatius never really meant a Realist view on his statement that the Docetists rejected the Eucharist as the “flesh of Christ” then yes, it entails that Rome cannot use this to support its claim that he indeed take a Realist view. But it also entails that nothing regarding his beliefs and teachings on the Eucharistic presence can be discerned since no statement of denial is given by him.
Dear Ex Calvinist,
Saying “Ignatius of Antioch did not explicitly teach the Real Presence” is not the same as saying “Ignatius of Antioch explicitly denied the Real Presence.” Neither I, nor Ken Temple said the article shows how Ignatius denied the Real Presence. Thus, agreeing with Ken Temple that the article “shows that Ignatius DID NOT teach the ‘real presence’” and my own statement that it was not my intent to show that Ignatius denied the Real Presence, is not a contradiction. If you believe it is, then I fear that you may not understand the meaning of the word “contradiction.”
You wrote, “My mention of scholars is a reminder that this article’s intentions is really one that is misguided and inadequate.” Yet you still are unable to verbalize the article’s intention. How then can you know that the article’s intentions are misguided if you cannot clearly express the article’s stated intention?
You also wrote, “Even the very scholar referenced agrees with the Catholic viewpoint…”. Do you understand that I invoked Schaff solely to support my statements on the history of the Ignatian epistles, and not to support my view of the contents? Your criticism on this point is a non sequitur.
You concluded, “But it also entails that nothing regarding his beliefs and teachings on the Eucharistic presence can be discerned since no statement of denial is given by him.”
Indeed. Thus, Ignatius is of no use to the Church of Rome in proving an early doctrine of Transubstantiation. As I said, “Ignatius is of no help to them.”
What are you disagreeing with?
Thank you,
Tim
For you to even make the claim that Ignatius did not teach the Real Presence doctrine is ridiculous given that this implies that you know something from Ignatius that shows that he doesn’t espouse or teach it. My point is that it is uncertain and thus no claim can be made regarding his stance.
This means that your claim that it isn’t the intent of your article to show that Ignatius denied the Real Presence is contradictory to your explicit claim that Ignatius did not teach it.
Only uncertainty is given if we are to agree with what you are presently telling me.
The intention of this article is to refute the notion that Ignatius’ mention of the Eucharist doesn’t entail the Real Presence view or Catholic use of it to support such. My mention of scholars and link to Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” on Google books is to show how the article fails at this given its failure to live up to scholarship. When there’s a huge disparity between scholarship spanning decades and your own article’s attempt to discredit Rome’s use of Ignatius to support the Real Presence belief, it becomes clear that something’s wrong with your article.
Even Klawiter, who is usually cited to warn against taking Ignatius’ statements about the Eucharist as entailing a realist view notes that Ignatius believed that the “risen crucified humanity of Christ is present in the Eucharist” as Spinks cites in “Do this in Remembrance of me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day” on pg 38
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-309AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=ignatius+of+antioch+eucharist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif7v70m4XMAhUHVRoKHWx1CBYQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=ignatius%20of%20antioch%20eucharist&f=false
The view that Klawiter describes of Ignatius certainly opposes that of your rejection of the Real Presence given its direct opposition to the Reformed view of it.
I also find amusing how you magically think that my mention of Schaff’s view that Ignatius’ conception of the Eucharist is realist made me ignore your purpose of citing him in the first place.
Ok. Interesting exchange. Thank you.
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, (Boy it gets confusing with both of us named Timothy. You wrote:
“I’m being a little facetious here, but I hope you can see why such statements about yours regarding Brian carry very little weight around here. Roman Catholic apologists are always demanding a list of this and a list of that, every request carefully tailored to elicit some concession of Roman Catholic authenticity in the Early Church. But where Roman Catholicism itself claims the only authority to provide a list (say, with a Canon of Scriptures—the list of which was for some reason withheld from the world for 1500 years, or a list of ex cathedra papal statements—the list of which cannot be, and never will be, produced), Roman Catholic apologists suddenly conclude that such demands for a list are unseemly and carnal”
Again I would like to focus on the discussion at hand. Brian claims that the list of quotes on Catholic websites that explicitly state the early Church Fathers are taken “out of context”. Now if it is so easy to find so many quotes for the Catholics do you actually believe they are all taken out of context? And yet a little light bulb doesn’t go off in your head when you can’t find a single quote that explicitly denies their belief in the real presence. Of course the Catholic apologist is going to request a list in this situation. And if you had such a list of quotes denying belief in the real presence you would be demanding the Catholics show you their list supporting the belief in the real presence.
Now with both of us named Tim, it’s going to get a little confusing here but I wrote:
“Tim, is you want to continue this debate I would love to go over each Church Father, I would provide Explicit quotes that attest to their belief in the real presence and you could provide Explicit quotes that deny the real presence and then we could argue who is taking quotes out of context. Does that seem fair?”
Timothy Kauffman responded
Was that a question or a command? I have yet to accept the invitation, especially since you are unwilling to define what “IN CONTEXT” means to you. And now you have proceeded with a debate that I have not yet accepted. Is this a conversation, or am I simply to bow to your commands
Obviously I think you are a person who is interested in pursuing the Truth so I would be shocked if you did not want to accept the challenge. Obviously if you did not it would be admitting that you and Brian’s argument is weak. And since you want a definition of “In context”, “Considered together with the surrounding words and circumstances”. Let’s clarify the definition just a little more . You wrote
” Likewise, the Roman Catholic apologist’s knee jerk reaction to any adverse citation from a Church Father is to claim decontextualization. I note, for levity, that in your citation of Irenæaus, Book V, chapter 2, that you intentionally omitted chapter 1! Had you quoted the entire book, I could accuse you of intentionally omitting Book IV! Had you cited Against Heresies in their entirety, I could respond that you intentionally omitted his lost Fragments! ”
Obviously one does not need to provide an authors entire writings to show that a statement is taken in context if the rest of those writings do not have any influence on the meaning of the text. Of course the immediate context would be most important and that is why I gave you the long quote from Irenaeus where you claim you don’t see his belief in the real presence. Try reading the passage again. Take off you Protestant blinders .
Then you have the overall context as you were trying to display with Ignatius where he frequently uses Metaphorical language. The only problem there is that as I showed in the immediate context it makes no sense. The metaphor doesn’t jump out at you and if Ignatius was speaking metaphorically he would have just been playing into the hands of the Gnostics who detested the material world. If Christ just seemed to have a real body and the Eucharist is just a symbol of that body what’s the bid deal? But if the “Word was made flesh” and the Eucharist is that flesh the Gnostic viewpoint is totally blown away
I couldn’t be bothered with Brian Culliton’s inadequate article. Scholarship pretty much disagrees with him on this, you can check out Bryan D Spinks’ book which I had linked in my previous comment to see this yourself. But I’m willing to let this slide until I saw how Culliton deliberately misrepresented JND Kelly. Even his attempt to cite him ends with failure when his statement would’ve made no sense whatsoever if we are to believe that he isn’t saying that the Church Fathers even take the Real Presence view at all. What’s worse is that Kelly would later on in the same chapter that Culliton taken from to attempt to show how Catholics misrepresent him clarifies what the so called “figurative” view of the Eucharist in the Church Fathers meant saying that,
“It must not be supposed, of course, that this ‘symbolical’ language implied that the bread and wine were regarded as mere pointers to, or tokens of, absent realities. Rather were they accepted as signs of realities which were somehow actually present though apprehended by faith alone.”-Early Christian Doctrines, pg 441-442
At least Timothy K is honest and doesn’t pull of deceptive tricks like this to his credit.
I forgot to add one more thing regarding Irenaeus’ “Lost Fragments”.
In Fragment 37, he refers to the eucharistic elements as the “antitype” of the body and blood of Christ. But this sort of language in context denotes a view that is in sync with the real presence doctrine. This is to take into account the cultural view of the time regarding “symbols” and Biblical typology as Schaff did for example when explaining Cyril’s Eucharistic doctrine,
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KgGRjX3i7LwC&pg=PR39&dq=schaff+eucharist+antitype&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_kqHMrobMAhUJtRQKHRglDMAQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=schaff%20eucharist%20antitype&f=false
The so called “figurative” view of the Greek fathers according to Schaff is that while the bread and wine are taken to be figures or symbols of the body and blood of Christ, they are simultaneously endowed with the same life giving power of the body and blood of Christ or as he says regarding Irenaeus’ eucharistic view, “exhibit” the body and blood of Christ(History of the Christian Church, vol 2, pg 158)
Timothy P, you wrote,
As would I. The discussion at hand is about context, which is why I requested your definition of “IN CONTEXT.” The two greatest hindrances to effective communication are a) lack of a common language in which the definition of key terms are agreed in advance, and b) an inequitable application of those terms.
Your definition has been provided, and I appreciate that:
So my next question about context is whether you apply that definition equitably. In your first comment here, you stated that the “The beauty of the Catholic position is that the quotes stand by themselves,” or as I took it to mean, “The beauty of the Catholic position is that the quotes can be taken IN CONTEXT.” I’m trying to find out if you really believe that to be true. Let’s test it out with several illustrations about “IN CONTEXT”.
Pope Benedict XVI on Kneeling on the Lord’s Day
Benedict wrote in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, of the importance of kneeling during Mass. In fact, a “faith and liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core” and “Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered” (Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 194).
In support of his belief that Roman Catholics must restore kneeling, he cited Canon 20 of Nicæa
But here is 20th Canon from Nicæa:
Why do you suppose Pope Benedict left out that part of Canon 20 that forbids the very thing he said needed to be “rediscovered”—kneeling on the Lord’s Day? Is it possible that such a reading of Nicæa was inconsistent with his beliefs on kneeling, and therefore he thought he needed to leave it out? Do you believe his summary of Nicæa 20 was in context, since it appears that he intentionally left out some of the surrounding words?
Pope Zosimus’ citation of the Canons of Sardica as if they were the Canons of Nicæa
In 418 A.D., Pope Zosimus sent presbyters Philip and Asellas from Rome to Carthage to inform the Africans that a local bishop “should be excommunicated or even sent to Rome, unless he should have corrected what seemed to need correction.” The basis for his claim was the great ecumenical Council of Nicæa… except he was actually citing the canons of the regional council of Sardica:
What followed thereafter were the canons of Sardica, not the canons of Nicæa. Do you think Zosimus cited the Sardica canons “IN CONTEXT”, since he was clearly leaving out some of the surrounding circumstances?
Pope Leo repeatedly invokes the Sardica Canons as if they were Nicæan as his basis for demanding a hearing in Rome
You can find the history of this in Leo’s letters (specifically Letters 6, 14, 16, 24, 33, 44, 56, 85, 105, 117), but Gore actually summarizes it best here:
Do you think Pope Leo was correct to invoke the Canons of Sardica as if they were Nicæan? Do you think he was citing them “in context”, since he was leaving out some of the surrounding circumstances?
Memoriale Domini cites Cyrus of Jerusalem’s instruction on receiving communion
Memoriale Domini was written explicitly as “Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion” and in particular to reject the movement toward reception in the hand. Cyril of Jerusalem was cited specifically to explain why Catholics no longer receive communion in the hand, for even when they did receive it in the hand as in Cyril’s day, at least they received it reverently. So Memoriale Domini cited Cyril of Jerusalem:
Yet that citation was carefully tailored to omit something that many Roman Catholics today believe to be sacrilege. In order to engage all the senses, Cyril advocated for rubbing, as you would say, “Jesus” on one’s face before consuming “Him.” Here is Cyril “in context”:
He advised the same for the wine:
Now clearly, touching the bread and wine to one’s face, brow, ears and nose prior to consumption is precisely the reason communion in the hand is rejected in many places today—such handling is considered irreverent and imprudent and is avoided by not allowing the lay recipient to handle the elements at all. But Memoriale Domini cited that very section of Cyril to show what care the church advised back in the day when reception in the hand was taught. Do you believe Memoriale Domini cited Cyril “in context”, since it left out some of the surrounding words?
Keep in mind—I’m not asking about the doctrine and practices in each case. I’m only asking about “context” since you complained that “context” is what Protestants lack. Context ought then to be the strength and glory of Rome. Do you think Benedict, Leo, Zosimus and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship’s Memoriale Domini cited their sources “IN CONTEXT”? If “The beauty of the Catholic position” really is “that the quotes stand by themselves”, why were the above quotes not allowed to stand by themselves?
Remember—all I’m talking about is CONTEXT.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Tim
Timothy Kauffman wrote
May I also understand that you have refused to provide a list of Early Church statements from before 350 A.D., explicitly affirming Roman Catholicism as the true church, and explicitly denying that Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist? Why no list?
May I respond with this quote from St. Augustine
“I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” — Saint Augustine
Now my Catechism reads “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. As I had explained to you before, the term Roman Catholic came about after the English Church broke off and became known as Anglo Catholic. Too ask for a statement before 350 AD of the Fathers on the Roman Catholic Church suggest you were not aware of this fact or you are just being silly.
Timothy P,
To the contrary, I am very much aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist for the first three centuries of Christianity.
Thanks,
Tim
Did you know that the term Roman Catholic came after the English Church separated from the Catholic Church and became known as Anglo Catholic, leaving those who stayed united with the Catholic Church to be named Roman Catholic? It appears that your question was taken out of historical CONTEXT wasn’t it. Nothing like trying to be deceptive
Not quite, Timothy P. As you have now shown quite willingly, early references to the Catholic Church were not references to the Roman Catholic Church, which is what I wanted to elicit from you. (Although I might add, what you call Roman Catholicism today actually started in the late 4th century).
Thank you,
Tim
Good news Timothy Kauffman, help in on the way. Brian Culliton will soon be coming to the rescue. Brian and I go way back, I debated on his website for over a year during which time I was usually debating 3 or 4 Protestants at the same time. During that time I was called stupid, a liar, an old man with no brains, a “pigcat” and accused of having a pornography problem. And those were the nice things said about me. When I got help from John and Chazmo after a couple of weeks Brian banned all three of us from his website. I have been able to get in a few zingers using pseudo names, but he knows his article on the Church Fathers cannot withstand close scrutiny. Debbie got on his site for the specific purpose of going over his article line by line and was relentless attacked on every issue other then the article until she was banned. Now I suspect Brian is going to want you to ban me from debating on your website or will he allow a civil debate. Let’s see
Timothy P, I don’t understand this comment. Thanks though.
Tim
I gave you a definition of “In context” and was hoping we could start looking at the writings of the early Church Fathers but obviously you are not interested. I understand why. If I was in your position I would probably be trying to delay any in depth examination as well since as you said yourself
“What I frequently find in the field of Roman Catholic apologetics is the assumption that Roman Catholicism “owns” the Fathers and the Early Church. That assumption is invalid, yet Protestants, yes even Protestant scholars, often buy into it as a condition of entering into conversation on the topic.”
By your actions you just confirm the fact that Catholics due own the Father’s of the Church. Thank you Brother Tim. Nothing gives me more delight then to give you another long quote from Irenaeus again and have you tell me you don’t see the doctrine of the real presence in the quote. I will try to respond to your fixation that Catholics may have taken quotes out of context just like some Protestants teach that the Bible tells us we are saved by faith alone when they know James tells us we are not saved by Faith alone. Now I suspect you will try to side track the discussion and want to talk about justification.
Irenaeus Book IV, 18.5
Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” For it behoves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God. Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogae) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another’s property, and desirous of what is not His own. Those, again, who maintain that the things around us originated from apostasy, ignorance, and passion, do, while offering unto Him the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, sin against their Father, rather subjecting Him to insult than giving Him thanks. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Note Timothy the focus on the “invocation of God”, ie the words of consecration, the fact that the Bread undergoes a change, “no longer common bread” and the promise of eternal life , “our bodies, WHEN THEY RECIEVE THE EUCHARIST, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”.
Timothy P,
You wrote,
This is a great start. No show that you really mean what you say. Did Leo, Zosimus, Benedict and the sacred congregation violate your definition of “In Context”?
Did they, or did they not?
Very simple questions, Timothy P. You threw down the gauntlet on “In Context.” I have picked it up.
Do you mean what you say by “in context”? Or are you all talk?
You’ll get your debate on the fathers. First show me that you believe what you say about “in context.”
Tim
Timothy P,
In addition to the examples above (Benedict, Leo, Zosimus and the Sacred Congregation), I wanted to offer these as well.
Pius IX claims that the early church—east and west—testify forcibly for Mary’s immaculate conception
But even Mary’s staunchest advocate—Juniper Carol—was utterly perplexed by Pius IX’s claim (although he believed in his heart that the doctrine was true). His candid summary is provided by Evangelical Catholic Apologetics:
Do you think Pius IX really was invoking the early church “IN CONTEXT”? Especially in light of the fact that Mary’s sinlessness was many times rejected in the early church? E.g., “If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if ‘all have sinned and lack God’s glory’ … then Mary too was scandalized at that time.” (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7); John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 A.D.), commenting on John 2:1-11, has Jesus rebuking Mary, reproving her for her unseasonable question, “correcting her weakness,” by which rebuke, “He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother” (John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).
Fr. William Saunders claims that Christians began to exhume relics for veneration shortly after 312 A.D.
Father William Saunders, in an attempt to show that Christians were exhuming martyrs’ bones even before Nicæa, wrote,
But the truth is, the first documented case of a martyrs’ remains being exhumed for veneration was well after 350 A.D.. The earliest known case of a martyr’s bones being disinterred and moved to another location for veneration is the translation of the bones of St. Babylas of Antioch by Caesar Constantius Gallus in 354 A.D.. Two years after that, Emperor Constantius II translated the bones of Timothy in 356 A.D., and the bones of Andrew and Luke in 358 A.D.. It was only after this that the church started to embrace the practice. One of the earliest references to “the faithful” collecting the relics of martyrs for personal veneration, as Saunders describes it, is a letter from Basil placed in 373 A.D.—”If you send the relics of the martyrs home you will do well” (Basil, Letter 155)—a full six decades “after 312.”
Do you think Saunders was perhaps misrepresenting early church history in order to show an early origination of the practice of relic veneration? Did his claim adequately take CONTEXT into account?
Scott Hahn says Mary was venerated as the Ark of the New Covenant as early as the 3rd century
When Hahn, a former Protestant, was concluding his talk entitled, “Mary, Ark of the Covenant,” an attentive listener noted that for all of his winsome defense of the belief, he had not yet actually proved that the Early Church believed what he was saying. The listener asked,
That is a very good question, and Hahn was prepared for it. He picked up a copy of Bernard Capelle’s Marian Typology in the Fathers and the Liturgy, and began to read it out loud:
But Hippolytus say explicitly that Jesus was the Ark of the New Covenant:
Do you believe Scott Hahn was taking Hippolytus out of context? Was he wrong to do so?
The Douay Catechism claims that all the early popes, fathers and councils believed in the sacrifice of the Mass, in accordance with Malachi 1:10-11.
But the testimony of the early church was that praise and thanks are the sacrifice we offer, not the transubstantiated elements.
Do you think the early church universally attested to the sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with Malachi 1:10-11, as the Douay Catechism claims? Or is it possible that the Douay Catechism was perhaps taking the first 300 years of Christianity out of context?
Pope Leo’s representatives at Chalcedon claim that Nicæa Canon 6 says “The church of Rome has always had primacy”
“The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also.” (Richard Price & Michael Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol 3, in Gillian Clark, Mark Humphries & Mary Whitby, Translated Texts for Historians, vol 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 85)
Of course, no such statement can be found in any of the early renderings of Nicæa Canon 6. Were Leo’s representatives taking Canon 6 of Nicæa “IN CONTEXT”?
Timothy P, just so you know where I am going with this, please understand this fundamental truth: it is Roman Catholicism’s nature to decontextualize in order to prove her early origins. But the religion you espouse can be traced no earlier than the late 4th century. That is why she must struggle so. Kick as you like against the goad, Roman Catholicism’s stock in trade is decontextualization. She knows no other mode of communication.
Thus, when you claim that you will provide statements of Early Church Fathers “IN CONTEXT,” I insist that you tell me what you mean by that, and whether you really believe it to be true. If you sincerely believe it to be true, then you should have no problem acknowledging that Benedict, Zosimus, Leo, his representatives, the sacred congregation, Saunders, Pius IX and Scott Hahn and the Douay Catechism all violated your principle—nay, your guarantee!—that the beauty of Roman Catholicism is that the statements always stand on their own.
I am more than happy to have a conversation with you about Irenæaus. I just don’t believe your claims that you truly desire to take him “IN CONTEXT.” If you do, simply acknowledge the manifold errors of Benedict, Zosimus, Leo, his representatives, the sacred congregation, Saunders, Pius IX, Hahn and the Douay Catechism (just for starters).
Please don’t change the subject. You asked me if I was willing to debate the fathers “IN CONTEXT”. Before I accept that challenge, I want to know what you mean by “IN CONTEXT,” and if you really believe it.
No pressure.
Tim
Tax time and I do want to write an appropriate reply but could you tell me how many comments, letters, speeches, decrees, books and apologetic writings have been given by Catholic clergy and apologist in 2000 years? I like to put things in perspective
Also who was the first Pope. I get a different answer from every Protestant I ask the question to.
Timothy P, your definition of “IN CONTEXT” made no mention of justifying decontextualization based on the infrequency of the offense or how small a percentage the decontextualization is of the whole. Your question about the first pope has nothing to do with the question at hand. Please do not change the subject. Here’s another illustration for you to digest:
Bryan Cross dates the doctrine of the Three Petrine Sees to the time of Ignatius of Antioch
In Bryan Cross’s article on Ignatius of Antioch, he alleged that Ignatius was deferential to Rome. Ignatius’ alleged deference was taken to suggest an early manifestation and recognition of Roman primacy. This, says Cross, is because “at this time [c. 107 A.D.] there was a recognized primacy in the three apostolic churches: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria … because of their relation to St. Peter” (Cross, St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church).
And then he tries to insert it into Canon 6 of Nicæa, a canon that made no mention of Peter:
His proof for this? A letter from Gregory the Great in the late 6th century (Cross, St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church, comment 7). In truth the concept of the three petrine Sees originated with the Pope Gelasius and the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. as a response to Constantinople:
Do you think Bryan Cross was taking Ignatius and the Council of Nicæa “IN CONTEXT” when he imputed late 6th century and late 4th century concepts retroactively upon them in order to make them say something that was unknown at the time?
Keep in mind in all these examples I’m giving you, the Pope, Roman Apologist, or Sacred Congregation was advancing a theory of the early origins of Roman Catholicism—Leo and Zosimus were advancing early papal primacy; Cross, early papal primacy; Benedict, the apostolic origins of kneeling at Mass; Pius IX, early development of the doctrine of the immaculacy of Mary; Hahn, early development of Mary as the Ark; Saunders, the early veneration of relics; Douay Catechism, the early sacrifice of the Mass; the Sacred Congregation, early reverence for the elements. These are not insignificant side issues, and form the arguments that are used by all doctrinaire Roman Catholics from the Pope all the way down to the pew. They are the heart and soul of Roman Catholicism, a religion that cannot to trace its origins any earlier than the late 4th century. In fact, the repeated use of the arguments listed rather mar the “beauty” of a Roman Catholicism that you alleged could take the statements as they stand.
Feel free to take some time off for tax season. I’ve got to complete my filing as well.
Thank you,
Tim
Finally! Some real challenges.
Tim vs Tim
and
Ex Calvinist vs Tim
You go guys!
Bob,
When last you joined us, you wrote that you had given me a “huge list of quotes concerning the Catholic belief in the Real Presence.” You added, “He didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it.”
In response, I asked if you’d be so kind as to tell us when you provided that “huge list. Have you had any success locating it?
Tim
I haven’t looked. Can you give me a quick way to search all the responses?
It may have been this list:
THE BIBLE
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
-1 Cor. 10:16-17
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
-1 Cor. 11:23-27
THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred'”.
-Ch. 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'”
-Ch 14
ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (Alt)
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.
“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”
Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”
Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”
-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. 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 and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)
St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”
“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”
“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ 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: 8-10]
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (Alt)
St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.
[Christ] 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.”
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”
-“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely
Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”
-“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,
“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,
-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,
“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 nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,
-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (Alt)
St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,
“So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb – slain as a type of Christ – should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,
-“The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,
Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.
“Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord’s blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!”,
-“The Lapsed” Ch. 25, circa 249-258 A.D.,
“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”,
Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,
“There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord’s holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord’s sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.”,
-“The Lapsed” Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.”,
Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,
APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE
Not much biographical information has been left about Aphraates. It is known that he was one of the Fathers of the Syrian Church. It is speculated that he was made bishop late in his life.,
He is thought to have been born ca. 280 A.D. and to have died ca. 345 A.D.,
“But the Lord was not yet arrested. After having spoken thus, the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But he ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before he was crucified He gave His blood as drink; and He was taken at night on the fourteenth, and was judged until the sixth hour; and at the sixth hour they condemned Him and raised Him on the cross.”,
– “Treatises” [12,6] inter 336-345 A.D.,
SERAPION (Alt)
“‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.,
To you we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is My Body, which is being broken for you, unto the remission of sins.’ On this account too do we offer the Bread, to bring ourselves into the likeness of His death; and we pray: Reconcile us all, O God of truth, and be gracious to us. And just as this Bread was scattered over the mountains and when collected was made one, so too gather Your holy Church from every nation and every country and every city and village and house and make it one living Catholic Church.,
We offer also the cup, the likeness of His Blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ took the cup after He had eaten, and He said to His disciples, ‘Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is My Blood which is being poured out for you unto the remission of sins.’ For this reason too we offer the chalice, to benefit ourselves by the likeness of His Blood. O God of truth, may Your Holy Logos come upon this Bread, that the Bread may become the Body of the Logos, and on this Cup, that the Cup may become the Blood of the Truth. And make all who communicate receive the remedy of life, to cure every illness and to strengthen every progress and virtue; not unto condemnation, O God of truth, nor unto disgrace and reproach!,
For we invoke You, the Increate, through Your Only-begotten in the Holy Spirit. Be merciful to this people, sent for the destruction of evil and for the security of Your Church. We beseech You also on behalf of all the departed, of whom also this is the commemoration: – after the mentioning of their names: – Sanctify these souls, for You know them all; sanctify all who have fallen asleep in the Lord and count them among the ranks of Your saints and give them a place and abode in your kingdom. Accept also the thanksgiving of Your people and bless those who offer the oblations and the Thanksgivings, and bestow health and integrity and festivity and every progress of soul and body on the whole of this Your people through your Only-begotten Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, as it was and is and will be in generations of generations and unto the whole expanse of the ages of ages. Amen.”,
-“The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” [13],
ST. EPHRAIM (Alt)
St. Ephraim was one of the great authors of the Syrian Church. Because of his beautiful writings, he is sometimes referred to as the ‘lyre of the Holy Spirit’. He studied under James, Bishop of Nisbis. In 338 A.D. he aspired to the diaconate and remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.,
“Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.,
And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.”,
-“Homilies” 4,4 ca.. 350 A.D.,
“After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out….Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: ‘This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.”,
-“Homilies” 4,6 ca. 350 A.D.,
“‘And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.’ … This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.”,
-“On Joel 2:24”, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 252 of the Assemani edition.
ST. ATHANASIUS (Alt)
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,
“‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But 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. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus His Body is confected.”,
-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (Alt)
St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.,
“`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
-“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]
“Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]
-“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
“Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.
-“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”
“9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart’, partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”
Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
“Then upon the completion of the spiritual Sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over the propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this Sacrifice for all who are in need.”
“Mystagogic Catechesis [23: 5-7]
“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit of the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out.”
-Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 10]
“After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good.’ Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate – no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ.”
-“Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D
“Keep these traditions inviolate, and preserve yourselves from offenses. Do not cut yourselves off from Communion, do not deprive yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries.”
-“Mystagogic Catechesis [23 (Mystagogic 5), 23]”
ST. HILARY OF POITERS (Alt)
St. Hilary firmly defended the Nicene Creed against Arian false doctrines. He was ordained Bishop of Poiters in 350 A.D. His efforts led to the collapse of Arianism in the West. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pius IX in 1851.
“When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously – had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”
-“The Trinity” [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (Alt)
St. Basil is recognized as the founder of Eastern monasticism. He was ordained Bishop of Caesarea in 370 A.D. He defended the Catholic Church against two waves of Arian attacks. The first movement denied the divinity of Christ. The second denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is considered one of the greatest saints of the Oriental Church.
“What is the mark of a Christian? That he be purified of all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit in the Blood of Christ, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God and the love of Christ, and that he have no blemish nor spot nor any such thing; that he be holy and blameless and so eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood; for ‘he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.’ What is the mark of those who eat the Bread and drink the Cup of Christ? That they keep in perpetual remembrance Him who died for us and rose again.”
-“The Morals” Ch. 22
“He, therefore, who approaches the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of Him who died for us and rose again must be free not only from defilement of flesh and spirit, in order that he may not eat drink unto judgement, but he must actively manifest the remembrance of Him who died for us and rose again, by being dead to sin, to the world, and to himself, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”
-“Concerning Baptism” Book I, Ch. 3.
“To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’ Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”
-“Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.
ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (Alt)
“We see that the Saviour took [something] in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: ‘This is really Me.’ And He gave to His disciples and said: ‘This is really Me.’ And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, ‘This is really Me.’; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of a Savior.”
-“The Man Well-Anchored” [57] 374 A.D.
ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (Alt)
St. Gregory was consecrated Bishop of Sasima in the year 371 A.D and was a friend of St. Basil for most of his life.
“Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.”
-“Letter to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium” [171] ca. 383 A.D.
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (Alt)
“Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh.”
-“The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]”
“He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed.”
-“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger: Vol 9, p. 287] ca. 383 A.D.
“The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ.”
-“Orations and Sermons” [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (Alt)
From 386-397 A.D. St. John Chrysostom served as a priest in the main church of Antioch. He soon became renown for his preaching and writing skills. In 397 A.D. he succeeded St. Gregory of Nazianz as Bishop of Constantinople.
“When the word says, ‘This is My Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!”
-“Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew” [82,4] 370 A.D.
“I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same.”
Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.
“It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says, and these words transform what lies before him.”
Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Treachery of Judas” 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
“‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: ‘What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.’ He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us.”
-“Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians” [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (Alt)
“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.”
-“The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.
“Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.’ [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body.”
-“On the Mysteries” 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:
“His poverty enriches, the fringe of His garment heals, His hunger satisfies, His death gives life, His burial gives resurrection. Therefore, He is a rich treasure, for His bread is rich. And ‘rich’ is apt for one who has eaten this bread will be unable to feel hunger. He gave it to the Apostles to distribute to a believing people, and today He gives it to us, for He, as a priest, daily consecrates it with His own words. Therefore, this bread has become the food of the saints.”
-“The Patriarchs” Ch. 9:38
“Thus, every soul which receives the bread which comes down from heaven is a house of bread, the bread of Christ, being nourished and having its heart strengthened by the support of the heavenly bread which dwells within it.”
-“Letter to Horontianus” circa 387 A.D.
EGERIA
“Following the dismissal from the Martyrium, everyone proceeds behind the Cross, where, after a hymn is sung and a prayer is said, the bishop offers the sacrifice and everyone receives Communion. Except on this one day, throughout the year the sacrifice is never offered behind the Cross save on this day alone.”
-“Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 35.
Describes a Mass held in front of Mt. Sinai.
“All of the proper passage from the Book of Moses was read, the sacrifice was offered in the prescribed manner, and we received Communion.”
-“Diary of a Pilgrimage” Ch. 3.
AURELIUS PRUDENTIUS CLEMENS (Alt)
“Such is the hidden retreat where Hippolytus’ body is buried. Next to an altar nearby, built for the worship of God. Table from which the sacrament all holy is given, close to the martyr it stands, set as a faithful guard.”
-“Hymns for Every Day” Hymn 170.
ST. JEROME (Alt)
“After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”
-“Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew” [4,26,26] 398 A.D.
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS
“A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he offers the Sacrifice”
“Apostolic Constitutions [8, 28, 2:9]”
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)
“Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”
Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
“We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”
Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
ST. AUGUSTINE (Alt)
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
-“Sermons”, [227, 21]
“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen'”.
-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa
“For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.
Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.
“The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:
MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN
“[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”
-“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.
ST. LEO I (Alt)
“When the Lord says: ‘Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,’ you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, ‘Amen,’ who argue against that which is received.”
-“Sermons” [91,3] ante 461 A.D.
ST. CAESAR OF ARLES (Alt)
“As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”
-“Sermons [13 (265), 3]
ST. FULGENE OF RUSPE (Alt)
“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine … In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in the present it is announced that He has been killed for the impious.”
-“The Rule of Faith [62]”
Wow Bob quite a list. Now compare this with the list the Protestant apologist produces when you ask him to provide a list of explicit quotes from the Church Father’s denying their belief in the Real Presence. Their list, ZERO!!!!!. Now Timothy K is wanting to argue over the meaning of the word “explicit”. It reminds me of when Bill Clinton got caught with his pants down in the Monica Lewinski affair and when being grilled said “It depends on your meaning of the word is”. Really.
This is really sad as these guys are trying to deprive Christians of one of the greatest gifts Christ left us, the Eucharist. And then they claim that the Catholic Church is the AntiChrist.
Timothy P,
You said you wanted a conversation about EXPLICIT affirmation or EXPLICIT rejection of a certain doctrine IN CONTEXT. So I wanted to know what you meant by those terms. From our brief interactions, an EXPLICIT affirmation of a Roman Catholic doctrine appears to mean something that is obvious from the text as long as you look at it from a Roman Catholic perspective, but an EXPLICIT rejection has to name the specific doctrine being rejected by name, which seems to me to be unequal weights and measures. That is why I want you to define your terms.
Explicit means, “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” Do you agree with that?
So that I can understand what you meant by posting Book V, Chapter II of Irenæus’ Against Heresies, I read it and then asked you to tell me in which part of that section of Irenæus is the doctrine of the Real Presence “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt”? Why do you consider that question to be a diversion?
Thanks,
Tim
Can’t wait for this weekend to be able to spend more time to respond but I would agree with your definition of explicit. For example if Christ said at the Last Supper, “This represents My Body” we wouldn’t be having this discussion right? No word for represents in the Aramaic language? So our Lord and God made a mistake and until the Protestant reformation almost all Christians ( and even now most do) believed in the real presence. That was quite a mistake.
Let’s be honest Timothy K, no matter how explicit the statement is you are going to deny that it is explicit. Let the readers be the judge. I do have to commend you for allowing Bob to post the Church Fathers comments. Brian Culliton started banning strings of quotes favorable to the Catholic beliefs. I hope you are getting some sleep, I noticed you posting during the middle of the night. I slept like a baby. I promise we will go over Irenaeus comment very meticulously this week end. I can’t wait
Thank you, Timothy P. I will look forward to your analysis of Irenæus.
Thanks,
Tim
Or it could have been this list:
Ignatius of Antioch
“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 the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“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 [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
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).
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Thank you, Bob. You provided the following:
Ignatius of Antioch
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Hippolytus
Origen
Cyprian of Carthage
Council of Nicaea I
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Ambrose of Milan
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Augustine
Council of Ephesus
The fathers in bold are all addressed in my series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice.
I also included in that analysis several more that you did not mention:
The Didache
Clement of Rome
Lactantius
Eusebius
Basil of Cæsarea
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory Of Nyssa, and
John Chrysostom
I left off at that point because, as you know, I don’t deny that Roman Catholicism took root after that point, as did the sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist.
In light of that, the following statement from you rings hollow:
Didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it? Overwhelmed perhaps?
Anyway, if it’s Clement of Alexandria that has you concerned (he had nothing to say of Malachi 1:11, which was the focus of the series, and therefore he was not included in it), you cited him as follows:
Here is the broader context of the passage:
He goes on and on in this vein. I’m not seeing your point in citing this passage.
As you know, I rarely abjure an accusation here. Perhaps I am indeed, overwhelmed by the sheer flood of patristic citations you have provided, and overwhelmed by them find myself unable to compose myself or collect my thoughts or muster a response. I may indeed be a coward, unable to answer you when you challenge me. Perhaps I am also afraid to interact with Timothy P, fearing that the scholarly facade I have created will finally be penetrated and crumble to the ground.
Yes, perhaps that is all true. And maybe, too, I “didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it.”
Sincerely,
Tim
TIM K.–
You said: “In light of that, the following statement from you rings hollow:
“I gave him a huge list of quotes concerning the Catholic belief in the Real Presence. He didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it. Maybe he was overwhelmed.”
Didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it? Overwhelmed perhaps?”
Well, I guess I am the one who is overwhelmed at your confession that:
” Perhaps I am indeed, overwhelmed by the sheer flood of patristic citations you have provided, and overwhelmed by them find myself unable to compose myself or collect my thoughts or muster a response. I may indeed be a coward, unable to answer you when you challenge me. Perhaps I am also afraid to interact with Timothy P, fearing that the scholarly facade I have created will finally be penetrated and crumble to the ground.
Yes, perhaps that is all true. And maybe, too, I “didn’t even get a quarter of the way through it.”
I am indeed surprised that ship has remained afloat with all the holes it has in it, so to speak. I have uncovered so many fallacies with your theories. And yet you remain dauntless. It seems you are as resilient as the Papacy itself.
Speaking of that papal Anti-Christ that your whole blog seems to be resting upon, there is one hurdle that you still have not surmounted yet that completely exonerates the Roman Catholic Papacy from being Anti-Christ:
1John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
Really? How many popes had appeared during John’s time? I thought the “Rise of Roman Catholicism” started in the fourth century?
1John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
When has the papacy taught that Jesus is not the Christ??? When has the papacy ever taught there is no God the Father or God the Son?
1John 4:2ff By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
The Papacy and the Councils (even Trent) and the Catechism all teach that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and that Jesus is from God. And the spirit of anti-Christ was already in the world when John wrote that epistle. It doesn’t fit, now, does it? Either John is wrong about the anti-Christ or you are wrong about the “Rise of Roman Catholicism” being equivalent to the rise of the Anti-Christ.
2John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Really? The deceiver and the Anti-Christ does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh!!! It is what the Mass is all about, including the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, from the Common Lectionary to the Sacramentary to the Catholic Canon of Holy Scripture itself, the Roman Catholic Church proclaims that Jesus Christ(God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God) has come in the Flesh. That absolutely disqualifies the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy from being Anti-Christ–period.
I thought there was a really long list, but I can’t seem to find it. Also there is this very good article from: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/
It is fairly extensive, but it reads good.
Bob, I am so glad you mentioned this site. I’m not so sure about the strength of all of Mr. Troutman’s points but I think it is definitely worth reading. What I liked best about the site is the comments where they kept to the subject at hand rather then play games and discuss every issue under the sun. I have followed Brian Culliton’s One Fold Blog which I got banned from and it’s ridiculous how off topic they get on his Church Fathers Real Presence article.
What did you think about Timothy K not being able to detect Irenaeus.s belief in the real presence in the quotes I gave him. Tim obviously is a smart guy but I think he loses all credibility when he makes such a statement. Will try to get back in the fray soon. And I will address his In context issues as soon as I can
Timothy P, you said you were going to provide citations from Fathers that explicity affirmed the real presence. I read the section on Irenæus that you provided, and there was no explicit reference to the real presence. So I responded,
The question is not about me “not being able to detect Irenaeus.s belief in the real presence” in the quotes you gave me. It’s about you providing quotes that did not contain an explicit reference to the Real Presence, which is what you said you’d provide. Or do you not know what “explicit” means?
What part of the quote did you think included an explicit reference to the real presence? Is this a conversation? Or am I simply to bow to your commands?
Thanks,
Tim
TIMOTHY P–
You asked: “What did you think about Timothy K not being able to detect Irenaeus.s belief in the real presence in the quotes I gave him?”
Presbyterian bias, naturally. But of course that sword cuts both ways. That is why after 500 years there is still a Reformation happening.
I would imagine that some of this is repetitive. It’s kinda like Jesus saying “Verily, Verily…” or “Amen, Amen…” to get your attention.
I have to find Tim K’s comments ignorant of context, making him hypocritical himself, especially with regards to the Church Fathers use of the term “symbol”, “types”, “antitypes”…etc and of course regarding citations from Catholic authors here, particularly with reference to the veneration of relics.
I had already dealt with the whole context of the so called “symbolic” view of the Eucharist by citing Schaff and Kelly where Schaff explains the context and use of said terms. A more detailed explanation can be found in William R Crockett’s “Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation” which give context to the platonic mindset and culture of the Church Fathers(see the chapter titled “Biblical Typology”)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=98Aefvi_MTAC&redir_esc=y
Crockett explains how the “symbol” according to the context of the cultural world of the Church Fathers is one where the symbol participates in that which it symbolized. It is not separate from it but can be said to be that which is symbolized. This of course decimates one of the claims of “Their Praise was their Sacrifice” where the realist view is not found in the fathers.
To be fair, the entire act of the Eucharistic ritual is indeed done out of “thanksgiving” as the name suggests. To Ferguson, the prayers of thanksgiving is the basis for the sacrificial language used in reference to it and it would by Cyprian that would develop this towards the Roman idea of the sacrifice of the mass.(see Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pg 396). This does not excuse the ignorance displayed with regards to its claim of the Church Fathers’ rejection of the Real Presence.
Tim K’s attempts to show the misrepresentation of Catholic scholars fail in his favor. At first, the issue of the remains of martyrs being exhumed for veneration is addressed which even if such were done later, wouldn’t really matter. What matters is whether there is an early veneration of relics. This is already seen in the mid second century through the Martyrdom of Polycarp where the remains of Polycarp are treated as more valuable than jewels and holy. So a non issue is addressed regarding this point. But later on a differing claim regarding Saunders is made,
“Do you think Saunders was perhaps misrepresenting early church history in order to show an early origination of the practice of relic veneration? Did his claim adequately take CONTEXT into account?”
The answer of what Saunders did is irrelevant. What’s important is whether such practices are present early and the Martyrdom of Polycarp give us this answer.
Even earlier than the mid 2nd century is perhaps in Ignatius’ own Epistle to Polycarp where in the third paragraph it might be implied that Polycarp or the visiting faithful actually kissed his chains as Schaff notes as a possibility here. Chadwick in “The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great”(pg 69) sees this as being the case.
This reflect’s Mcgowan’s point regarding the emergence of the cultus of the saints,
“The capacity of the martyrs to inhabit and make present the example of Christ added a heavenly superstructure to the Roman world’s patronage system, which included but went beyond the lives of households and families. Just as earthly patrons were needed to obtain material advantage in everyday life, the martyrs became spiritual patrons. Even before death, Christians who underwent trial and torture were perceived to have great spiritual power, including access to visions and revelations, and authority over prosaic problems besetting the church family.51 The care of those who offered such power, yet who themselves needed material support while still among the living, was the original “cult,” or care, of the saints.52”-Ancient Christian Worship, pg 243
With this in mind it is quite an embarrassment to Protestants when the so called idolatrous act of venerating relics and saints is already present in the very early stages of Christianity.
To Tim K’s credit at least, he is quite right on Clement of Alexandria since in those statements, he isn’t really concerned about the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. This is something A. H. C. Van Eijk points out in his essay, “The Gospel of Philip and Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and the Eucharist”.
Eijk however also critique Protestants who think that his statements entail him taking a spiritualistic or symbolic, pointing out that the main emphasis is on communion with Christ. Of course the Eucharistic view of Clement follows the context that Crockett describes as he points out in conclusion that,
” For both Clement and Ev.Phil. words or names, and all (other) symbols refer to a deeper, or rather, the ultimate reality “behind” them. For both the words of the Scripture and the sacramental liturgy of the Church give access to the eschatological reality, this is only disclosed (in these symbols) for one who has yvaatg. Both seem more interested in this eschatological reality itself (what we have called the res sacramenti), than in the symbols because of the provisory, and according to Ev.Phil., even deceiving, character of the latter. Both agree, that “Truth”, “Pleroma”, “God” can only be known and only reveal themselves by means of symbols, images and allegories”-pg 118
With this, in mind it becomes apparent that someone is not doing as he speaks.
Ex Calvinist, you wrote,
Yes, that is exactly what matters. You continued,
Here’s the relevant section of chapter 18:
Where does it say they venerated his bones? I can’t find it. Isn’t that what you were attempting to prove? That they venerated his bones? Where does it say that? You continued,
What you think is a “non issue” is the core of the matter. You claimed that they venerated his bones. There is no such claim in the text you provided. Please provide the reference. You concluded,
Such practices as you have imagined were not present in the early church. What the Martyrdom of Polycarp describes a burial, not an exhumation for veneration.
Thank you,
Tim
It takes a lot of willful ignorance to be able to make such conclusions regarding the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
First off is the language itself used in reference to his remains which shows a sense of reverence for them through the exhortation of them being “more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold”. The last time I checked, no Protestant ever use such an expression to refer to the remains of their core figures.
But more than that, from the very citation you used, it also details the anniversary of Polycarp’s martyrdom being celebrated which pertains to feast days for saints celebrated by Catholics.
Of course much more in the document display behavior that would verge on Early Christian adoration for the martyrs and one which Protestants don’t do to their ‘saints’.
For example, we see in chapter 13,
“And when the funeral pile was ready, Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle, sought also to take off his sandals,— a thing he was not accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin. For, on account of his holy life, he was, even before his martyrdom, adorned with every kind of good.”
And of course, in chapter 17 as well,
“But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!”
If any, the accusation of Christians intending to worship Polycarp is similar to Protestant accusations of those venerating saints to be worshiping them. Even more so is how the remains of Polycarp is referred to as being “Holy” here and a disclaimer that they while God is adored, the martyrs are “worthily loved” on their deeds and faith towards God.
Insofar, your attempts to demonstrate the lack of veneration and reverence in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is a failure and relies on ignoring words used and the very actions of the faithful themselves, alongside the accusation of idolatry which is why the Christians are being refused Polycarp’s body to begin with which if any indicates a sort of reverence or veneration that they must had done to warrant such accusation to begin with.
The “non issue” refers to the exhumation of relics since such are done so that they can be venerated. So the issue really is whether the practice of venerating the relics of martyrs or saints existed early.
Evidence explicitly points toward support of the Catholic take on this, not the Protestant objection.
Ex Calvinist,
But where does it say they venerated his bones? Yes, it says the martyrs were “worthily loved”. But where does it say they venerated his bones?
Thanks,
Tim
The burden is on you to show how the acts of reverence that is shown in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is acceptable and indeed practiced by Protestants regarding their saints or key figures they revere.
So then, do Protestants treat the remains of saints as holy and worth more than gold?
do Protestants possess an eagerness to touch the skin of a martyr to the point of deciding who would be the first to do so?
do Protestants celebrate the anniversary of the saints?
Your whole argument here is simply, that just because “X” is not mentioned, it is not “X” that the document Y had recorded. But this is simply a defective argument since should “X” have features A,B and C, then I could just say, “A certain object possesses A,B and C” and I would still be talking about “X” without the actual use of “X” itself in the statement.
If we follow your train of thought here, what I had used to describe “X” is not “X” since it never said “X”.
It seems that for someone who loves context so much, you can’t even counter when it is given to you. Such a behavior is simply hypocritical when you lambast Catholics for doing just that!
Ex Calvinist,
What “acts of reverence that is shown in the Martyrdom of Polycarp” are you talking about? They wanted to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom. That is not the same thing as venerating a relic. You said, “just because “X” is not mentioned.” Do you mean because “veneration” is not mentioned? You are right. Veneration of a relic does not occur in the text you cited. It is not mentioned.
You continued,
I do love context. Let’s take a look. In chapter 17, they want to take possession of his body. In 1 Sa 31:12, they wanted to take possession of a body. In Acts 8:2, the wanted to take possession of a body. Wanting to take possession of a body is not veneration of a relic.
In chapter 18, they regarded his bones as precious. That is not the same as venerating them, or bowing down to them. In Matthew 26:7, the woman possesses precious ointment. Do you think she venerated it? On what grounds do you think so?
In chapter 18, they said they wanted to gather “to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom (a date is not a bone), both in memory of those who have already finished their course (a memory is not a bone), and for the exercising and preparation (preparation is not a bone) of those yet to walk in their steps”. What they don’t say is that they want to gather annually to expose the relics and venerate them.
Where on earth are you seeing veneration in the Martyrdom of Polycarp?
You seem to be becoming more and more agitated because I refuse to bend the knee to your anachronism. What they are describing is a burial and an annual commemoration. It is not an exposition of relics for veneration. There is not so much as a hint of it in the text.
Thanks,
Tim
Here you are hardly even addressing my arguments at all. Even your references to Scripture ends up inadequate to answer them and be even used to your purpose. When one can easily see that, it’s clear that you are so desperate.
1 Samuel 31:12 and Acts 8:2 deal with the treatment of remains but that doesn’t prove my point on the Martyrdom of Polycarp wrong. Sure Chapter 17 says this as well but it also gives special reverence to Polycarp’s remains as well, calling them “Holy flesh”.
Oh right, for someone who decides to play projection, you completely ignored this, alongside how the faithful were also deciding which of them would be the first to “touch his skin”, both of which completely unaddressed.
Matthew 18:27 is referring to a good of economic and medicinal value given the nature and use of the said good and their use in cosmetics. So likewise, the remains of Polycarp are referred to as “holy” and worth more than precious jewels on account of his piety, faith and status of being a martyr. It doesn’t disprove or make a case against my point. Thinking so is simply just lazy thinking and argument.
Chapter 18 refers to the bones of Polycarp as being more precious than jewels and being more purified than gold. The language use indicate reverence ascribed to them as I had explained. I had also said that the celebration of the anniversary of Polycarp’s martyrdom is one akin to the feast days of saints Catholics celebrate. And this is indeed true and the purpose of such easily fits the description provided by it.
What you said is indeed true but it is also one that shows ignorance and laziness to look at details. Yes it is true that the Martyrdom of Polycarp details a burial and commemoration. But, in detail, we find explicitly clear reference to the act of venerating relics as well with the reverence displayed for them, behavior of the faithful who witnessed Polycarp’s martyrdom. And in the account of how the Christians were accused of intending to worship him which if any shows misconception based on what they did where the practice of veneration or the love for the martyrs might be seen as worship.
But of course you are free to ignore context and detail as we seen with your poor attempt to argue otherwise here, leaving other parts of my argument unaddressed and ignoring the very questions I had pose about Protestant treatment of the remains of their saints and act of commemorating them. Because let’s face it, those acts described there would be to them, idolatry.
Dear Ex Calvinist,
As I read your response I thought that perhaps we should think on the actions that you believe are so explicitly obvious in the account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. To that end, I am providing to you the Roman Catholic regulations on veneration of (kissing, incensing, lighting candles, kneeling before, bowing before, exposing on the altar) relics of saints. For this I defer to Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum (Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R., Latin – 1889), trans. Thomas Mullaney, C.SS.R., English translation (1925)), which I have pasted below. So you can understand my point more clearly, what is described in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and what is prescribed for relics below, makes them look like two different ceremonies. Chapter 18 of the Martyrdom of Polycarp describes a funeral. What is described below is relic veneration. What I am not seeing in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is the incensing, bowing, kneeling, lighting candles and kissing that relic veneration entails.
You seem to believe that treating a dead body with solemn dignity is equivalent to kissing, kneeling, exposing, incensing, lighting candles and bowing before that dead body. I do not agree with that equation. What is described below does indeed date to ancient times (the end of the 4th century), but not back to the days of Ignatius and Polycarp. The practice of relic veneration as described below is one of many errors that manifested late in the 4th century. This is why the Catholic Education Resource Center says, “It is commonly held that the first account of such veneration stretches back to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp” (which is nothing but an ambitious historical gloss), but can only refer to the 4th century for an actual defense of the practice:
“The Fathers of the Church take up the theme of the reverence paid to the sacred relics as early as the fourth and fifth centuries.” (Catholic Education Resource Center, Church Teaching On Relics, by Rev. Charles Mangan).
I note as well that the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Relics, after making a reference to Polycarp’s funeral, then invoked the Church Fathers:
You may notice that every Church Father they invoke is from the late 4th century.
For the relic of a saint the following is prescribed for veneration, but there is no congruency at all between what is described below and what the faithful saints at Smryna did with Polycarp’s remains. In other words, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp I can’t find any reference to bowing, kneeling, exposition, kissing, incensing and lighting candles. Can you?
Relics of the Saints.
a) Relics of the Beatified may not be venerated publicly in churches or carried in processions without a special indult of the Holy See; but this indult is to be considered included in the indult to celebrate in a particular church the Office and Mass of a Beatus (c. 1287, 3).
b) To be publicly venerated, relics of the Saints or of the Beatified must be bodily relics or objects which have been sanctified by close contact during life with the person of the Saint or the Beatus, as e.g. garments or instruments of martyrdom. Exudations from their bones or objects which have been touched to their bodily relics or to the place of their burial may not be venerated publicly (EPH. LIT.: LIV, p. 41 AD 2; DB CABPO-MOHBTTI: N. 1979). c) Bodily relics may be either simple or distinguished; concerning the latter, see n.169 c.
d) To be publicly venerated, relics of the Saints or of the Beatified must be enclosed and sealed in a reliquary or case (c. 1287, 1); the reliquary or case may contain relics of a number of Saints, but not a relic of the Cross (c. 1287, 2; N. 170 B).
…
j) For the exposition of a relic of a Saint or a Beatus there shall be at least two lighted candles on the altar or the table of exposition; this shall be observed, even when relics are exposed between the altar-candlesticks on feast days. If Mass is said before the exposed relic, these two candles are required in addition to the candles required for the Mass (S.B.C. 2067, ix; 3029, xiii; 3204; EPH. LIT.: LIV, P. 41, NOTE 15; P. 101 AD 9; SEE N. 155 L-M).
k) To expose a relic of a Saint, a priest wears surplice and stole. If the exposition is merely for the sake of a solemn procession or is to be preceded by a solemn procession, the celebrant comes to the place of exposition in amice, alb, cincture, stole, and cope; the sacred ministers are vested in amice, alb, cincture, dalmatic, and tunic. A humeral veil is not used by the celebrant, even while blessing the faithful with the relic at the end of the exposition or while carrying the relic in procession. The color of the vestments is red for a Martyr, but otherwise white (B.B. : x, c. xiv; DB CABPO-MOBETTI: NN. 1992-1993).
1) In exposing a relic of a Saint, the priest should, if possible, be assisted by two acolytes with lighted candles and, if the relic is to be incensed, by a thurifer also. On coming to the place of exposition, the priest removes his biretta, hands it to the first acolyte, makes a slight bow of the head to the veiled relic on the altar or table, unveils and exposes the ostensorium with the relic, makes a slight bow of the head to the exposed relic, and descends. If the relic is to be incensed, he remains standing and puts incense into the thurible with the customary blessing; the incensation follows as explained in the following paragraph.
m) The relic of a Saint is always incensed with two double swings and in a standing position; a slight bow of the head is made before and after the incensation (S.B.C. 2535; DB CABPO-MOBETTI: N. 1992).
n) The incensation of a relic of a Saint is not prescribed outside of Mass and Vespers when solemnly celebrated. It is allowed nevertheless at the following times: after the relic has been exposed; before it is taken up to be carried in procession; before blessing the faithful with it at the close of an exposition. During a procession the relic may be incensed continuously and, if it is a distinguished relic, by two thurifers (N. 169 c; DB CAHPO-MORBTTI: N. 1994).
o) Relics of the Saints placed between the candlesticks of the altar on solemn feasts are incensed at solemn Mass and Vespers as explained in n. 165 a-b.
p) Those who carry the relic of a Saint in procession must under all circumstances walk with uncovered head. If the relic is carried by the celebrant alone, the sacred ministers shall also remove their birettas (n. 132 k).
q) If a blessing is given with a relic of a Saint after it has been exposed, all shall kneel, even Canons; but the giving of the blessing at the close of an exposition is not obligatory (S.B.C. 1711, i; 2483, v; 4243, vn).
r) In publicly presenting to the faithful a relic of a Saint to be kissed, a priest shall wear surplice and stole; but if he has just celebrated Mass and does not first retire to the sacristy, he merely lays aside the maniple. In presenting the relic, he may pronounce some such blessing as: Per merita et intercessionern Sancti N concedat tibi Dnus salutem et pacern (S.R.C. 2704; v; S.L.: iv, QTJ. 365 AD v).
Your whole argument here falls into shambles as once more display willful ignorance of the details present in the Martyrdom of Polycarp that makes it clear that it they are indeed venerating Polycarp himself. The whole “treating a dead body with solemn dignity” as described in it calls the remains Holy and even more purified than gold and so on. Time and time again, you ignore the explicit terminology referred to the remains. The fact that you cite Catholic authors is of no concern to me since if any, they are treating it just as the faithful treated and handled Polycarp’s remains.
Even in chapter 13, we see the faithful amongst themselves who want to be the first to touch Polycarp’s skin when he is being martyred. This makes it very clear the high reverence displayed towards him and explains the disclaim that while the martyrs are loved, only God is worshiped. The accusation here matches that of yours toward Catholic practice of venerating saints and relics.
Chapter 18 itself make clear that the martyrdom of Polycarp is an annual celebration dedicated to him. Protestants don’t have annual celebrations for their saints. Catholics do with their feast days for them which matches the description.
To finish off my point, I would simply cite Paul Hartog’s “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp Introduction, Text, and Commentary” which articulates scholarly discussion regarding the said document.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eZkRAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA159&dq=Polycarp%27s+Epistle+to+the+Philippians+and+the+Martyrdom+of+Polycarp+Introduction,+Text,+and+Commentary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP4bblo4vMAhVCchQKHbQIBKAQ6AEIHDAA#v=snippet&q=saints&f=false
On pg 322-323, Hartog cites Schoedel’s view that chapter 18.2 have parallel to the Pagan hero cult but critiques his failure to look at Jewish evidence which is explained on pg 180. Here, the Jewish cultus of saints is described with a mention of such being of “extraordinary interest” during the time of Jesus himself. Here, the graves of Jewish martyrs and saints are cared for and honored. The mention of the graves of the “great luminaries” by 2nd century bishop, Polycrates which imply the respect of such places.
The view that the Christians used Polycarp’s burial place or tomb as a place to celebrate the Eucharist is noted as well
Of course Hartog does not see the Martyrdom of Polycarp as being focused on the relics but, he sees the veneration of saints and the cultus of the saints as being present. Hartog is a Baptist scholar, yet unlike you, he doesn’t let bias get in the way of understanding the text and deserve credit for this.
Perhaps of course more interestingly is that of the Martyrdom of Ignatius which also display reverence and esteem towards the remains of Ignatius, calling them despite being “harder portions”, “an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr.”
Either way, it is amazing how you have to cite Catholic demands on the handling of relics to disprove my point rather than to actually answer them head on. My point isn’t contingent upon what Catholics do to relics. What it is contingent upon is the reverence shown for Polycarp’s remains and the behavior of the faithful present at his martyrdom that would entail display of affection beyond that which Protestantism would allow.
Ex Calvinist,
If Ignatius’ remains were kept as relics, why did they bury him? Is that what Roman Catholics do to relics? Bury them?
Both the martyrdom of Polycarp & the martyrdom of Ignatius depict Christian burials.
Relic veneration involves the exhumation of buried remains and subsequent veneration of those remains. We do not find that in either the martyrdom of Polycarp or of Ignatius.
I cited the Roman catholic regulations for relic veneration in order to define the term and the practice, to show that the practice remains relatively unchanged since the latter part of the fourth century, and to show what a vast cavernous distance exists between the burial of Polycarp and Roman catholic relic veneration.
You seem to take great delight in calling me willfully ignorant, and lazy. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that I am. That said why don’t you respond to the content of my arguments instead of responding to what you believe to be the content of my character? Remember I already know I’m stupid, ignorant and lazy.
Why did they bury Ignatius? Is that what you do to relics?
Tim
Just because the relics are given burial or entombed does it entail that they are not venerated at all so this objection doesn’t address the argument at all. Just because my money is in my wallet, does it entail that the said money have no value at all since I’m just keeping it contained in there.
This is the same with the cases of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and Ignatius. We know of the value placed upon the remains themselves to the point of being more precious than jewels and treasure. Sorry, Protestants don’t even do this at all to their saints at all. I had pointed this out before and it is simply left alone because such attachment is not permitted at all.
Again is the reference in the Martyrdom of Polycarp where the faithful show the desire to want to be the first to touch Polycarp’s skin. This itself is clear indication of veneration.
Another thing to mention is that I had made explanations regarding “burial” through citing Hartog with the mention of Jewish reverence and veneration of the graves of their saints and martyrs alongside the celebration of the Eucharist on their gravesite to begin with.
If any you just proved my point on you being willfully ignorant and lazy. Perhaps it’s time you do as you like to hypocritically tell of others?
Ex Calvinist, if I stipulate that I am ignorant and lazy (and a stupid, deceptive, hypocritical jerk, to boot), you don’t have to keep trying to prove it. 🙂 That’s the whole point of stipulating something. It keeps us focused. It means you can address the content of my argument instead of turning the bulk of your argument ad hominem, toward the man.
Anyway, the faithful buried Polycarp’s bones with the intent of returning to that point annually on the date of his death to celebrate his “birthday.” That is not relic veneration. You seem to be under the impression that Protestants don’t leave flowers annually at grave sites or celebrate the memory of an esteemed believer on the anniversary of his death. Until now I was under the impression that Protestants did this. Where did you hear that they didn’t?
Also, so that you can more carefully manage your expectations, I don’t (and can’t) respond to every single objection you make in a lengthy comment, and I often simply respond to the lowest hanging fruit. (I know. That makes me lazy. See paragraph 1). But you should also know that I am not inclined to think that you have settled the matter by cutting and pasting search results from google books. You have several times accused me of laziness (I won’t deny it, see paragraph 1) for not capitulating to your cut and paste arguments. You may not want to do differently (I won’t require it of you), but I do want you to know that I attach very little merit to the practice, and I tend to ignore the pasted “explanations.” Just a heads up.
Thanks,
Tim
Here your hypocrisy shines again. I do not simply copy and paste entire texts and let them be as arguments. Time and time again, you’ll see that I explain them and even leave links for anyone to see that what I had said isn’t any strawman of the sources I had used. And it is not only citations from Google books which I had used, throughout my replies I had consulted other sources as well and I take great care to make sure these sources aren’t apologetical in nature. And of course, the bulk of my arguments are replies to your points or addressing their inadequacy.
The entire act of celebrating the anniversary of Polycarp or the martyrs’ deaths is not akin to placing flowers on graves and whatnot. The celebration in this case involves celebrating to be in union with him as I had cited before from Hartog. There is not in any case, any Protestant who even treat the remains of martyrs and saints as treasures or even have the zeal of the faithful present at Polycarp’s intending martyrdom.
And this is why the Catholics still win. They can always use reasons of constraints or practicality to justify their acts of exhuming the resting places of martyrs since by the end of the day, the whole Catholic practice of venerating saints and relics are done ultimately for the same reason why the Early Christians adore the martyrs in the first place.
At least we agree that Roman Catholics adore the martyrs.
Thanks,
Tim
For those who are following this (I doubt there are many), it would be helpful to compare the testimony from the Martyrdom of Polycarp with the practice of relic veneration that erupted at the end of the 4th century. Vigilantius was one of the chief critics of the practice, and it is worthwhile to identify specifically what he thought was wrong. In other words, it is worthwhile to identify what “veneration of relics” really looked like when it took root. In his letter to Riparius, Jerome complained that Vigilantius was ridiculously objecting to the allegedly holy practice of relic veneration:
What form did that veneration take that so offended Vigilantius?
Kissing the Relics
Jerome cites Vigilantius, “And again, in the same book, “Why do you kiss and adore a bit of powder wrapped up in a cloth?” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 4).
Lighting Candles (Tapers) for the relics:
Jerome Cites Vigilantius: “And again, in the same book, “Under the cloak of religion we see what is all but a heathen ceremony introduced into the churches: while the sun is still shining, heaps of tapers are lighted, and everywhere a paltry bit of powder, wrapped up in a costly cloth, is kissed and worshipped. Great honour do men of this sort pay to the blessed martyrs, who, they think, are to be made glorious by trumpery tapers, when the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne, with all the brightness of His majesty, gives them light?”” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 4).
Bowing Before Relics
From the above quotes, it is appears that Vigilantius thought men were worshiping and adoring the relics, suggesting that they were kneeling and bowing before them. Jerome denies that the practice was adoration and worship:
“Among other blasphemies, he may be heard to say, “What need is there for you not only to pay such honour, not to say adoration, to the thing, whatever it may be, which you carry about in a little vessel and worship?” ” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 4).
Later, Jerome simply says that the veneration of idols is improper, but the same act toward a relic is not improper:
“And because we formerly worshipped idols, does it follow that we ought not now to worship God lest we seem to pay like honour to Him and to idols? In the one case respect was paid to idols, and therefore the ceremony is to be abhorred; in the other the martyrs are venerated, and the same ceremony is therefore to be allowed.” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 7).
This suggests that the outward difference between the veneration of the idol and the veneration of the relic was not posture, but the object being venerated, thus, Viglantius’ accusation that the relics were being worshiped.
Carrying Relics in Procession
Later, Jerome notes that the entire population was engaged in the practice, and that Vigilantius was against it:
“Are the people of all the Churches fools, because they went to meet the sacred relics, and welcomed them with as much joy as if they beheld a living prophet in the midst of them, so that there was one great swarm of people from Palestine to Chalcedon with one voice re-echoing the praises of Christ?” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 5)
Celebrating the Lord’s Supper over the Bones of Martyrs
Jerome objects to Vigilantius’ rejection of celebrating the Lord’s supper (or as Jerome calls it, a sacrifice, for by then it was surely so called): “Does the bishop of Rome do wrong when he offers sacrifices to the Lord over the venerable bones of the dead men Peter and Paul, as we should say, but according to you, over a worthless bit of dust, and judges their tombs worthy to be Christ’s altars?” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 8).
Praying to the Martyr represented by the relic
Jerome objects to Vigilantius’ rejection of prayers directed to the departed: “You say, in your pamphlet, that so long as we are alive we can pray for one another; but once we die, the prayer of no person for another can be heard, and all the more because the martyrs, though they Revelation 6:10 cry for the avenging of their blood, have never been able to obtain their request. … The Apostle Paul [Acts 27:37] says that two hundred and seventy-six souls were given to him in the ship; and when, after his dissolution, he has begun to be with Christ, must he shut his mouth, and be unable to say a word for those who throughout the whole world have believed in his Gospel? Shall Vigilantius the live dog be better than Paul the dead lion?” (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 6).
The one thing Vigilantius does not do is criticize the use of incense to honor the relics, but that is because the use of incense had not yet even then been introduced. As the Catholic Encyclopedia confesses, during the first four centuries there is no evidence for its use:
So, leaving aside incense—the use of which even the Catholic Encylopedia acknowledges there is no evidence in the first four centuries—we see Vigilantius objecting to all the modern trappings of relic veneration that are still practiced to this day: kissing, kneeling, bowing, praying to, lighting candles for, carrying in procession, celebrating the Lord’s Supper over, etc… That is what “veneration of relics” looked like at the end of the 4th century, and since then Roman Catholicism has added incense to its mode of veneration. Thus, the current practice of veneration of relics can be traced to the late 4th century (as is plainly evidenced by Jerome) and the fifth century writings of Pseudo-Dionysius (as the Catholic Encyclopedia shows).
What cannot be shown is that the faithful saints of Smryna treated the bones of Polycarp in that same manner. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, where is the kissing, kneeling, bowing, praying to, lighting candles for, carrying in procession, celebrating the Lord’s supper over his bones, etc… For more information on the complete absence of this practice in the early church, see my article, Diggin’ Up Bones.
For more information on why Roman Catholicism simultaneously hates the early church while at the same time longing to identify with her, see Longing for Nicæa and The Object of Her Irrepressible Scorn.
The claim of “relic veneration” as early as Polycarp, or exhumation for veneration shortly “after 312” A.D., is just an attempt by Roman Catholicism to identify with the Early Church.
Thanks,
Tim
Ex Calvinist,
You wrote,
Ok, let’s take a look. Here is the section to which you refer:
It says he took off his garments and sandals, something he did not usually do because “every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin.” I can’t tell if it’s the laying aside of the garments, the loosing of the girdle, or the attempt to remove his sandals that “he was not accustomed to do[ing],” but it is clear that he spent his ministry concealing his skin to prevent anyone from touching it. Do you consider that “relic veneration”? But it is clear that this sentence describes how “every one of the faithful” behaved toward him before his martyrdom, “For, on account of his holy life, he was, even before his martyrdom, adorned with every kind of good.” He was accustomed to keep his skin covered during his earthly ministry because the faithful were always trying to touch him. He apparently preferred that they not do so.
But then, after he is committed to the pyre, he removes his garments and attempts to remove his sandals, knowing that the flame will soon make his feet untouchable anyway. Once the body is burned, in any case, there is no skin to be touched. So Polycarp spends his ministry preventing people from touching his skin, and then at the moment he’s not going to have skin anymore, he casts modesty aside and exposes his skin. Still no relic veneration.
What is completely missing from the narrative is what you described: “the faithful were also deciding which of them would be the first to “touch his skin”.” Where does it say that? I can’t find anywhere in the text that says the faithful were deciding which would be the first to touch his skin. Could it be that you are reading in something that isn’t there?
He clearly didn’t like them doing it life, and when his skin would be no more, his garments were no longer needed either. They weren’t going to be touching his skin in death, either. How does that portray “relic veneration”?
Thanks,
Tim
First off, the text is pretty clear that the faithful are indeed deciding or even “competing” to see who would be the first to touch Polycarp if we are to use CCEL’s translation which states that,
“though he was not heretofore in the habit of doing this because [each of] the faithful always vied with one another as to which of them would be first to touch his body”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.vii.i.iii.html
The question is why such a reaction from them isn’t even condemned or rebuked? Here the honor given to Polycarp himself even when he is still alive is noted which isn’t in opposition to Catholic Encyclopedia’s render of it. If any this simply emphasizes the Early Christian devotion to the martyrs and the humility of Polycarp which still threatens your point about it.
Nowhere did it say that Polycarp spent his entire ministry covering himself just to prevent others from touching him. At this point you once more do the very thing you accuse me of doing!
For your point to even work, there must be a form of rebuke for those that want to touch Polycarp’s skin but none is given. In fact if any, the author’s addition of such indicates reverence given the emphasis on his popularity or honor amongst the faithful.
The author himself displays the same affection throughout the document itself from commemorating Polycarp’s martyrdom to the very description we get regarding his own burnt remains and even celebrating a Eucharistic fellowship at his burial place and to be in communion with him as Hartog wrote.
Attacking the mere specifics of my own words rather than what they convey is not an argument but I had already addressed this earlier here so I won’t get into this.
Ok, Ex Calvinist, this is where I get off the bus. There is a cavernous gap between the practice of relic veneration that began at the end of the fourth century, and the funeral/birthday party that was celebrated for Polycarp. You’re not making that connection, and I can explain it over and over again but I can’t penetrate through your convictions, so I’ll stop trying.
My original point remains. Father Saunders claimed that relics started being exhumed for veneration after 312 AD, a practice that did not exist within the church for another five decades at least. That is a decontextualization, and you have not convinced me otherwise.
Enjoy the rest of your visit here,
Tim
Part of your argument about Fr Saunders’ point involves the fact that the veneration of relics or the martyrs themselves is non existent in the Ante Nicene period.
You make the claim yet display willful ignorance on the text or even somehow read into it, something that isn’t there and fail to even cite any academical work to back up your point.
The Catholic act of venerating relics didn’t come from nowhere, it simply developed from the already existing practice of the adoration of martyrs and the act of celebrating the Eucharist at their place of rest. Socio-political climate means that they cannot go out and do it as the Catholics do and the lesser numbers mean less demand for venerating them. For someone who wants context, you fail at even realizing this basic simple one.
You’re absolutely right that the practice did not come from nowhere. It came from the Serpent’s mouth. It is part of the flood depicted in Revelation chapter 12.
Thanks!
Tim
Y’now, it occurs to me that there was a major transition from an illegal underground persecuted Church to a Church that is the approved state religion of the ruling Empire of the known world.
I would imagine that since being accused of Christianity was a capital offence punished by death, prudence would require keeping things hidden as to not draw attention; such as openly venerating anyone or relics of them or even being caught in possession of a pyx or any writings that may be evidence used against you. It makes perfect sense, then, that venerating relics would be kept as out of sight as possible during persecution.
Therefore, it again makes sense, that concerning those “underground customs”:
“From the Catholic standpoint there was no extravagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended and indeed taken for granted, by writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other great doctors without exception.”
which happens to be, as you say, “that every Church Father they invoke is from the late 4th century.
Isn’t the fourth century when Christianity finally became “legal” and the death penalty for just being a Christian was abolished?
TIM K said: “Such practices as you have imagined were not present in the early church.”
The persecuted Church, for the most part, being covert for the first three centuries of existence would explain why there is scant or no written evidence for some practices. Just because there is a lack of that written evidence doesn’t mean those practices didn’t exist in the early Church. Yes, that is an argument from silence, yet very plausible.
Can relic veneration be abused by some to become idolatry? Sure. But that doesn’t mean the practice in and of itself is idolatrous. God authorized Moses to make the brazen image of the bronze serpent for healing purposes. (Num 21) It was when Israel made the bronze serpent an object of worship with its own power, Nĕchushtan, is when it became idolatry. (2KI 18) The Catholic veneration of relics as you have outlined falls under the category of dulia, not latria.
Tim, you know the difference. Calvinists have rejected dulia as false. That only leaves latria as true worship. Ergo, any posturing of worship is translated as latria. And because of that self-limitation, you perceive relic veneration as idolatry.
It’s a good thing that God knows what is on the human heart. That is why He is a just judge.
TIM K–
You said: “The one thing Vigilantius does not do is criticize the use of incense to honor the relics, but that is because the use of incense had not yet even then been introduced.
That is a hasty conclusion on your part. Having “no evidence of its use” doesn’t mean it had not yet even been introduced. It just means there is no evidence of its use.
“When, exactly, incense was introduced into the religious services of the Church it is not easy to say. During the first four centuries there is no evidence for its use. Still, its common employment in the Temple and the references to it in the New Testament (cf. Luke 1:10; Revelation 8:3-5) would suggest an early familiarity with it in Christian worship. The earliest authentic reference to its use in the service of the Church is found in Pseudo-Dionysius (“De Hier. Ecc.”, III, 2). The Liturgies of Sts. James and Mark — which in their present form are not older than the fifth century — refer to its use at the Sacred Mysteries.” (Catholic Encylopedia, Incense, Use)
“In their present form” tells me that there probably was a different form used before that. In either case, the use of incense as a form of worship (latria–as to God in Exodus) and homage (dulia–as to king in Luke) is confirmed in Holy Scripture.
Hardly hasty, Bob. I have been expounding upon the very fact for years, and not based solely upon Vigilantius and the lack of evidence for its early use. And I know you read my articles. I would be surprised that you thought my conclusion was hasty if I really believed the comment originated from you. But for the sake of your Roman Catholic altar ego (who has manifested under several different names here but from your ip and e-mail addresses), I’ll provide for him again the evidence that the early church rejected incense explicitly:
In the light of that explicit testimony from the early church rejecting incense, Fr. William Saunders offers this comical historical gloss in order to justify his assumption on the early development of its use:
Now that is a hasty conclusion.
Your source’s references to the use of incense in Exodus and Luke (1:9-11) are both references to its use under the old covenant worship. We are told in Hebrews that the practice was about to disappear (Hebrews 8:13), and the early church understood that to be the case. With the passing of the old covenant, the use of incense passed with it, until Roman Catholicism brought it back. No, it is not safe to assume that the early Christians continued the Mosaic and Levitical rites. The scriptures, and the early church following them, show that the practice was wholly rejected.
Thanks though,
Tim
TIM K–
You said: ” But for the sake of your Roman Catholic altar ego (who has manifested under several different names here but from your ip and e-mail addresses), I’ll provide for him again the evidence that the early church rejected incense explicitly:”
So you believe that my Catholic friend and cousin are my altar ego? Yes, they use my computer. I suppose they could use their own email addresses but they did not want to risk any misuse of their identity and email addresses on a public blog as anti-Catholic as yours. I don’t mind it, being the troll that I am. But they do. And they wonder why I even bother. Go figger. Like I say, arguing with a troll is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realize the pig likes it. But you are right, I do defend them.
“Hardly hasty, Bob. I have been expounding upon the very fact for years, and not based solely upon Vigilantius and the lack of evidence for its early use. And I know you read my articles.”
Context, context, Tim. What was the context referenced? Oh yeah. It was the one YOU cited:
“When, exactly, incense was introduced into the religious services of the Church it is not easy to say. During the first four centuries there is no evidence for its use. Still, its common employment in the Temple and the references to it in the New Testament (cf. Luke 1:10; Revelation 8:3-5) would suggest an early familiarity with it in Christian worship. The earliest authentic reference to its use in the service of the Church is found in Pseudo-Dionysius (“De Hier. Ecc.”, III, 2). The Liturgies of Sts. James and Mark — which in their present form are not older than the fifth century — refer to its use at the Sacred Mysteries.” (Catholic Encylopedia, Incense, Use)
And you will notice, YOUR REFERENCE, is the one I was commenting on. But no, now you bring up some other citations.
Well good.
God established the burning of incense for worship–Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It was when the Jews started burning incense to other Gods is when it was an abomination.
But in Mal 1:11, God promises a more widespread use of incense that is pure among all the Nations, not just the Jews, representing the prayers of the saints. Really? Like the bread and wine of thanksgiving and praise, we have the incense of prayers of the saints. That is also defined in Rev 5:8:
“When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”
It is also in REV 8:3-4.
So the use of incense in the Church represents the prayers of the saints. It fits.
The citations you quote from Barnabas and Justin Martyr, etc are referencing the Old Testament Temple worship of the Mosaic Law which Christ abolished on Calvary.
Tim, you use bread and wine to represent the Body and Blood of Christ in your worship services. Why not incense to represent your prayers like in Malachi and Revelation? Do you not consider them a pure offering?
Bob, Like so many other issues the use of incense is not just a Catholic issue. I believe incense is used in all the churches that can claim a link through Apostolic succession to the Apostolic age, ie Orthodox, Coptic, Jacobite Syrian et al. Not surprising that the early Church would borrow from the Jewish worship service since the earliest Christians were Jewish. In fact some of the prayers in the Mass can I believe be traced to the Jewish liturgical practice at the time of Christ.
I wonder if Protestants would feel comfortable calling Martin Luther’s bones ” as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place”. It’s similar to the situation with Origen, Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem speaking of the extreme care in handling the Eucharist. Not something you see in Protestantism
Looking forward to tomorrow discussing In Context and reviewing the quotes from Irenaeus. I do appreciate Timothy K allowing a platform to discuss opposing views on these subjects
Timothy K. you wrote after I gave two long quotes from Irenaeus confirming his belief in the real presence so as to not be accused of taking the quotes out of context
Timothy K
“The question is not about me “not being able to detect Irenaeus.s belief in the real presence” in the quotes you gave me. It’s about you providing quotes that did not contain an explicit reference to the Real Presence, which is what you said you’d provide. Or do you not know what “explicit” means?
So let’s look at the quotes that confirm Irenaeus’s beliefs in the real presence and then I will give the whole quotes again . Then Timothy K, maybe you can provide some quotes from Irenaeus that refute my position. I’ll help you out and provide a quote from Brian Culliton’s blog. Fair enough?
1. When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
3) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
4. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
5. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
6. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
7)Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Seven statements from Irenaeus confirming his belief in the real presence. And again look at the implicit evidence in these quotes where Irenaeus focusing on the power of the words of consecration (“when it receives the invocation of God”) to produce the change that occurs, Irenaeus’s confirmation that a change in the bread has occurred (“is no longer common bread”) and that by consuming the Eucharist “we are no longer corruptible, having the hope of eternal life”.
Now I’ll give the longer quotes and then Brian ‘s quote that he says refutes those quotes above. Timothy K, I am not surprised you could not find the above quotes because you see what you want to see. Christ said , “THIS IS MY BODY”, and you see “THIS REPRESENTS MY BODY”. How could Christ have been more EXPLICIT! Christ said “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed”, and you say No, NO Christ, your flesh is not food and your blood in not drink. Timothy K, maybe you can explain the meaning of the word ‘IS” that you don’t understand. And explain as I asked you before why Christ did not say “This represents my body” so we would not be having this discussion.
Timothy P, we were not talking about whether Christ was explicit. We were talking about whether Irenæus was explicit. Additionally, you said you were going to provide explicit citations from Irenæus about the real presence. As you note above, instead of providing explicit evidence, you have provided “implicit evidence in these quotes”. Do you not understand what “explicit” means?
In any case, let us begin with the first part, which will not only clarify the remaining 6, but will also highlight for you why I wanted you to tell me in which parts Irenæus’ “explicit” statements on the “real presence” were contained. Since there are none, you have responded with a list of “implicit” statements, and the very first one shows precisely where the problem lies. Here is the English translation as you have provided it, citing from Schaff’s series on the Antenicene Fathers:
As it stands, that is plainly an implicit reference to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as Roman Catholics understand it. There is simply no arguing the point. The English translation says that Jesus came to us, shed his true blood, and exhibits His true flesh to us in the Eucharist, by which he confers upon our flesh the capacity for salvation. If I were still Roman Catholic, I would delight, as you have, to find such a statement from Irenæus. The problem is, Irenæus didn’t say it.
This is one of the places in Irenæus where the original Greek is unavailable, but the Latin (from which the above is translated) does not say what the English implies. Here is the Latin version that has been preserved for us:
“Christus non venit in aliena, cum sua nos gratia visitavit, et carni nostrae contulit capacem esse salutis, verum pro nobis sanguinem fundendo, veramque carneum suam nobis in eucharistia exhibendo.”
You can find this in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, vol VII, col 1123.
As you can see, “capacem esse salutis” occurs in the middle in Latin, but the English translation puts “capacity of salvation” at the end. Likewise, the Latin has “in eucharistia exhibendo” at the end, and the English puts “exhibiting … in the Eucharist” in the middle. This confounds Irenæus terrifically.
The significance (and value) of comparing the Latin to the English is that you can see how the English renders the sentence in such a way as to push “the capacity for salvation” and “true flesh” to the end of the sentence in such a way that they appear to be joined in significance to the elements of the eucharist. But the Latin is not so ordered. Instead it places the conferring “upon our flesh the capacity for salvation” at the beginning with His becoming like us (not the eucharist), and places His “true flesh” with the pouring out of His true blood (not with the eucharist). You can see this by an interlinear comparison:
“Christus non venit in aliena, cum sua nos gratia visitavit,
“Christ did not come to what did not belong (was alien) to Him, when He visited us in His grace,”
et carni nostrae contulit capacem esse salutis,
and conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation
verum pro nobis sanguinem fundendo, veramque carneum suam nobis
by shedding for us His true blood, His true flesh for us,
in eucharistia exhibendo.
showing us in the eucharist.
The English pushes all the critical language to the end of the sentence to suggest that “His true flesh” and “conferring on us the capacity for salvation” are somehow related to “in the Eucharist.” But Latin says that “conferring on us the capacity for salvation” is related to him becoming like us and visiting us (as you can see by the fact that the phrase is placed toward the beginning in the Latin, rather than the end), and true flesh is grammatically connected with true blood (as you can see by the the way true blood and true flesh are in immediate succession (i.e., pro nobis, suam nobis, for us … [His] … for us), which shedding of true blood and true flesh is then exhibited for us in the Eucharist. The way the English renders it, it separates the flesh from the blood in such a way that it appears that Jesus shed His blood on the cross and exhibits His flesh in the bread and wine, which is hardly consistent with the Gospel testimonies or Irenæus’ plain meaning. Regarding the Latin, however, I do not know a Protestant on earth who would disagree with the rendering—namely, that Jesus became like us in order to confer on our flesh the capability for salvation, shedding His true blood and His true flesh, showing us this truth through the elements of the Lord’s supper. This is especially clear in light of Irenæus’ other statements on the Eucharist.
One of the most poignant statements by Irenæus on the Eucharist occurs in Fragment 37 when he refers to the oblation of the New Covenant in relation to what takes place during the Lord’s supper. You may be surprised to find out that I believe a sacrifice takes place at the Lord’s supper, and Irenæus agrees with me, and in the process, he destroys the Roman Catholic position.
Irenæus believed that the sacrifice of the new covenant (in fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11) was prayer, praise and looking after the needy:
Irenæus has prayers as the new sacrifice, and as with Justin Martyr, Irenæus has the provision for the needy taking place during the weekly gathering (see Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67). Thus, during the weekly time of worship, the saints gather to offer praise, prayer and provisions for the poor, all of which is prescribed in the Scriptures as the only legitimate sacrifices that Christians are now to offer (see Romans 12:1-2, Hebrews 13:15; Philippians 4:18). In Irenæus, this “new covenant sacrifice” is in accordance with Malachi 1:11 and takes place before the Lord’s supper and is over before the prayer of invocation is made over the elements of bread and wine. The significance of that particular order is fatal to your arguments from Irenæus. As Roman Catholics know, it is only at the invocation of the Holy Spirit that transubstantiation is alleged to occur:
Yet Irenæus has the sacrifice of the new covenant completed before the Holy Spirit is invoked over the elements, as he says in Fragment 37:
As Irenæus has elsewhere insisted, the “oblation” is the “giving Him thanks” and providing this food for the poor. The English rendering that follows is wrong when it says “when we have perfected the oblation,” for the original (this time we do have the Greek), says τελεσαντες, or “completed,” not “perfected.” To confirm this I refer you to ancient and medieval sources that show this to be the precise and specific meaning of τελεσαντες:
See also Sermo in sanctos duodecim apostolos by the pseudo-Chrysostom. I cite it solely for the value the Latin translator of the spurious work provides to the present discussion. The sermon uses the phrase, “ενα δρομον τελεσαντες,” which includes the particular word used by Irenæus above, and means “one end of the course,” or as the Latin translator helpfully renders it, “unoque etiam cursu terminato” (Migne’s Patrologia Græca, Tomus Octavus, (1836) 624-625). See also John Kaminiates’, The Capture of Thessaloniki, in which men are described as having set out to accomplish a task, and then the task was “completed” (τελεσαντες, 10th century A.D., Byzantine Greek), (John Kaminiates: the Capture of Thessaloniki, 65.1, (904 A.D.)) In all three cases, the term refers to something that has come to an end, is finished, is over, ended and done. It is the same term Irenæus uses to say that the “pure oblation” of the New Covenant is over at which point the presbyter then states the words of institution or invokes the Holy Spirit that Christ’s body and blood may be exhibited symbolically, for that is precisely what Irenæus says next:
Now if Irenæus identifies the oblation of the new covenant as praise, prayer and provision for the poor, and that oblation (προσφοράν) is over (τελεσαντες) before the Holy Spirit is even invoked, and then when the Holy Spirit is invoked, it is so that the receivers may, by the Holy Spirit understand the bread and wine as symbols (for that is what antitype means) of Jesus’ great sacrifice (θυσιαν) for us on the cross, it is clear a) that the allegedly transubstantiated elements are not the oblation of the new covenant, b) the consecrated elements of the Lord’s supper are not offered to God but rather are exhibited to men, and c) what is exhibited is not the actual true flesh of Christ, but rather symbols that are intended to represent His true flesh and true blood.
When we see what Irenæus believed about “exhibiting” Christ’s sacrifice through the eucharistic elements symbolically, and the fact that after the invocation over the elements, the elements are still mere symbols, and when we understand that the English translation has corrupted the opening line of Against Heresies Book V chapter 2 in such a way that it has Jesus’ “true flesh” exhibited rather than His true flesh and blood poured out on the cross and then exhibited symbolically, I can see how you can misunderstand the corrupted English translation to suggest the “Real Presence.” However, it is based on a corrupted translation, nothing more.
Further, when we understand what Irenæus is saying in context, it is even clearer that he did not mean what you have extracted even from the English. In the previous chapter he has criticized the Ebionites for rejecting the physical incarnation, and in reflection of those beliefs, they celebrated the Lord’s Supper with water instead of wine (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, 1), which of course defeats the whole purpose of the eucharistic elements, for water cannot signify blood as wine does. Note, Irenæus’ reference to unregenerate flesh, “destitute … of the Spirit of God,” which is as “irrational blood, like water” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, V, 9), signifying that they are still of earth, earthy. Thus, water is wholly inadequate as a symbol of regeneration, whereas wine clearly is adequate. Here he criticizes the heretics for the same offense for which Cyprian criticized wavering believers who, too, used water instead of wine at the Lord’s supper, lest their profession be detected by the stain on their lips, and they be martyred. The problem? Water does not evoke by symbol what wine evokes by symbol:
As clumsy as the English rendering is, I can see that the rest of your interpretations from Book V, chapter 2 and Book IV chapter 18 flow from that clumsy rendering. Taking the rest of your allegedly “implicit” references to the “real presence,” but keeping them in their context, there is simply nothing else in his works to suggest what you call the “real presence”:
2) of course, if He didn’t really take on flesh, “nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body”. That’s quite true. If he didn’t have a real body and real blood, how can the bread and wine symbolically represent a communion of either? I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
3) of course, “He has acknowledged the cup … as His own blood … and the bread … as His own body”. He has done so by antitypes, or symbols. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
4) of course, when “the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” They are made so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
5) of course, the bread and wine “having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ;” they become so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
6) of course, “the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood.” They are made so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
7) of course, “the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” It is so antitypically, as Irenæus has said.
Now I can only imagine that Ex Calvinist will now pipe up here, as he has before, claiming that he has “already dealt with the whole context of the so called ‘symbolic’ view of the Eucharist by citing Schaff and Kelly where Schaff explains the context and use of said terms,” which in his mind proves that “this sort of language in context denotes a view that is in sync with the real presence doctrine.” Not by a long shot.
Such a claim is a two century anachronism, and the evidence simply cannot bear to be stretched that far. What Schaff did in the particular citation was to use Gregory of Nyssa (c. 373 A.D.) and Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313 – 386 AD). to understand Irenæus in 182 A.D., two hundred years earlier! Yet it is Gregory of Nyssa who first proposed that Jesus had sacrificed himself on Thursday night at the last supper:
And then Ambrose followed:
And then Chrysostom after that:
Small wonder that de la Taille rejoiced at the realization that he had finally found in Gregory of Nyssa the justification he needed for the sacrifice of the Mass:
“More remarkably,” indeed! He was the first to “make use” of it at all! Thus, when Schaff says that Nyssa and Cyril help us understand Irenæus, we must forgive our brother for his gaffe, for he was only trying to make sense of the history of eucharistic doctrinal development by assuming it was continuous. He wrote, by understanding Cyril and Nyssa,
“Full explanation”? Hardly. One can hardly attempt to understand ancient 2nd century eucharistic orthodoxy through the novel invention of a late 4th century eucharistic heresy. A flood of error was released toward the end of the 4th century, including the error of the sacrifice of the Mass. Until then, the oblation of the new covenant was praise, prayer, thanksgiving and caring for those in need with the bounty the Lord had provided, in accordance with Romans 12:1-2, Hebrews 13:15; Philippians 4:18.
Then there was a step function in the late 4th century when the “oblation of the new covenant” was Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, and it was Gregory of Nyssa who spearheaded it. It originated no sooner. See “Their Praise was their Sacrifice” to see the late 4th century origins of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus, Ex Calvinist’s citation of Schaff most certainly has not “dealt with” the issue of symbology and antitypes in Irenæus. And likewise, you have not yet provided evidence for the True Presence from Irenæus, either implicit or otherwise.
Thanks,
Tim
Here, the only main thrust of your argument against the Early Church’s use of “symbolical” language to refer to the Eucharist rests upon conspiracy theory about “heresies creeping up into the church” and the years these fathers are apart.
This is a weak argument since it contradicts the earlier argument you posit using language from texts such as Pseudo-Chrysostom and other sources centuries apart from each other. Yet, the same excuse is used to deny the language of “antitype” used by Irenaeus and explained by Schaff all because of perceived corruptions seeping into the church by the time of Cyril. Yet, hypocritically sources after the perceived “heresies” seeping into the church was used generously prior.
After all, Schaff’s argument lies within the linguistics of the Greek Fathers to begin with, similar to how your argument revolves around the word “τελεσαντες”. This completely decimates your rejection of Schaff’s explanation of the “symbolic” view automatically since he is comparing similarities between the Greek fathers and the language they used to express Eucharistic doctrine. It is also why Schaff says that by understanding the citation from Gregory of Nyssa he used, we can understand what Irenaeus meant.
But, you making this the main point of Schaff’s argument is a misrepresentation of him for what he did is to compare Cyril’s language with the earlier fathers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr. Focusing in Justin Martyr’s First Apology, he shows the similarity in expression between Cyril and Justin. He then shows Irenaeus as another example of the church fathers using similar expressions to Cyril with regards to the Eucharist, using Gregory’s more developed expression as that which explains what Irenaeus meant. When this is understood, Schaff is not merely using Gregory of Nyssa to understand Irenaeus’ eucharistic doctrine.
Schaff’s view is also supported by the fact that many of the Church Fathers bear influences from Greek philosophy and this shouldn’t be surprising when there’s the view that Plato somehow got his philosophical ideas from Moses. Irenaeus himself shows this influence as Anthony Briggman explains,
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_uwspjq-eIwC&pg=PA94&dq=irenaeus+platonism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWoZOa3ZbMAhVH1RQKHUuSAdkQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=irenaeus%20platonism&f=false
With this in mind, it is easy to see why Schaff isn’t wrong about Irenaeus’ use of “antitype” not being something that is merely symbolic given that a Platonic viewpoint would imply a “physical form” and the underlying higher reality of the “idea”. Thus Crockett sees Irenaeus’ reference to the twofold reality of the Eucharist as just that. And we find the same explanation somewhat given in Schaff himself, in “History of the Christian Church” where the specific use of “antitype” is explained using references to Scripture itself showing the “form” as being the prefiguration in the OT and the higher “idea” as being the fulfillment in the NT. Thus the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine represent the Antitype with the body and blood being the Type that is being corresponded to or in Platonic terms, the higher reality that is the “idea”. Since the theory of forms dictate that physical objects correspond to their “idea” and thus participate in them.
Laurence Hall Stookey explains this quite easily for the unfamiliar, citing Biblical examples as well
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jlTzWMNsmR8C&pg=PA42&dq=eucharist+platonism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO7KfZ5ZbMAhWJiRoKHbzlC58Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=eucharist%20platonism&f=false
With these in mind, the whole “two centuries and heretical intrusion” excuse doesn’t work. After all, we might as well go further and say that there is already an intrusion of heresy through the influence of Hellenistic philosophy which takes place during the Ante Nicene period itself.
Another weakness is that such an argument entails God abandoning humanity. The church no longer have continuity with it being overunned by heresy after Constantine. It entails that the truth of Salvation is no longer accessible and we know this given the fact that we have no evidence of Protestant doctrines during those period. Why would a god who promised that not even Hades would destroy or prevail over his own church made it be such that his church on Earth got destroyed by heresy? This deity is either evil for he lies and fail to keep his promise.
A final thing of note is the fact that should we follow your view, we have no reason to accept the doctrine that Christ have two natures and two wills given the formalization and systematization of such doctrines and arguments against their objections were made during the very timeframe where the church became heretical.
With this, you haven’t debunked my explanation and shown misrepresentation of Schaff and the failure to keep to your own so called “love” of context. We certainly find no insight into the explanation of philosophical influences the fathers had or any reason why Schaff’s thesis is wrong apart from the excuse of heretical intrusion of 4th century fathers.
Dear Ex Calvinist,
Well, I appreciate the time you took to write back. You said something about my “argument against the Early Church’s use of “symbolical” language.” I don’t recall making such an argument. Can you clarify?
You also opined,
As in your previous comments, I think you do not understand what “contradiction” means. I provided a spectrum of uses of τελεσαντες to show that its meaning had not changed in over 1,000 years, and therefore there is not basis for making Irenæus the exception. The reason I reject Schaff’s retroactive imputation of Nyssa’s meaning onto Irenæus is because there was a stepwise development in the concept of the mass sacrifice beginning with Gregory of Nyssa, as even the Roman Catholic apologists acknowledge. Thus, with τελεσαντες, I have demonstrated the continuity of meaning over centuries to show that Irenæus believed the oblation of the new covenant was over before the Lord’s supper even began. In the case of the mass sacrifice, I showed that if Nyssa came up with something novel, then his novel meaning can’t aid us in understanding Irenæus, as Schaff attempted to do. I don’t understand where the contradiction lies. Can you help me understand?
Another paragraph of yours gave me a chuckle (I needed on on the eve of tax day!):
Your underlying assumption is that Roman Catholicism is the true church and if Roman Catholicism is apostate, then Hades has prevailed over the Christ’s church. But if Roman Catholicism is not Christ’s church (and it is not), there is no contradiction. Your objection requires that I join you in your first, unprovable assumption—that Roman Catholicism is the Church of Christ. I simply cannot accept that assumption as the point of beginning for our conversation.
The real problem you have with proving the historicity of your church is not how hard it was to find “evidence of Protestant doctrines during those period”, but how hard it is to find “evidence of Roman Catholic doctrines prior to the end of the 4th century.”
The Early Church before the latter part of the 4th century rejected papal primacy, Roman primacy, papal infallibility, priestly celibacy, the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity, dormition and assumption of Mary, Mary as Mother of the Church, transubstantiation, eucharistic adoration, the sacrifice of the Mass, kneeling on the Lord’s Day, baptismal regeneration, candles, relics, images, incense, the title Pontifex Maximus, communion on the tongue, etc… etc… etc…
But aside from that, the Early Church was completely Roman Catholic!
Well, anyway, what we shall find in an upcoming study is quite the opposite of what you have alleged. In fact, it was a point of considerable frustration to Antichrist Roman Catholicism that there were protestant doctrines throughout the period from the late 4th century all the way through the reformation, and Roman Catholicism could not stamp it out no matter how hard she tried (and how she did try!).
I enjoy our exchanges, Ex Calvinist, but I fear there is no use in continuing a conversation with you because you insist that I accept Roman Catholicism as the true Church since the days of the apostles as a condition of having what you would call a “reasonable” conversation, and I insist that Roman Catholicism is a late 4th century novelty. When you say “relic veneration did not come out of nowhere,” and “Nyssa can be used to help us understand Irenæus,” it belies your “conspiracy theory” that Roman Catholicism predated the late 4th century, alleging an imaginary continuity since the days of the apostles, and you rationalize everything based on that imagined continuity. Since I can’t buy into that premise, you are left appealing to the authority of your religion, and I am left appealing to the authority of the Bible, which, ironically, is the perpetual conflict between the Serpent and the Woman in Revelation 12. There frankly isn’t anywhere else for this conversation to go. Thanks for reading, though.
Tim
Scholarship unanimously acknowledge the Real Presence belief in the Ante Nicene church and this shouldn’t be surprising if one actually took the time to read and grasp the contexts of their time. But you do not do that time and time again. When your ignorance and misrepresentations are pointed out to you, you simply ignore. Here you are just regurgitating the same thing over again.
You may also notice that I added in quotation marks in Symbolic since I’m referring to the Ancient conception of such and not the modern. Your argument is against the ancient use of the term here which is hardly addressed when the main thrust is simply “muh heresy in the 4th century”. That is not an argument. That is simply giving a lame excuse.
The point here is that the Church Fathers unanimously take the Realist approach to the Eucharist, meaning that the eucharistic elements used are somehow taken to be more than mere bread and wine with something divine added to them or their being into the flesh and blood of Christ. Context and writings show that they did, alongside tonnes of scholarly backing.
Since I dealt with your abuse of the Greek, I’ll not address them here.
Here we see as well your tendency to project onto your opponents. My argument is meant to be historical in nature, not apologetical. I’m arguing against your apologetical polemical use of the Church Fathers here, not for any particular denomination. This is why every source I would cite will be academical in nature, not apologetic.
Here’s the thing though, there are no doctrine that are exclusive to Protestants that are found in Early Christianity and even later. In particular, Sola Scriptura or the Reformation rejection of free will which we find the complete opposite of in the Church Fathers.
But, not all Protestants are equal in distance from the Fathers. Luther can certainly be quite comfortable amongst them should he drop Sola Scriptura, permit the veneration of saints and allow in Salvation the active role of free will.
Calvinists cannot since their doctrine of Predestination entails no free will by definition or compatabilism. But the latter is simply a buzzword that mean nothing when every action is simply inevitably part of God’s plan. Tim Keller explicitly laid this out as well. Such a doctrine only opens a huge can of worms philosophically and theologically. The radical disconnect from history solidifies this.
Such simply ends up like those time travel plots where the protagonist cannot change the outcome of any event no matter what is done. Such is the case when your god had ordained the outcome and made it such that it must be so.
Also, the Early Church had no notion of Sola Scriptura. Even Reformed scholar, ANS Lane admits this and spends time showing how despite the high reverence for Scripture present, the views of the Early Church is not Sola Scriptura. Yet, it is not that of Catholicism either.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiFx4XRnZfMAhXEcRQKHcyCAgsQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiblicalstudies.org.uk%2Fpdf%2Fvox%2Fvol09%2Fscripture_lane.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHuKK0dcvJaz9ZQgsdIpunJKLv4GA
Very interesting and my response will not be nearly as lengthy as there appears to be a major flaw in your reasoning and it has to do with context. But before I point it out would you mind giving us the correct translation of Irenaeus’s 7 quotes since you seem to disagree with Schaff. Was your disagreement with all 7 quotes or just the First. And I am still puzzled by the trouble you seem to have with the word “is”. Irenaeus seems to use that word a lot in those quotes. Are you sure there was no Greek word for “represents” or “symbolizes”.
Interesting but you appear to have a major flaw in your exegesis. Before I point it out, could you give us the correct translation of Irenaeus’s comments since you feel Schaff’s are erroneous? Do you think all 7 are incorrect or just the first. If you think all seven are erroneous then we will need to look at your 7 translations.
I also noticed you seem to have trouble with the word “is” which Irenaeus uses a lot. No Greek word for “symbolizes” or “represents”.
Thanks, Timothy P. Your first comment on Irenæus was that “…he repeatedly shows his belief in the real presence, salvation conferred on those who partake…”. Since the only place he makes reference to salvation being conferred on those who partake of the eucharist was in the first line, I thought that would be a good place to start. Here is your citation:
But that key phrase occurs much earlier in the Latin, associating it with His becoming man rather than with the Eucharist:
Since that was your starting point, I thought that would be a good place to start. So that’s where we’ll start. You responded,
I don’t recall saying all seven were erroneous. Can you show me where I said that? In fact, I remember saying I had no problem with the rest once the first one was corrected.
Finally, I don’t know what you mean by, “No Greek word for “symbolizes” or “represents”.” Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Tim
The fact that the last 6 you consider to be correct translations I think is a definite step forward. Now how you translate the first quote I find very interesting and would like to know if that is your personal translation or would you like to reference the translation. I know when it comes to bible translations there is a tendency for the translator to translate in such a way as to support his theology. I’m not accusing you of mistranslating the passage and you obviously have a better understanding of the Greek and Latin then I do. Are you fluent in ancient Latin and Greek?
The weekends are best for me to comment, I have about 5 minutes today but I will try to put together a response on your more in depth comment where you questioned the translation of the first quote hopefully by tomorrow night. Then lead where you may.
So readers do not have to go back to find the original quotes here they are
Irenaeus
When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.
1. And vain likewise are those who say that God came to those things which did not belong to Him, as if covetous of another’s property; in order that He might deliver up that man who had been created by another, to that God who had neither made nor formed anything, but who also was deprived from the beginning of His own proper formation of men. The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man, restoring to His own handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning, that man was made after the image and likeness of God; not snatching away by stratagem the property of another, but taking possession of His own in a righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him. And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might gather us into the bosom of the Father.
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, 1 Corinthians 15:53 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, 2 Corinthians 12:3 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?
IrenaeusIrenaeus Book IV, 18.5
Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” For it behoves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God. Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogae) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another’s property, and desirous of what is not His own. Those, again, who maintain that the things around us originated from apostasy, ignorance, and passion, do, while offering unto Him the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, sin against their Father, rather subjecting Him to insult than giving Him thanks. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Now compare the 7 quotes I gave to the quote Brian Culliton’s quote from his article and tell me which quote is most Explicit for or against belief in the real presence.
“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?’” (Fragment 13)
Maybe Timothy K you could add some more EXPLICIT statements to those of Brian’s. And if you think your best defense is, but Irenaeus never used the word real presence, that’s fine. You only display how weak your argument is.
Will try to respond to your comment below of Catholics taking quotes out of context, but was amused that the frequency of such an occurrence would not be part of the discussion if you are really concerned about context? Maybe I can show where you personally have been taking the Bible out of context to promote your beliefs
Timothy K
Timothy P, your definition of “IN CONTEXT” made no mention of justifying decontextualization based on the infrequency of the offense or how small a percentage the decontextualization is of the whole.
Timothy P, my dismissive reference to frequency of occurrence was because you said the beauty of Roman Catholicism was that Rome never has to take things out of context. You did not say its beauty was that Rome rarely has to take thinks out of context. As it turns out, on development of critical doctrines, taking things out of context is Rome’s only option.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy P wrote:
————————
Go back and place the word “Metaphorically speaking” in front of the quotes provided by Tim where Ignatius is obviously speaking metaphorically and the metaphor is obvious Now do the same with the quote from Catholic apologist
Metaphorically speaking
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. … It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.” (To the Smyrnæans,
The metaphor doesn’t pop out at you unless you have already made up your mind that there is a metaphor.
—————————–
Frankly, that “metaphorically speaking” helped me to understand the metaphor!…
Eucharist = The Eucharist is a rite considered by most Christian churches to be a sacrament. (Wikipedia)
Again, the RITE is the flesh of our Savior, etc.
When you eat the bread and the juice of wine during a service (even Mass!), this is simply done in order that you can HAVE AN IDEA about the reality of Christ’s body, which was a biological body with which God showed to love His creatures.
For this reason Christ ordered a rite where the reality of his resurrected body could be TAUGHT to the worshipers simply by a physical/biological mean, the one of chew and swallow!
THIS IS MY BODY etc: Like to say: “Don’t you believe I was for real on the cross and on the third day I resurrected with my biological body??? OK guys, I was and I am real like this bread you are chewing and this juice of wine you are drinking!”.
“This corresponds in general outline to the structure of the rite as used today and is the earliest known example. The theology is as follows: the bread and wine are transformed into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus; they are the pure sacrifice spoken of by Malachi (1:11) and the eucharistic prayer itself is both a thanksgiving for creation and redemption and an anamnesis (Greek: memorial) of the passion (and possibly the incarnation).”(Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist
“Also, the extensive parallels in the saying over the bread and the cup in the first part (―this is my body‖; ―this is my blood …‖) is the result of liturgical practice. Hand in hand with that goes an increasing interest in the elements of the meal, the bread and the wine, interpreted as body and blood of Christ. The exhortation ―take,‖ at the beginning of the saying over the bread in 14:22, points in the same direction, and may express a certain reserve regarding the eucharistic gifts.”-Anchor Bible Dictionary, Lord’s Supper, pg 5366
“In Justin‘s Apol. 65–67, in which we have the most detailed description of the Lord‘s Supper in the early church, we encounter a situation that is similar to that of Ignatius. In his Apol. 65–67 the administration of the Supper is given over to a leader (Apol. 65:3,5; prohestos) who speaks the prayer of thanksgiving over the bread and the wine. Deacons distribute the eucharistic offering in the congregation (65:5). In a very difficult idiom Justin in 66:2 compares the efficacy of the prayer of blessing, which changes the bread and the wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus (the incarnation), and then he quotes the words of Institution.”-ibid, pg 5372
“Appropriately there may have been initially the dominant conviction that the exalted Lord was present as participant and host at the celebration of the meal in his church. This personal presence must be viewed as the sustaining basis for every form of the presence of the Lord in the sacrament. Besides that, the Lord‘s Supper was interpreted eschatologically above all in times of acute anticipation, as proleptic presence of the imminent end of the age which, in keeping with apocalyptic expectation, was to culminate in a festal meal. Through the deliberate step back to Jesus‘ Last Supper, and then, via the Easter event, an event that made the Supper possible, there is added another essential element: the commemoration of the death of Jesus on the cross in its saving power. This aspect of the presence of the death of Jesus was utilized above all by Paul within the framework of his theologia crucis.
All these forms of presence are naturally quite real. However, people have gotten into the habit of tying the real presence of the body and blood of Christ to the elements of the supper, i.e., the bread and wine. The words of interpretation in the account of the Institution are intended for this purpose. Within the NT such an understanding of the words of interpretation are to be found in John 6:52–58, possibly also in 1 Cor 10:16–22, certainly in Corinthians, and finally in the account of the Institution itself, if one reads it as cult-aetiology in the form in which Mark and Matthew give it. The significance of this model of interpretation for the ancient and medieval church‘s teaching on the eucharist is obvious. There is reason to suspect unmistakably the presence of a strong influence of Hellenistic thinking and Hellenistic cultpiety, both in the NT and in early Christian tradition.”-ibid, pg 5374
Edoardo
It looks like you made my point. Did you have to go through all those mental gymnastics to explain the quotes from Ignatius where he is obviously speaking metaphorically. Your reasoning seems extremely convoluted and even after your explanation I’m not sure what you mean when you said you understand the metaphor. Read Irenaeus’s 7 quotes that I listed above and then tell me you do not believe Irenaeus believed in the real presence. I know you won’t do it because I can tell you are an honest person
I would like to make some mention regarding Tim K’s use of translation. It is obviously one that is definitely dishonest since the differences between languages in how they operate and the multiplicity of meanings for words should be evident to anyone. This means that one should and ought to either have a valid scholarly authority to cite to back up the point given or at least have some understanding of Latin. To simply ignore these is not even laziness but deceit.
So Tim K, where are other translations that are rendered in the same way as yours? If yours is correct then surely others who have knowledge of the Latin language who translated the text would produce one that is agreeable to you. So until you can verify your arrangement of words to be right and grammatically accurate in accordance with the Latin language, your point doesn’t really hold water. It can be in fact ignored.
The Greek “τελεσαντες” is used to refer to “perform” or “fulfill” as the LSJ Greek lexicon notes.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tele%2Fontes&la=greek&can=tele%2Fontes0&prior=pole/as&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=3:card=229&i=1#lexicon
With this the whole “sloppy translation” is simply a lame excuse.
Also, the word “Antitype” as used by Irenaeus more literally translates to as “exact counterpart”. That is not symbolic in the modern sense at all.
https://archive.org/stream/cuaantenicenefat01robe#page/n585/mode/2up
I have made a mistake regarding “τελεωσαντες”. However it must be noted that its meaning doesn’t oppose use to refer to “perfected” as the LSJ Greek lexicon notes that it can indeed be used to refer to “making perfect”.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=telew%2Fsantes&la=greek&can=telew%2Fsantes0&prior=poih/sas#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=teleio/w-contents
Thanks, Ex Calvinist. Since you have already “dealt with [my] abuse of the Greek,” let’s take a look.
In the 6th book of The History of the Peloponnesian War, By Thucydides, chapter xviii, translator Richard Crawley renders τελεωσαντες as “finished,” as in “The hymn sung and the libations finished, they put out to sea…”
In pseudo-Chrysostom’s Sermo in sanctos duodecim apostolos, “ενα δρομον τελεσαντες,” which means “one end of the course” is rendered in the original latin translation, “unoque etiam cursu terminato” (Migne’s Patrologia Græca, Tomus Octavus, (1836) 624-625).
In Irenæus’ Fragment 37, the τελεσαντες in the original Latin translation is rendered as “finita,” as in “et postea finita.” (Migne, P.G., Tomus Octavus, 1254 (it’s fragment 38 in Migne)).
None of those works are translated by me, yet they have τελεσαντες meaning “finished,” “terminato” and “finita,” so I think we can bury my alleged “abuse of the Greek.”
But let’s grant for a moment your rendering:
Then let’s look at the text.
The original Greek says, “την προσφοράν τελεσαντες” and the Latin translation renders this “et postea finita oblatione”, both of which mean, “the oblation completed,” or “having finished the oblation.” By your rendering it should read,
And since you also defer to Schaff uncritically, we’ll throw his language in as well: “And then, when we have perfected the oblation…”.
Now if the oblation is already perfect, anything else that is done to it will change it from its state of perfection. You can’t improve on perfection, and perfection doesn’t require additional change. The Greek, the Latin and Schaff’s English affirm that the “perfection” has already occurred before the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Only after the oblation is perfected is the Holy Spirit invoked over the elements. Thus, since the oblation is already perfect, the invocation of the Holy Spirit changes nothing in the elements of the offering, and if there is no change in the perfection of the substance, there is no change in substance, and therefore no transubstantiation in Irenæus.
Well the short story is that Irenæus (and the whole early church, apparently) got the Roman Catholic mass wrong.
Thanks,
Tim
Except of course you failed to address the fact that that very Greek can be used to refer to “perfected” as I had explained and even linked to the very lexicon defining it. This means the render as “perfected” isn’t wrong which is my point. You have to show how the render of “perfected” is incompatible which you failed to do.
Next off is how weak your attempt to explain “perfected” is. Just because the oblation is “finished”, “done” or “perfected” does it entail that no change took place. In context of the fragment is just means giving thanks for the elements used for “nourishment”. With this in mind, the whole “nothing changes because the sacrifice is already “perfect”” argument fails.
Once the oblation is perfected or completed, the Holy Spirit is then invoked to “show” or exhibit the sacrifice where the bread is the body of Christ and the wine, the blood of Christ. We also know that this isn’t symbolic in the modern sense of the word. The use of “antitype” here refers to “exact counterpart” which means that either Irenaeus is contradicting himself here or there is something wrong with your reading of him. The point about the contextual definition of “antitype” by Irenaeus is unaddressed here.
Let us grant for a moment that Irenaeus is really being symbolic in your sense of the term. How then would statements such as,
” When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30″
or
“He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.”
Should Irenaeus really refer to the Eucharist as having no change taking place to the elements used, why would he use language that would say otherwise? This isn’t akin to Ignatius where the term Eucharist could just mean the entire rite of the Lord’s Supper in general. But even this warrants caution when the risen humanity of Jesus is believed by him to be present in it.
Here, explicit references to the elements used as being the flesh and blood of Christ. And even a statement where the cup is “acknowledged” as the blood of Christ and the bread, “established” as his own body. These choice of words are certainly one that does not bring to mind metaphor or figurative representation in the modern sense and certainly, Latin expressions of this would not ring out metaphor particularly when scholarship is unanimous on Irenaeus being realist in his conception of the Eucharist.
Even Eric Osborne who doesn’t make any definitive conclusions on Irenaeus’ Eucharistic doctrine point out how the Sacraments are a union between the spirit and flesh(pg 132). He also notes how the Eucharist is where the communicants will “communicate with Christ in his flesh”. Such a picture points to a Realist view which Osborne clearly attributes to Irenaeus.
A view akin to the Reformed fails to capture these since the sign does not participate in the reality signified by it in the Eucharist. The two are separate opposing the “joining of flesh and spirit” in the Sacrament. It contradicts Irenaeus’ statements where the bread itself is no longer ordinary bread but now have a twofold reality, earthly and heavenly when it receives the invocation of God. This exhibits the union between the “flesh and spirit” but one that is disjointed in Reformed Sacramental theology.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rVCVlyG0ldIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=eric+osborn+irenaeus+eucharist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf6P6_2JjMAhXIVxQKHcWeCnoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=eric%20osborn%20irenaeus%20eucharist&f=false
Of the Protestants only Lutherans can truly say that they are in agreement with the Ante Nicene church with regards to the their realism. Reformed cannot given their tendency to isolate the two and see Christ’s humanity as not present in the Eucharist for that would contradict the maxim of “the finite cannot contain the infinite” or Extra Calvinisticum.
Finally, my argument lies not in Transubstantiation. Certainly scholars agree and even Catholics, that one cannot find Transubstantiation in the Ante Nicene church and even beyond. Just because there is no Transubstantiation does it entail a Calvinistic view. I’m arguing for a historical perspective and the fathers in their own words, not of apologetical polemics which you and Brian Culliton love to do to the point of ignoring context and misrepresenting scholars.
Ex Calvinist, you responded,
But you have not addressed the fact that the Latin translation of the passage that I say is “when the oblation is ended” in the Greek, actually says “et postea finita oblatione.” Why have you not addressed that? It’s not like I just invented that fact.
You also observed,
“Just because the oblation is “finished”, “done” or “perfected” does it entail that no change took place.”
It certainly does. If the oblation cannot be completed until after the transubstantiation, then completing the oblation before the invocation militates powerfully against your assumption that Irenæus believed in transubstatiation. The whole purpose of transubstantiation is so the the minister can offer the oblation to God. If he offers it before the invocation of the Holy Spirit, but was still performing “the mass sacrifice,” you basically have Irenæus offering bread to God for the salvation of the world, a position which Roman Catholics typically find offensive. In fact, it makes Irenæus look like a bumbling fool, not an proto-Roman Catholic.
You continued,
Indeed, why would he offer an oblation at all if it was not transubstantiated? You know very well that he offered it before the invocation, and you also know very well that it is only at the invocation that transubstantiation is alleged to take place. Why the equivocation on this point? Can we not just agree that Irenæus was a heretic for conducting an offering before transubstantiating anything?
You continued,
I’m not that interested in what you think about what Osborne thought about Irenæus. I’m interested in what you think about Irenæus. You can start by at least addressing the fact that in this case, when we have both the Greek and the Latin, and we know what the Greek means (ended), and the Latin completely agrees with it (finita), there is a much stronger contextual argument for my reading, “And then, when we have completed the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit…”. It’s not like there is no supporting evidence for this position.
In any case, you wrote,
I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. Can you help me understand?
You also wrote,
Can you elaborate? I don’t know what you mean by that. I thought I was being very responsive.
You also wrote,
I don’t know what you mean by that. The comment to which you are responding is literally the first time I’ve ever addressed pseudo-Chrysostom’s use of “τελεσαντες” in the comment box. What do you mean by “regurgitating the same thing over again” if this is the first time I’ve ever used the argument with you?
Also, I didn’t see any argument from you about translating “antitypo” as “exact counterpart.” I saw that you asserted it as fact, and then cut and paste a hyperlink, but I didn’t see any construction of an argument from you, or proof that “antitypo” can mean “exact counterpart” rather than “symbol.” Do you care to elaborate?
Thanks,
Tim
First off is the fact that the Latin “finita” does not solely mean “finished” and can easily mean “appointed”. But either way the point of my argument is that the render of “perfected” isn’t any mistranslation at all. And secondly, do you even know Latin? The entire structure of the words use could very well be equivalent to the english render we now have.
I also posited that there’s really no argument against Irenaeus’ realist view should the word “finished” be used.
The “finishing” of the oblation is referred to as the “thanksgiving” for the gifts. Once such is done or finished, the Holy Spirit is invoked to turn these into the body and blood of Christ, or the Antitypes of them. This is my point and you are not addressing them.
I already agree and noted before that there is no Transubstantiation in the Early Church so your mention of it is simply a misrepresentation of my argument. Just because there is no Transubstantiation does it entail the Reformed view to be correct. So the burden is on you to show that Irenaeus doesn’t take the Realist view. With this, your whole series of questions later on regarding my citations of Irenaeus’ realist language to refer to the Eucharistic elements as somehow opposing to Catholic doctrine is pointless.
You are only arguing against a strawman here, not what I had written. But let’s continue.
My citation of Osborne is simply there to support my claims. There is nothing wrong with invoking scholarly authority on the subject matter in any debate or argument so long as they are indeed proper academical sources. This is also why I had posted a link regarding Irenaeus’ use of “antitype”. But there’s more for you on this subject besides Harvey’s note that “antitype” in Fragment 37 referring to “exact counterpart”.
In the “Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity”, Thomas Bohm explains the philosophical presuppositions that underlie the early church’s interpretation of Scripture,
“If one attempts to conceive the reference of explications of a text with regard to the intelligible more accurately, the shape of a manifold meaning of Scripture proves to be implicitly determined by philosophical categories, in part at least by Platonic philosophy. Th e (philosophical) allegory is primarily interested in how the problem is set, and this can be the philosophical and theological thought respectively, or the truth of reality in the poetry of Homer and the Platonic myths. One of the central aspects of (neo-) Platonic philosophy can be described as the presence of the prototype in the image.
Therefore, one can draw a conclusion from the image to the prototype or source because of an analogous structure: If the prototype causes something, the prototype must be present in the thing caused in some sense and, therefore, identical with it in some respect. However, the thing established by causation must also be different from the cause, so that analogy implies identity and difference at the same time. Th us, the sensual can be thought of as an effective sign of the intelligible, and the intelligible again as a sign of the transcending reality as such, because of the presence which had already been established within the intelligible: this is the structure in which the function of language and the theory of allegorical understanding can be seen in the context of a Platonizing thought”-(pg 217-218)
With this in mind, the use of the term “antitype” by Irenaeus would still support my point that it denotes the body and blood of Christ being somehow present in the “antitypes”. Bohn is also covering the allegorical and typological approach of the fathers in this essay after all in relation with history.
TIM K–
For clarification from the Order of Catholic Mass (USCCB):
The priest offers the Eucharistic Prayer in the first person plural, for example, “Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you…” This “we” signifies that all the baptized present at the Eucharistic celebration make the sacrificial offering in union with Christ, and pray the Eucharistic Prayer in union with him. And what is most important, we do not offer Christ alone; we are called to offer ourselves, our lives, our individual efforts to grow more like Christ and our efforts as a community of believers to spread God’s Word and to serve God’s people, to the Father in union with Christ through the hands of the priest. Most wonderful of all, although our offering is in itself imperfect, joined with the offering of Christ it becomes perfect praise and thanksgiving to the Father.
The modern day mass is perfectly in line with Irenaeus.
Bob, not sure how your clarification helps. Can you explain?
Thanks,
Tim
I’m not sure how it doesn’t help.
Everything in the order of the mass concerning the Eucharist is perfectly in alignment with Irenaeus’ writings.
Bob, can you explain how “Everything in the order of the mass concerning the Eucharist is perfectly in alignment with Irenaeus’ writings.” I understand the statement. What I don’t understand is why you believe it to be true. Can you show me from Irenæus’ writings that they are in alignment with the Mass? Just pasting something from the USCCB, which doesn’t even refer to Irenæus, does not support or prove your point.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM K–
IRENAEUS wrote: “When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation.
1. And vain likewise are those who say that God came to those things which did not belong to Him, as if covetous of another’s property; in order that He might deliver up that man who had been created by another, to that God who had neither made nor formed anything, but who also was deprived from the beginning of His own proper formation of men. The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man, restoring to His own handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning, that man was made after the image and likeness of God; not snatching away by stratagem the property of another, but taking possession of His own in a righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him. And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might gather us into the bosom of the Father.
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God–Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 2)
All of this is in perfect alignment with the Catholic Liturgy of the Eucharist:
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (no. 79) provides the following summary of the Eucharistic Prayer:
The main elements of which the Eucharistic Prayer consists may be distinguished from one another in this way:
a) The thanksgiving (expressed especially in the Preface), in which the Priest, in the name of the whole of the holy people, glorifies God the Father and gives thanks to him for the whole work of salvation or for some particular aspect of it, according to the varying day, festivity, or time of year.
b) The acclamation, by which the whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers, sings the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy). This acclamation, which constitutes part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself, is pronounced by all the people with the Priest.
c) The epiclesis, in which, by means of particular invocations, the Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is, become Christ’s Body and Blood, and that the unblemished sacrificial Victim to be consumed in Communion may be for the salvation of those who will partake of it.
d) The Institution narrative and Consecration, by which, by means of the words and actions of Christ, that Sacrifice is effected which Christ himself instituted during the Last Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave them to the Apostles to eat and drink, and leaving with the latter the command to perpetuate this same mystery.
e) The anamnesis, by which the Church, fulfilling the command that she received from Christ the Lord through the Apostles, celebrates the memorial of Christ, recalling especially his blessed Passion, glorious Resurrection, and Ascension into heaven.
f) The oblation, by which, in this very memorial, the Church, in particular that gathered here and now, offers the unblemished sacrificial Victim in the Holy Spirit to the Father. The Church’s intention, indeed, is that the faithful not only offer this unblemished sacrificial Victim but also learn to offer their very selves, and so day by day to be brought, through the mediation of Christ, into unity with God and with each other, so that God may at last be all in all.
g) The intercessions, by which expression is given to the fact that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church, of both heaven and of earth, and that the oblation is made for her and for all her members, living and dead, who are called to participate in the redemption and salvation purchased by the Body and Blood of Christ.
h) The concluding doxology, by which the glorification of God is expressed and which is affirmed and concluded by the people’s acclamation “Amen.”
Details of this can be found here:
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EP1-4.htm
Tim, your Presbyterian communion service is a concise version of this liturgy as noted in the response I gave to Timothy P below.
Timothy K. As I mentioned I am glad you agreed that the last 6 comments were correct translations of Irenaeus. Note your comments below.
As clumsy as the English rendering is, I can see that the rest of your interpretations from Book V, chapter 2 and Book IV chapter 18 flow from that clumsy rendering. Taking the rest of your allegedly “implicit” references to the “real presence,” but keeping them in their context, there is simply nothing else in his works to suggest what you call the “real presence”:
“2) of course, if He didn’t really take on flesh, “nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body”. That’s quite true. If he didn’t have a real body and real blood, how can the bread and wine symbolically represent a communion of either? I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
3) of course, “He has acknowledged the cup … as His own blood … and the bread … as His own body”. He has done so by antitypes, or symbols. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
4) of course, when “the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” They are made so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
5) of course, the bread and wine “having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ;” they become so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
6) of course, “the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood.” They are made so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
7) of course, “the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” It is so antitypically, as Irenæus has said.”
Now if you want to change what Irenaeus says you have to be willing to substitute the “symbol of the body” for the Body, the “symbol of the blood”, for the Blood. So I went back and made those substitution and let’s see what Irenaeus says. I’ll just substitute Symbol
.2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of THE SYMBOL OF HIS BLOOD, nor the bread which we break the communion of SYMBOL OF HIS BODY. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
3) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as THE SYMBOL OF HIS BLOOD, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as THE SYMBOL OF HIS BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
4. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the Symbol of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the Symbol of the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
5. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is THE SYMBOL OF HIS blood, and receives increase from the bread which is THE SYMBOL OF HIS body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the SYMBOL OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
6. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the SYMBOL OF THE BODY of their Lord, and the cup THE SYMBOL OF HIS Blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
7)Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the SYMBOL OF THE BODY of the Lord and with THE SYMBOL OF HIS BLOOD, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
So Timothy K, do you believe that when you receive the SYMBOLIC BREAD, your body is no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity? You can’t change a Church Fathers writing as you and Brian try to do so often and say this is really what he meant. It’s just like trying to change the words of Christ, he said THIS IS MY BODY, not THIS REPRESENTS MY BODY. You know He was God, tell me why he used the word “is” and not “represents”. You have the same problem with Irenaeus’s writings.
I had also asked you before what would happen if someone came into your Church and started preaching the doctrine of the Real Presence. You know as well as I do all hell would break out. There would be a loud rebellion. There would be a great debate. Many people would leave the Church. And we do know who denied the Real Presence in the early Church, it was the Gnostics. You have to explain to me why the issue was not debated.
Do you believe that the Apostles instructed the first Christians on whether Christ was really present in the Eucharist or just symbolically present? I would like to know who you lay the blame on. Apostles terrible teachers or early Christians many of who were martyred just too stupid to realize it was all symbolic?
Do you have mingled wine at your Eucharistic service?. Read Justin Martyr’s account of the Eucharistic Supper. Wine mixed with water. Do you remember when you were little and the Priest mixed the wine with water. Almost 2000 years of mixing wine with water, and yet after the Protestant Reformations some Christians have started using grape juice.
How about the “Invocation of the Holy Spirit” at the Eucharistic service that Irenaeus mentions. Do you practice that in your service at the time of the consecration? Do you remember this Eucharistic prayer, “And so Father, we bring you these gifts. We wish you to make them holy BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT THEY MAY BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF YOUR SON, OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.” Timothy K, at your service do you practice the invocation of the Holy Spirit to change the bread into symbolic bread? Do you need the Holy Spirit to create a symbol?Eventually we need to discuss Cyril of Jerusalem’s description of the Mass in his last two catechetical lectures . I would urge anyone who has not read those two lectures to review them. You will be blown away. Cyril is giving a very detailed description of the Mass at around the time they are settling the canon debate in the birthplace of Christianity. When I confronted Brian Culliton with this fact he said he didn’t consider Cyril a Church Father. Really? Brian decides who is and who is not a Church Father. Have a lot more to discuss, but hopefully will have more time this weekend. I again want to thank Timothy K for providing this format.
Timothy P,
You wrote,
If I understand correctly, you believe the “major flaw” in my exegesis is exposed when you substitute symbol into the remaining six paragraphs that you cited. Is that correct? I am asking because when you mentioned a “major flaw,” you did not explain what it was. Then when you wrote the comment regarding the remaining six paragraphs, you did not say that the substitution reveals the “major flaw.” In any case, I’m assuming at this point that your intent here is to point out the major flaw, so I will proceed accordingly. Let me know if that assumption is wrong.
You wrote,
I don’t believe I have ever said I wanted to change what Irenæus says. Can you point out where I suggested any such thing? I don’t understand why you would start to defend your position by suggesting something I have never said or claimed. I would kindly request an explanation for why you worded it that way, especially in a conversation in which you allege “to try and keep [me] from [my] skills of misdirection.” And yet, you open with what is to me a plain misdirection. Why would you do that?
I like what Irenæus says, and I don’t think it should be changed. That is why I rejected the clumsy translation that actually changed what Irenæus said.
I think what you meant was, “If you want to understand what Irenæus is saying, you have to understand Irenæus’ context and use of language.” I don’t know for sure if you meant that, but you know as well as I do that I never said I “want to change what Irenaeus says.” Rather I want “to understand Irenæus’ context and use of language,” perchance to understand Irenæus. I don’t understand if, or why, you would disagree with that.
You have gone through the paragraphs (2-6), aghast that anyone could possibly interpret Irenæus as symbolic, but that is not something I have introduced to the text. It is Irenæus who actually believed the elements of the Lord’s Supper to be symbolic, and based on how Irenæus used the term in Fragment 37 when he was actually talking about the Lord’s Supper, I have no problem with what he says in the remaining paragraphs you cited from Against Heresies. As I have elsewhere shown, in that particular section, he is rebutting the claims of those who state that Jesus “appeared in mere seeming,” that is, spiritually (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 1, paragraph 2). If Jesus did not take on actual flesh and blood, a physical body and physical blood, then the symbols of physical bread and physical wine make no sense. Why symbolize a spiritual body with physical bread? That would be a poor antitype. What you find in the early fathers is that they reasoned in exactly that way, and every quote you provided was from Irenæus’ rejection of those who were claiming that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh. I read him and understand him in that context.
But when speaking of the actual Lord’s Supper, Irenæus says the bread and wine are just symbolic of a heavenly reality—they are antitypical. They are not the actual things they represent. That is Irenæus’ actual statement about the elements. When he spoke of the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper, he called them, “these antitypes,” and antitypes is a Greek word for symbol, figure, etc… (Irenæus, Fragment 37).
You wrote,
Well, let’s ask Irenæus. He says the elements of the Lord’s supper are antitypes, and that the oblation of the new covenant is not carnal according to the law but spiritual according to the new covenant, the giving of thanks and praise, our spiritual act of service, citing Romans 12:1 and Hebrews 13:15, and identifies the giving of thanks and praise as the oblation of the new covenant. And he says that the oblation of the new covenant in accordance with Malachi 1:11, and that oblation is complete before the Holy Spirit is invoked over the elements, and when the invocation is complete, there is no mention of offering a sacrifice, but rather exhibiting one. When we have completed that oblation—an oblation with which I wholly concur—we then exhibit the symbols of Jesus flesh and blood. All of this from Irenæus, and all of which Irenæus believed he had received from the apostles:
Yes, Jesus instituted a new oblation in the new covenant—the giving of thanks. I participate in that sacrifice daily. And as often as we come together, we participate in that sacrifice of praise collectively and then exhibit the figures of Jesus’ body and blood and by receiving those figures of bread and wine we participate in the communion of His body and the communion of His blood, just as the apostles taught and just as Irenæus believed.
You also asked,
Yes, we do, but I think you are reading into Irenæus’ something that you ought not. He said,
Do you use manufactured bread in the Lord’s supper? I do. The mingled cup refers to the manufacturing process for wine, just as the reference to manufactured bread refers to the making of the bread. Wine doesn’t grow on vines. Grapes do. Bread doesn’t grow on stocks. Wheat does. The bread and wine have to be made. In the process of making wine for common use, the final step is to mix the merum with water to make it suitable for drinking. It’s not like Irenæus was adding a step in the liturgy. Do you think he was? Why do you ask?
You also wrote,
I have no trouble with “is.” You think you have “noticed” this, but you offered no evidence. Do you have any? I have a problem with reading Irenæus out of context. When Irenæus speaks of the elements of the Lord’s supper for what they actually are, he actually use the actual Greek word for symbol. It is my belief that you do not have trouble with that. I don’t either. What it comes down to is what “antitype” actually means. It is my understanding that antitype is a Greek word meaning figure or symbol. Do you have another definition? Can you justify it? Based on Irenæus use of that antitype in the context of the Lord’s supper, and also understanding that in all the citations you provided Irenæus is arguing against people who claimed Jesus only seemed to appear, all of what Irenæus said makes sense, and none of it makes the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper anything more than symbols set aside for sacred use, and none of it needs to be changed.
That said, can you define what you think “real presence” means? In some circles, “real presence” means Jesus’ flesh is present literally and substantially under the accident of bread by transubstantiation and therefore the bread is to be worshiped, and in other circles “real presence” means Jesus is actually spiritually present to the recipient of the figures of bread and wine by faith, and therefore He is truly present even though the bread and wine remain substantially bread and wine. You can understand, I’m sure, that unless “real presence” is defined, it will be difficult to continue this conversation.
Thanks,
Tim
TIMOTHY P–
FYI, the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship has this epiclesis:
“Gracious God,
pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break
and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.
By your Spirit unite us with the living Christ
and with all who are baptized in his name,
that we may be one in ministry in every place.
As this bread IS Christ’s body for us,
send us out to be the body of Christ in the world.”
Whether they admit it or not, they invoke the Holy Spirit by asking God to unite them with the living Christ through which, for them, the bread IS Christ’s Body. In turn, they become the Body of Christ in the world. That little word “is” has powerful meaning. Is the LIVING Christ present in their Eucharist like He promised? Presbyterians are Chalcedonian and believe in the hypostatic union. And they are two or more gathered in His name for Communion. Therefore, He is right there in their midst, and whether or not they deny it as transubstantiation, they are eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood because that is what they asked for.
Bob, you are so right, “That little word “is” has powerful meaning. It baffles me when Timothy K then denies that Irenaeus is explicit . If I said “The apple is red” would Timothy K claim I’m not being explicit.
The other part where I see Timothy K having trouble with the “invocation of the Holy Spirit” described by Irenaeus is at the last Supper accounts where Christ says “Do this in memory of me”. There is no mention of the “invocation of the Holy Spirit” in any of the Last Supper accounts , As you mentioned it obviously has been retained in the Presbyterian prayer book but where is their biblical basis for the practice at that liturgical moment? Oral Tradition, not mentioned in Scripture?
TIM K–
Of course there is no mention of Irenaeus in the post from USCCB. Should there be?
And now that you have read all that (I assume that you did),
you see that there is nothing in the Catholic Liturgy of the Mass that is not in line with Irenaeus.
Why do you think it isn’t?
Ex Calvinist, I could have warned you that the One Fold Blog is not nearly as willing to discuss the issues. While we can disagree, one would hope that a person could just present their case and avoid personal attacks. I realize it goes both ways and have been embarrassed by some of the Catholic commentators.
I had asked Timothy K about his knowledge of the ancient Greek and Latin and I think the point you made focuses on the issues. Ex Calvinist wrote
“I would like to make some mention regarding Tim K’s use of translation. It is obviously one that is definitely dishonest since the differences between languages in how they operate and the multiplicity of meanings for words should be evident to anyone. This means that one should and ought to either have a valid scholarly authority to cite to back up the point given or at least have some understanding of Latin. To simply ignore these is not even laziness but deceit.
So Tim K, where are other translations that are rendered in the same way as yours? If yours is correct then surely others who have knowledge of the Latin language who translated the text would produce one that is agreeable to you”.”
Now I for one have no knowledge of ancient Greek and other then a year of Latin in High School mostly forgotten very little knowledge of Latin. But obviously the opinion of experts in the fields would have more weight then someone who is looking up things in a concordance . And if they are quoting a scholar to make a point it obviously would be helpful to name the scholar.
I have no problem with Timothy K wanting to give another interpretation of the first of seven quotes that I felt show that Irenaeus believed in the real presence, and I would agree his translation lessens that quotes usefulness in proving my point. But Timothy K still has to deal with the other 6.
Even more important is this question of the meaning of “symbol, figure, types and antitypes” by the Church Fathers. If the recognized experts are right and the understanding of those ancient writers was that that which is symbolized is somehow present in the symbol itself, then obviously references to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and others referring to the Eucharist as a figure or symbol does not carry weight that they did not believe in the real presence. The Council of Trent refers to the Eucharist as a symbol, who would question that council members belief in the real presence? And normally you would accept the opinion of the experts unless you claimed that you know more then they do concerning the subject, or could name another well respected expert that would refute that position. So Timothy Kauffman, that is why I wanted to know if you were fluent in the ancient Greek or Latin? It appears you disagree with Schaff ‘s opinion of the subject, do you also disagree with JND Kelly, Willam Crockett and the other experts Catholic apologist cite that refute your opinion? It appears that you accept that you and Schaff disagree on the matter, how about the rest of the cited experts. Do you disagree with all of them. Brian Culliton as I remember when faced with this dilemma would just say the experts were taken out of context, trying to cite another quote that he felt refuted what the expert had stated. The other statements he gave never refuted or contradicted the initial statement.
So Timothy K, do you disagree with all the experts cited and I think it’s important to know if you are fluent in Latin and the ancient Greek. If I am going to have brain surgery, I want a well trained neurosurgeon, not someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn last night
Timothy P,
To answer your most pressing question, I have studied neither Latin nor Greek. I have no formal training in either.
That said, I can say with confidence, and any Latin scholar can as well, that
means that Christ did not come to that which was alien to Him, but visited us in His grace, and conferred on our flesh the capacity for salvation. Much later in the sentence, it concludes, “in eucharistia exhibendo.” Yes, Jesus exhibits in the Lord’s Supper the truth of His incarnation and death for us. We imitate Him in that. This is not rocket science. Can you honestly read the Latin above and conclude that it is through the Eucharist that Jesus confers on our flesh the ability to be saved? I cannot, and thus, I reject the rendering in Schaff, as the Latin is so easily accessible to us. But if my lack of training in Latin and Greek is a barrier to our conversation, then feel free to ignore what I write. Participation here is not compulsory.
Regarding the experts, they have contributed greatly to the library of history, but they are not without their flaws and are not always worthy of the deference that is made to them. As I noted elsewhere, Schaff used Gregory of Nyssa to understand Irenæus, but if Nyssa at the end of the fourth century was the first to write that Jesus sacrificed Himself on Thursday night at the Last Supper before the Crucifixion, he can hardly be used to interpret Irenæus’ meaning at the end of the second, two hundred years before that novelty originated. Schaff erred greatly on that point, and it is not scholarly to defer to him on it.
I have studied JND Kelly on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and he traces it to the first century. It is a great error. The mass sacrifice originated at the end of the 4th century, and due to his confusion, Kelly was unable to discern what, precisely, was being sacrificed in the Didache’s references to offering and sacrifice. Yet with a little study, it can be discerned quite easily that the sacrifice of the early church, and the sacrifice depicted in the Didache, was prayers of gratitude, not consecrated bread and wine. Kelly capitulated too early to the Roman Catholic claims, and surrendered at precisely where the battle is most easily won. It is not scholarly to defer to him on that point.
I have studied Ferguson on baptismal regeneration, and he analyzes Hippolytus’ Discourse on the Holy Theophany, giving a chapter-by-chapter summary of Hippolytus’ view on Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan river, never once mentioning Hippolytus’ explicit instructions that he was not to be taken literally, and without once bringing to bear the fact that Hippolytus thought Jesus’ baptism was a figure for the crucifixion. Ferguson waxes historical on Hippolytus, thinking he has found Hippolytus’ heart on baptism, not realizing that he has found Hippolytus’ heart on the Cross. On Origen, Ferguson deferred to French Jesuits, Crouzel and Daniélou, and because of that, concluded the very opposite of what Origen was saying on baptism. At the very point that Origen is separating rebirth from water baptism, Ferguson puts them back together, and represents it as Origen’s position on receiving the Spirit in the visible waters of baptism—the very thing Origen was denying. It is not scholarly to defer to him on it.
I have read Bellarmini, Justellus, Hefele, Schaff and Loughlin on Canon 6 of Nicæa, and to man, they relied on Jerome, Rufinus and Innocent I on the geographic order of the Roman Empire at the time of the council, and yet Jerome, Rufinus and Innocent I were catastrophically wrong, as they deferred to the late 4th century geographic order to understand a very different geographic order that existed in the early 4th century. It is not scholarly to defer to them in their errors.
Thus, I am happy to read the experts. They are often helpful. But they often err, and so often capitulate to Rome and defer to late 4th century novelties to understand the first three centuries of Christianity, that they simply cannot be considered the final say. Where they are helpful, I am happy to seek their aid. Where they are in error, I am also happy to point it out.
Now if I am an illiterate fool, a point that I am only too happy to stipulate, and you do not suffer illiterate fools well, then Out of His Mouth is not the place for you, and you will not be happy here. But I think even you, with your limited Latin training can understand that “Christus non venit in aliena, cum sua nos gratia visitavit, et carni nostrae contulit capacem esse salutis…” means Jesus conferred on us the capability for salvation by His incarnation. And yet, because you are compelled to defer to the experts, you have concluded, and in fact stated, that Jesus conferred upon us the capacity for salvation through the Eucharist, based on the Latin cited above.
I disagree with your conclusion, and I don’t believe it can be substantiated from the Latin translation in Migne. But like I said, I am but an illiterate fool. If in my ignorance I am constrained to engage in a volley of expert citations (experts who often defer to Rome and commit gross exegetical and historical errors) I politely withdraw from this conversation.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K
Where did I call or suggest you were an illiterate fool? In fact I told you first that I was neither a scholar of Latin or ancient Greek. Does that make me illiterate? Hardly. In fact I have great admiration for your debating skills. It takes much more skill to successfully defend an untruth then to defend the truth. For example, in the OJ Simpson trial, who was smarter, OJ’s lawyers or the prosecuting attorneys. The prosecutors had DNA evidence linking him to the crime, that’s better then an eyewitness. And yet they lost. The key in this situation is to try and keep you from your skills of misdirection. Your last comments are a perfect example. I had already conceded that the way you translated the first quotation definitely under minded that quote as an explicit confirmation of Irenaeus’s belief in the real presence. As Ex-Calvinst pointed out translating is tricky. But you agreed that the next six quotes where accurately translated and then tried to explain what Irenaeus really meant with your “they are made so antitypically”. I don’t read that in the text and neither do you. How desperate can you be! And of course when I made the changes you desire you have Irenaeus professing
“and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the SYMBOL OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption”
I don’t think you believe you gain eternal life from eating Symbolic bread , do you?
Another example of your misdirection. The topic you and ex Calvinist were having was over the meaning of symbols, figure, type and antitypes to the ancient writers. So you start discussing the sacrifice of the Mass, Baptismal regeneration and the geographic order of the Roman Empire instead of providing a single authority that supports your position. I spoke to a debate coach who says what you are doing is called Gist Gallop, where you throw everything but the kitchen sink at the opponent in a debate in order to overwhelm them rather then focusing on the issue being debated. Now do experts disagree on occasion? Sure they do. But in the situation concerning the use of symbol, figure, type and antitype as used by the ancient Fathers they all seem to be in agreement. And you have not provided a single authority to back up your position.
Timothy K, you wrote
“Now if I am an illiterate fool, a point that I am only too happy to stipulate, and you do not suffer illiterate fools well, then Out of His Mouth is not the place for you, and you will not be happy here. ‘
Actually I am perfectly happy on this site. Ex Calvinist and Bob have raised points that I had not thought of. For example this comment from Ex Calvinist
“Here, explicit references to the elements used as being the flesh and blood of Christ. And even a statement where the cup is “acknowledged” as the blood of Christ and the bread, “established” as his own body. These choice of words are certainly one that does not bring to mind metaphor or figurative representation in the modern sense and certainly, Latin expressions of this would not ring out metaphor particularly when scholarship is unanimous on Irenaeus being realist in his conception of the Eucharist. ”
It’s very similar to Clement talking about the incredible Mystery, who describes a metaphor as an incredible mystery.
Timothy P,
Please do not cut and paste conversations from other blogs here. I have no interest in them. And will delete them in the future.
You wrote,
If you re-read my post, you will find that at no point did I accuse you of calling me that. You’ll note that I called myself that, and it was in response to your specific question about whether I was fluent in Greek and Latin, and that in the context of whether I know more than the experts do. You wrote,
To which I responded,
I am not fluent in Latin or Greek. And I am not an expert. I stipulate that in Latin and Greek I am an illiterate fool. I have not accused you of calling me that.
You wrote,
I haven’t responded to that comment yet, but I will.
You wrote,
The “misdirection” you allege did not occur in a conversation I was having with Ex Calvinist. It was a conversation I was having with you, and it was not about symbols, figure, type and antetypes. It was about experts. You asked specifically about “experts,” and I responded about “experts.” You observed,
The offending language that you have called “misdirection” in a conversation with Ex Calvinis was actually a response to a specific question from you about experts. I wrote,
That citation is truncated for brevity, but within that ellipsis were contained several examples from experts regarding “the sacrifice of the Mass, Baptismal regeneration and the geographic order of the Roman Empire” in which their expertise failed them. They were examples of why I do not simply “accept the opinion of the experts”. Thus, the alleged “misdirection” in a “topic with ex Calvinist” was actually a direct response from me to your direct question to me in a conversation you were having with me.
If I were uncharitable, I would lodge a counterclaim that your allegation of “misdirection” was itself a misdirection, but I actually believe that you accidentally misinterpreted my response to you as a response to ex Calvinist, and here an accidental misinterpretation is a forgivable offense. Please note, in any case that my words, “Regarding the experts…” were intended to connect my answer with your question about whether I disagree with or defer to the experts. Experts are occasionally wrong, as I noted, and thus, I am not always deferential to them.
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy K, these quotes were taken from JND Kelly on a Catholic apologist website and I wonder is you agree or disagree with JND Kelly.
“So says J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford scholar and one of the greatest Protestant patristic scholars of the 20th century. Schaff may have been good last century, but his accounts on the Eucharist are incomplete and misleading. Further, Kelly goes on to say concerning -figura- —
“Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.’
“YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’
“All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them [as do Catholics today — see the Catechism, paragraphs 1333ff].
“In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine.” (JND Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, page 212)
Tim P, the tactic of Tim K reminds me of a favorite ‘philosophy’ of Reformed Protestantism, Presuppositionalism. If Tim K was right that Ferguson et al. are wrong, he can easily find other sources that say otherwise. It’s simple. But this is not what we seen.
I checked out his first article on addressing the thesis of Baptismal regeneration in the Early Church and I was utterly shocked. It’s simply lawyering around so to speak overall.
Here’s something for Tim K, I know that this is a red herring but I think the answer will determine his reasonableness.
What is your stance on the age of the universe and evolution. Should the answer be in opposition to an old universe and evolution, why despite the scientific consensus and the fact that both of these can easily be falsified?
Ex Calvinist,
You wrote,
My objection to Ferguson was that in his analysis he did not mention that Hippolytus said explicitly regarding Jesus’ baptism, “When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure.” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 2). I do not need an expert to tell me that Hippolytus believed Jesus’ baptism was to be taken figuratively here. From his Discourse on the Holy Theophany and his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, it is clear that Hippolytus saw the Holy Theophany and Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan as a figure for what Jesus did not the cross. My support for this is in the article and I will not restate it here. But Hippolytus is explicit on these points, and Ferguson’s expertise clearly failed him, so he read baptismal regeneration into the Discourse. I don’t need other sources to tell me that. Hippolytus tells me that, and I think Hippolytus is more of an expert on Hippolytus than Ferguson is. You’re right, it is simple.
Likewise, Jerome thought Canon 6 of Nicæa placed Antioch over the whole Diocese of Oriens (totius Orientis). Any schoolboy knows that’s not possible—Alexandria was located within the same Diocese, and Canon 6 assigned to Alexandria three of Oriens’ provinces. Therefore, Canon 6 did not grant totius Orientis to Antioch. But Bellarmini, Justellus, Hefele and Loughlin all accepted Jerome’s error. I don’t need an expert to tell me Jerome was wrong. Alexandria was located within Oriens at the time of the Council, but historians have universally accepted Jerome’s error unquestioningly. They are wrong to do so. You’re right. It is simple.
You mentioned that my first article on Baptismal Regeneration is “simply lawyering around.” I don’t know what that means.
Bryan Cross, to whom I was responding in the article, cited Barnabas, “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit,” and concluded,
I responded that Barnabas said explicitly that conversion and new life occurred by believing in the preached word, and that “they who, placing their trust in the cross” go “down into the water.” Sounds like baptism followed regeneration there. I don’t need an expert to tell me this. You’re right. It is actually quite simple.
Bryan Cross cited the Shepherd of Hermas, and concluded, “Just as in the Epistle of Barnabas, the candidate is described as going into the water dead, and coming out alive.” But the Shepherd of Hermas explicitly states that he is not referring to a baptismal “candidate,” but to righteous men, prophets, teachers and apostles of past generations who had fallen asleep “in righteousness and in great purity.” So much for the connection between the Epistle of Barnabas in which the “candidates” “go down into the water full of sins and foulness.” It is clear that The Shepherd was not even talking about “candidates.” I don’t need an expert to tell me this. You’re right. It is actually quite simple.
That said, there are many other examples beside these, but which of these have earned for me the description, “simply lawyering around”? May I not consult the original writers and see what they said for themselves?
As to your “red herring,” I believe the earth was created in six literal days, thousands of years ago (not millions or billions) and I believe that the theory of evolution is untenable and unscriptural. That said, I found your question to be phrased in such a way that I could not discern its meaning. You said, “both of these can easily be falsified” in such a way that you appear to refer to “an old universe and evolution.” Is it your position that “old universe and evolution” can be easily falsified? Or is it rather that a young universe and special creation can be easily falsified? I will appreciate and look forward to your clarification.
Thank you,
Tim
TIM K–
You said: “I believe the earth was created in six literal days, thousands of years ago (not millions or billions) and I believe that the theory of evolution is untenable and unscriptural.”
That says a lot coming from you, Mr. Copernicus! That begs the question, so do you then believe that carbon dating is bogus? Or am I to surmise that “six literal days” are taken literally in the Old Testament biblical meanings the way that Ezekiel and Daniel meant them using the “day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day” protocol?
Bob, it doesn’t beg the question, it raises the question.
You asked, “so do you then believe that carbon dating is bogus?” I do not believe carbon dating is bogus. I believe carbon dating attempts to establish an environmental history based on the assumption of a continuity of environmental history regarding the carbon constituency of the atmosphere, and that assumption is bogus.
You continued,
I have no knowledge of Ezekiel and Daniel using “day” in the sense that Peter does. But more to the point, when Daniel speaks of 2,300 days (Daniel 8:14), he actually does not use “days” but “evenings and mornings,” consistent with the use in Genesis 1. Just as Daniel’s reference to 2,300 evenings and mornings refer to literal days, so too does Genesis refer to literal days. “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5).
Thanks,
Tim
TIM K–
You said: “Daniel speaks of 2,300 days (Daniel 8:14), he actually does not use “days” but “evenings and mornings,” consistent with the use in Genesis 1. Just as Daniel’s reference to 2,300 evenings and mornings refer to literal days, so too does Genesis refer to literal days. “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5).”
That is very interesting that you use Genesis 1:5 as the reference. Let’s look at that a bit:
Gen 1:1 ff
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
So as yet there is no earth as we know it–total emptiness without form and void– to rotate on its axis to make a 24 hour day. No sun or moon either. They weren’t created until the 4th “day”.
“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. ”
Remember there was no sun to make the light of day, nor was there an earth to revolve around the non-existent sun or to rotate on it’s axis to divide the night and day. I would figure you would have noticed this, Tim, since you are a fan of Copernicus. So God is talking about something else here because there is no sunrise nor sunset. My guess would be “the beginning and the ending of the first period of creation”–however long that took him to do it. That tells me that Peter’s “God’s day is a “thousand years”(thousand meaning and uncountable number) fits perfectly with the creation story in light of relatively recent cosmological knowledge.
So whether in Genesis or Daniel or Peter’s epistles, biblically speaking an “evening and morning” or “day” does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period of time just like a “thousand” does not necessarily mean 10 times one hundred.
Bob,
As you know, Daniel did not say “2,300 sunrises and sunsets,” and Genesis 1 does not say “And the sunset and the sunrise were the first day.” There is no mention of sunrise and sunsets, so your objection that “there was no sun to make the light of day, nor was there an earth to revolve” is a diversion. Genesis 1:4-5 says explicitly, “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” You do not need a sunrise or a sunset or a revolving earth for there to be an evening and a morning.
Further, as Joshua 10:13 says, you do not even need the sun or earth to move for there to be a day: “the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”
I stand by what I said I believe: the earth was created in six literal days thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.
Tim
TIM K–
You said: “There is no mention of sunrise and sunsets, so your objection that “there was no sun to make the light of day, nor was there an earth to revolve” is a diversion. Genesis 1:4-5 says explicitly, “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” You do not need a sunrise or a sunset or a revolving earth for there to be an evening and a morning.”
Really? A diversion? You are the one diverting. Notice the Hebrew:
EVENING:
עֶרֶב `ereb
Outline of Biblical Usage:
I.evening, night, sunset
A.evening, sunset
B.night
Root Word (Etymology)
From עָרַב masculine noun ʻârab, aw-rab’; a primitive root (rather identical with H6148 through the idea of covering with a texture); to grow dusky at sundown:—be darkened, (toward) evening.
And this is even more interesting:
MORNING:
בֹּקֶר bôqer, masculine noun properly, dawn (as the break of day); generally, morning:—(+) day, early, morning, morrow.
Outline of Biblical Usage:
I.morning, break of day
A.morning
i.of end of night
ii.of coming of daylight
iii.of coming of sunrise
iv.of beginning of day
v.of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
B.morrow, next day, next morning
From the primitive root בָּקַר bâqar, baw-kar; properly, to plough, or (generally) break forth, i.e. (figuratively) to inspect, admire, care for, consider:—(make) inquire (-ry), (make) search, seek out.
Outline of Biblical Usage:
I.to seek, enquire, consider
A.(Piel)
i.to seek, look for
ii.to consider, reflect
(In other words, “to shed light on a subject” or “that idea had not even dawned on him yet”.)
So, yeah, Tim. Sunset and sunrise is no diversion on my part. It is integral of the Hebrew definition of evening and morning. So when there is no earth to rotate on its axis and no sun to “rise or set”, then the meaning of evening and morning must mean something else than a 24 hour “day” or period of time(yom) as measured today.
The root meanings of the words do allude to a more primitive meaning such as dark and light; dark meaning undiscernible and light meaning discernible.
That is perfectly in line with Creation:
Evening to Morning = chaos to order
or
From nothing into something.
That allows for six literal periods of time that could be millions or billions of years or, biblically speaking, “thousands and thousands” of years.
Well, I’d question your use of the word “integral,” since evening can simply refer to “darkness” and morning can simply refer to breaking forth of light, both of which can occur with or without the movement of the sun, and as I mentioned, a literal day occurs even when the earth does not rotate on its axis and the sun does not move in the sky:
So no, sunrise and sunset are not “integral” to the meaning of day, nor are they “integral” to the meaning of evening (coming of darkness) or morning (coming of light) for “integral” means they are “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental,” or “having or containing all parts that are necessary to be complete,” and it is clear from Joshua that a day can occur without the sun rising or setting, and without the sun moving in the sky or the earth rotating on its axis. As I said, your invalid requirement that the sun exist and move in the sky in order for a day to occur is merely a diversion.
Aside from that, your various claims that “evening and morning” may refer to millions or billions of years because there was no sun to move in the sky and that it may refer to the transition from chaos to order or nothing to something, are all overturned by the fact that ‘nothing to something’ and “chaos to order” only occurs on the first day, and yet “evening and morning” is used for the rest of the week.
In any case, “science” by its very nature is fallacious, and Scripture, by its very nature is Truth. Thus, Scripture does need to be reconciled to “science,” for what is true does not need to be reconciled with what is false. Science, rather, needs to be reconciled to Scripture.
I can see from your line of reasoning that you believe “science” to be a source of truth (it is not, and cannot be), but if science is your source of truth, then we can really have no meaningful conversation about whether what the Scripture says is truth, because you require that truth to bow to fallacy.
Thanks, though,
Tim
TIM K–” it is clear from Joshua that a day can occur without the sun rising or setting, and without the sun moving in the sky or the earth rotating on its axis.”
No, the quote from Joshua only shows that the day was extended a longer time until the sun went down. The day did not end until sunset, which only proves that God can make a day last longer than 24 hours.
You also said: “As I said, your invalid requirement that the sun exist and move in the sky in order for a day to occur is merely a diversion.”
Right. And I just demonstrated from the quote from Joshua that it is not my diversion but yours.
And you also said: “Aside from that, your various claims that “evening and morning” may refer to millions or billions of years because there was no sun to move in the sky and that it may refer to the transition from chaos to order or nothing to something, are all overturned by the fact that ‘nothing to something’ and “chaos to order” only occurs on the first day, and yet “evening and morning” is used for the rest of the week.”
It occurs every “day”. Everything that God created was from nothing (darkness – evening) to something (light – morning). So, no, my claims are not overturned. Yours are.
And you finally said: “I can see from your line of reasoning that you believe “science” to be a source of truth (it is not, and cannot be), but if science is your source of truth, then we can really have no meaningful conversation about whether what the Scripture says is truth, because you require that truth to bow to fallacy.”
And I can see by your line of reasoning that Scripture can only mean what you says it means and you assert that to be the truth. The problem is your assertion of truth cannot be corroborated with actual science and actual history. You have to stretch your version of the truth to fit, which means literary license with Scripture.
Well, like I said, we can have no meaningful conversation.
Thanks, though.
Tim
TIM K–
And you responded with the well used brush off: “Well, like I said, we can have no meaningful conversation.
Thanks, though.”
That’s what I like about Sola Scriptura. Your interpretation of scripture holds no more weight or authority that mine, even when we go all the way back to the original language to get the full meaning.
And then you conclude that we can’t have a meaningful conversation.
Contendia quoted on your post “Asking the Wrong Questions” that T. David Gordon, a professor at the college, gave Sola Scriptura as the best basis for unity from the Protestant perspective.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
But I do like reading your opinions. It gives me pointers for practicing my own apologetics.
Greek word for thousand = χίλιοι meaning: plural of uncertain affinity. In other words, one thousand is a really big uncountable number.
First off, Hippolytus only asked for his statement prior to be taken figuratively, not the whole thing. This is obvious for anyone who took their time to read it.
“Nor is this the only thing that proves the dignity of the water. But there is also that which is more honourable than all— the fact that Christ, the Maker of all, came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river, and was baptized in the Jordan. For you have just heard how Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan. Oh things strange beyond compare! How should the boundless River that makes glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water! The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters! He who is present everywhere, and absent nowhere— who is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to men— comes to the baptism according to His own good pleasure. When you hear these things, beloved, take them not as if spoken literally, but accept them as presented in a figure. ”
Christ did not literally came down as rain. He is not a literal spring. If any, here he is metaphorically describing Christ in relation to his baptism here to further emphasize the “dignity of water”. He isn’t saying anything that would be detrimental to Baptismal Regeneration or that the entire rite of Baptism is simply a mere figure. Don’t tell me the “sea” literally spoke to Christ about “seeing Him in the form of a servant”. With these, it’s no wonder that the advice to take stuff like these, “figuratively”. These doesn’t refer to any act of Baptism or Baptismal regeneration itself.
So if any, it takes a hell lot of retconning to somehow perceive this as him making the rest of the disclosure as a mere “figure” or metaphor. He merely refers to the statements before.
Numerous statements in the disclosure also entails a literalistic view of the Baptismal regeneration. For example in paragraph 8,
“Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all you kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, says one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.”
Here, the benefits of coming into liberty and incorruption is given in Baptism. We know this when the notation of Christ’s own Baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove is mentioned here. This is not “figurative” speech as we know these refer to the statements made in the second paragraph or those akin to it. This isn’t the same as the metaphors used to emphasize the dignity of water in the second paragraph.
Also, a simply wiki shows that the very capital of the “Diocese of Orients” is at Antioch. This is why Jerome made this statement. There is also a separate Diocese of Egypt whose capital is Alexandria. So Jerome is not wrong here. You are.
Here’s the map of the Diocese of the Orients
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_the_East#/media/File:Dioecesis_Orientis_400_AD.png
And here’s one for the Diocese of Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Egypt#/media/File:Dioecesis_Aegypti_400_AD.png
These dioceses would be formed when Jerome was still alive and writing the letter against John of Jerusalem(around 398-399). So no, Jerome is actually correct to say this since by his time, the very diocese of the Orients and Egypt are split into two and the very sees don’t overlap.
So though Jerome read the Canons of Nicea under the lens of recent provincial divisions, he isn’t wrong. He is right given the very mappings of those two dioceses are different. You know of this yourself on your post regarding this. Yet, you have to make a mountain out of this Molehill, and for what? So, only if the Diocese of the Orients in Schaff et al. refers to prior the division of the Diocese of the Orients, then yes you are correct to say that they are wrong. But if they aren’t and using it as Jerome does, they are right just as Jerome is since the later division makes it such that the territories belonging to the Diocese of Egypt and the See of Alexandria do not overlap.
With regards to the Epistle to Barnabas, your point fail to disprove or debunk the notion that it opposes Baptismal regeneration. In fact you are placing a false dichotomy in here. The motif of entering into the water with sin and rising out with the bearing of fruits and the fear and hope in Jesus already calls into mind, a sort of regeneration that takes place. True enough, the role of belief and faith cannot be underestimated here since clearly, one must have those before Baptism itself. It’s why those in preparation of it are thought about the preaching of the Church before the rite begins. In fact, the logic of “Blessed is he who place their hope on the cross AND descended into the water” entails that one must to both, not to only do one.
The Shepard of Hermas doesn’t talk about Baptismal candidates so in this regard, Cross is wrong. However its stress on the necessity of Baptism cannot be ignored. This is why eventhough it refers to the righteous, prophets and apostles who have fallen asleep, they still need to be “raised through the water” to be made alive. The apostles were also said to be preaching to the dead.
The statement which Cross cited also lay stress on this, not referring to the righteous dead and apostles but to anyone hence the use of “when a man”. So, only in the regard of the subject of reference is Cross wrong but in using it to support Baptismal regeneration, he is right.
There is nothing wrong with reading the original texts themselves just as there is nothing wrong with referring to academic resources that specialize in examining and studying them. However something is very wrong when one ignores context and read their own views into the fathers themselves or simply copy and paste without any explanation behind their reasoning.
This is why as I had mentioned before, I use academic sources as reference, not apologetical.
Onto your final point, it should be clear that I refer to Evolution and the age of the universe as uncovered by scientific research to be easily falsifiable and so is the antithesis to these positions.
The one that can stand up to scrutiny is the one that can be said to be scientifically valid.
So Tim K, explain why the scientific community unanimously despite differing personal beliefs and convictions accept these as scientific facts at this point?
Why from a scientific standpoint are they untenable? Or are you simply dissing them on the basis of your interpretation of Scripture
Dear Ex Calvinisit,
You wrote,
I think if you rethink your comment you’ll realize that you’re actually supporting my argument. Hippolytus wrote, “The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters!” (Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 2). Clearly, he has identified Jesus as the Illimitable Spring that bears life. So later when you quote chapter 8, you need to start at the beginning of the chapter instead of skipping Hippolytus’ point and starting at the middle. Chapter 8 begins,
Clearly, Hippolytus has invited our attention not to the Roman baptismal font, but to Christ, “for I wish to go back to the fountain of life.” He is bring us back to the figures he introduced in chapters 1 and 2.
But Ferguson interprets that “fountain of life” as the baptismal font:
Ferguson is allegedly an expert, perhaps “the expert,” on baptismal regeneration in the early church. Yet and he completely misses this. In fact, he misses one of the most critical aspects of Hippolytus’ view of Jesus’ baptism—that it figured His death. It was clearly at the forefront of Hippolytus’ thinking, as it surfaces quite clearly in two of his works:
Note how closely wed were the theophany at the Jordan and the crucifixion in the mind of Hippolytus. The two were interchangeable. Why did “This is My Beloved Son” at the Jordan remind Hippolytus that Jesus was “is pierced in the side, and yet repairs the side of Adam”? Why did “He shall wash his garment in wine … in the blood of the grape” speak to Hippolytus of “that voice of His Father which came down by the Holy Ghost at the Jordan”? The Discourse on the Holy Theophany cannot be properly interpreted without that information, and yet Ferguson makes no mention of the Jordan-Calvary nexus in the mind of Hippolytus. But when that nexus is understood, it is clear that when Hippolytus says Jesus opened the gates of heaven at His baptism (Discourse,6), He did so by washing His garment in wine, something signified by Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan but performed at the Cross when he washed the “garment” of the nations with His blood. The Discourse on the Holy Theophany is not about baptismal regeneration. It is about the Cross.
In any case, the maps you provided for the Dioceses of Oriens and Egypt reflect those dioceses at the end of the 4th century. That is not when Canon 6 of Nicæa was written. Here is a map of the Diocese of Oriens at the beginning of the 4th century, and as it remained as such until about 373 A.D.. That’s pretty relevant to our conversation—the boundaries of Oriens at Nicæa—wouldn’t you agree? Thus, Jerome was wrong to say that Nicæa had granted to Antioch “totius Orientis.” It was a geographic impossibility. When you say that Jerome was not wrong, because by his day, the Dioceses had been split, you have changed the subject. I did not accuse Jerome of being wrong about the current topography of the empire. I said he was wrong in his retroactive interpretation of Nicæa, for he said, Unless I am deceived, Nicæa granted to Antioch totius Orientis, something that was clearly a geographic impossibility at the time of Nicæa. And yes, he was deceived and the later “experts” have attempted to reconstruct canon 6 of Nicæa based on Jerome’s anachronism. You say it is a molehill, but don’t change the subject again. Our conversation is not about whether it is a big or small issue, but about whether we should defer to experts, and the experts defer to Jerome’s anachronism. Thus, I do not defer to them.
To that point, you wrote of Bryan Cross, “The Shepard of Hermas doesn’t talk about Baptismal candidates so in this regard, Cross is wrong.” Thank you, he is. But Cross cannot be blamed. He was only writing what had understood from “the experts.”
To conclude, you wrote,
Indeed! In fact you might even say that is what Jerome did when he read the canons of Nicæa. Or to put it as you have, “Jerome read the Canons of Nicea under the lens of recent provincial divisions.” In other words, Jerome ignored original context and read his own views into Nicæa. In your defense of experts, you have thus attempted to maintain a contradiction: that it is both ok to read the original sources independent of the context they were written (as you have said of Jerome), but that it is also “very wrong when one ignores context and read their own views into” the original sources. Both cannot be true, Ex Calvinist.
For this reason, I find your comment difficult to digest. You said, regarding the Epistle of Barnabas that I failed, “to disprove or debunk the notion that it opposes Baptismal regeneration.” It has never been my intention to debunk the notion that his epistle opposes Baptismal regeneration. Is it your opinion that the epistle opposes Baptismal regeneration and that it is my duty to debunk that position? You have lost me on this one.
You also said,
And then you said, its antithesis is also easily falsifiable. And then, “The one that can stand up to scrutiny is the one that can be said to be scientifically valid,” and that “the scientific community unanimously … accept these as scientific facts at this point.” You’ve lost me here. You have first affirmed that was it “uncovered by scientific research” is “easily falsifiable,” and then you have said that it is accepted as scientific fact, but that you believe the thesis and the antithesis can be easily falsifiable. Do I understand you correctly to say that both the young and old earth theories are easily falsifiable, as are both evolution and special creation?
I hope you can be patient with me, but I have no idea what you are saying.
Thanks,
Tim
First off, none of anything you said really refutes what I had said prior before. Hippolytus did not refer to Christ as the “fountain of life” in paragraph 8 of his disclosure. Here as Ferguson notes, a “high doctrine of baptism” is to be found. The entire motif of the paragraph demonstrates this. Right after the mention of the “fountain of life”, Hippolytus goes on to say that,
” The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead.”
Here the link to Baptism is very clear through the phrase “of the water and the Spirit”. Proceeding this, we get the entreatment for all nations to come to the “immortality of baptism”. So it is very clear that this is talking about Baptism. To think otherwise is to simply go into retcon or simply play presuppositionalism as you are doing right now. After all Christ is not referred to as the “fountain of life” in paragraph 2. Every metaphor attributed to Christ there does not include a “fountain of life” so clearly, you are mistaken.
But ok, let’s assume that Christ is indeed the fountain of life here, it still wouldn’t negate the other parts of the paragraph that alludes to baptismal regeneration or at the very least, a “high doctrine” of it.
Sure in paragraph 7, the salvic work of Christ and his humanity is emphasized and mentioned but, it doesn’t negate any attribution of Baptismal regeneration present throughout the entire disclosure. To do so is to simply put into place a false dichotomy here. Just because the Baptism of Christ prefigured his salvic work does it entail that the entire motif of Baptismal regeneration is false. In fact the entire rite of Baptism itself is linked to the death and resurrection of Christ himself. And this link is also present in denominations that hold the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. So no Tim K, you aren’t really proving anything here. With this, the citation from “On Christ and the Antichrist” used doesn’t negate my point at all. It only shows how you have to make false dicotomies to argue.
Next off, you aren’t addressing anything at all regarding Jerome’s so called errors. It becomes clear that for you to make the case against Rome, you need to resort to making mountains out of molehills. My point is simply that Jerome isn’t wrong about Canon 6 of Nicaea should he be looking at it through the geographical divisions of his time. And he clearly did. The letter to John of Jerusalem was written at around 398-399AD where the diocese of the Orient had been splited into two. Given that the territories under the Diocese of the Orient and Egypt no longer overlap under this split, Jerome isn’t making any false statements here since it is viewed under this context. He is not wrong.
Only if his letter against John of Jerusalem is dated prior to this split in the Diocese of the Orient would you be correct. But no, that is not the case at all and thus you are not answering the argument at all. In your own reply you admitted this as well. So no, just because Jerome referred to Canon 6 of Nicaea under the pretext of the division that took place by his time, he isn’t wrong to do that. And so are Schaff and the other scholars. Jerome may had read recent geographical divisions into Nicaea but his statement under this context remain factual and doesn’t contradict Canon 6. So your point holds no water at all.
If your point on Hippolytus is about making false dichotomies, then this one on Jerome is about projecting errors where there is none.
On the Shepard of Hermas, no attempt is made to address the importance of Baptism that the author had clearly alluded to. Only the misattribution of Cross of the subject being towards Baptismal candidates which doesn’t debunk his main point that it teaches Baptismal regeneration.
On the Epistle of Barnabas, once more, no attempt is made to address the point. Cross sees the epistle of teaching and espousing this doctrine. And by opposing what Cross is saying, you are saying that it opposes and doesn’t teach said doctrine. But either way, no attempt is made to address the point regarding this I had made prior.
On your final point, a simple question should be asked incorporating the area of evolution and the age of the universe and your subscription to Presuppositionalism.
On what basis do you reject and deny the scientific consensus on these area?
Dear Ex Calvinist,
Regarding Hippolytus’ Discourse on the Holy Theophany, please note that Hippolytus makes 5 successive literal references to Jesus being baptized. In four of them, Jesus is described as the rain, spring, and river, but they are all about His baptism:
1: Christ, the Maker of all, came down as the rain, and was known as a spring, and diffused Himself as a river, and was baptized in the Jordan.
2: Jesus came to John, and was baptized by him in the Jordan.
3: How should the boundless River that makes glad the city of God have been dipped in a little water!
4: The illimitable Spring that bears life to all men, and has no end, was covered by poor and temporary waters!
5: He who is present everywhere, and absent nowhere— who is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to men— comes to the baptism according to His own good pleasure.
The “rain,” “spring,” “boundless River that makes glad the city of God,” “Illimitable spring that bears life to all men, and has no end,” are all figurative references to Jesus. The references to “little water” and “temporary water” are references to the baptismal water.
Paragraphs 3 – 7 are an interlude in which Hippolytus expounds upon Jesus’ conversation with John, and then in paragraph 8 he returns to the theme of chapter 2:
Given his pattern so far, these are simply three more references to Jesus, for he returns to “the fountain,” and the refers yet again to Jesus being baptized in the Jordan.
6: the fountain of life
7: the fountain that gushes with healing
8: God “sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit.”
To that end, Hippolytus’ references to “the fountain” at the beginning of chapter 8 are references to Jesus, not the baptismal font. Ferguson, the “expert” on baptism in the early church missed that simple connection, and cited those opening lines of chapter 8 as proof of Hippolytus’ “high doctrine” of Baptism. He was clearly wrong. Thus, I do not defer to the “experts.” You may think that the Discourse is about baptism. Very well. Your personal belief about what the Discourse means doesn’t change the fact that Ferguson was wrong when he took “the fountain of life” that “gushes with healing” at the beginning of chapter 8 to refer to baptism. It did not.
Regarding Jerome, you are insisting that Jerome wasn’t wrong about Nicæa because by the time he was writing, Antioch was in charge of Oriens. That is irrelevant. If Jerome had said, “If you look at our current borders, it is clear that the logical implication of the 6th of Nicæa is that Antioch is now in charge of Oriens, as the 2nd of Constantinople explicitly states,” that would be true. But that is not what Jerome said. Jerome said, “it is decreed in those canons” of Nicæa that Antioch is in charge of totius Orientis. If someone were to say to you today it is decreed in Canon 20 of Nicæa that we are to kneel on Sundays, would you would say that they were right, because at the time they said it, Catholics do in fact kneel on Sundays? Does current practice actually change the wording of the canons?
The point is that the canons do actually state things, and Jerome was appealing to what “is decreed in those canons,” and nowhere in those canons is Antioch made to be in charge of “totius Orientis.” In fact, the point of canon 6 was not to place Antioch over a whole diocese, but rather to divide the Diocese of Oriens between Alexandria and Antioch, for they were both located there. Jerome was clearly wrong. You may consider his mistake to be of no consequence, a molehill as it were. If that is the case, why defend him? It hardly matters, and yet you dig in and defend a statement that is plainly false. It doesn’t matter when he wrote the statement—the passing of time doesn’t change the wording of the canons of Nicæa.
Now to my point, very many experts have been confounded by Jerome’s statement, and have been misled by him because they were unaware that the point of Canon 6 was not to assign individual dioceses to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, but rather to split the Diocese of Oriens between them. Thus, Pope Innocent I was also in error in his letter to Alexander of Antioch in which he explained that the Canons of Nicæa had placed Antioch over a diocese (super diœcesim, Innocent I, Epistle XXIV, 1). But the canons of Nicæa did not, and in fact could not, place Antioch over a diocese. The Canons of Nicæa could not possibly place Antioch over a diocese for the very simple reason that Alexandria was presiding over three provinces of that very diocese. And yet “experts” have been confounded by Innocent, as well.
You could settle this all in an instant, of course, by producing the canon of Nicæa where it says Antioch was placed in charge of the Diocese of the Oriens. But you cannot. And yet you defend Jerome’s and Innocent’s error. I don’t understand why you would dig in to defend not just a molehill, but an incorrect molehill. Unless, of course, it is because you are inclined to trust the “experts.” You will not find any experts who understand the error of Jerome and Innocent, for there are none. They all missed it. But that should not obligate you to believe an error, even a small one.
The experts can indeed be helpful. But I will not bend the knee to them.
Thanks,
Tim
Here, no adequate explanations is given at all to Hippolytus and Jerome’s supposed error.
On all your references to Paragraph 2 of his disclosure, you fail to even show or demonstrate where he actually refers to Jesus as a “fountain”. All these expressions are what Hippolytus wants to be taken “figuratively”. But these is only in reference to Jesus being something else. It doesn’t deny or somehow show that he sees Baptismal regeneration in the same light too. Only that these figurative expressions are meant to convey the dignity of water. The fact that such expressions are used easily lends itself to the support of baptismal regeneration. After all every denomination that believes in this don’t see the water used in Baptism as inherently the “life giving fountain” of its own nature. It is God that made it so.
You have also failed to show where and how the motif of the “fountain of life” and its “gushing with healing” is in fact in explicit reference to Christ at all. Such two motifs are in fact missing from the figurative language Hippolytus used prior. If he is really going back to such, he would have referenced the “Imitable Spring” or the “Boundless River” which would fit with it. But of course not. We didn’t have this, we end up with a statement referencing something else, the “fountain of life”. Does this then have any connections and significance with Jesus’ baptism by John? Of course. But to use this as an excuse to argue against Hippolytus advocating Baptismal regeneration is to simply hurl in a false dichotomy. I pointed this out somewhat in my prior response and this important point is left unaddressed and ignored.
The motif presented in paragraph 8 does of course makes it quite clear that the “fountain of life” is in fact, Baptism. Or even if this “fountain of life” is Christ himself, a high doctrine of Baptism still persists. I pointed this out as well prior but once more, this remains unaddressed.
Statements such as,
” The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. ”
And his exhortation to the nations to come to the “immortality of Baptism” entails its necessity. And this is reinforced by his saying that,
“And how, says one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost.”
This is in response to how one can come from slavery into liberty, from the darkness of ignorance to the good tidings of life. Of course sure enough this isn’t the water alone that does this but through the water AND the Holy Spirit. The two together is concluded to be in a nutshell, “which man is begotten again and endued with life” apart from being the water in which Christ was Baptized in.
His conclusion overall would make a “High doctrine of Baptism” very clear and self evident,
” Do you see, beloved, how the prophet spoke beforetime of the purifying power of baptism? For he who comes down in faith to the layer of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; who denies the enemy, and makes the confession that Christ is God; who puts off the bondage, and puts on the adoption,— he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ. To Him be the glory and the power, together with His most holy, and good, and quickening Spirit, now and ever, and to all the ages of the ages. Amen.”
But of course, all these seems ignored throughout your entire attempt to show that Hippolytus did not advocate or teach Baptismal regeneration. And this is its fatal flaw. Either ignoring the passage as a whole and failing to take other statements made into account. And as in your previous reply, create a false dichotomy.
So no Tim K, Ferguson is right on the money here.
Onto Jerome, we see how once more your entire point rests upon making a mountain out of a molehill. Jerome can say that Canon 6 of Nicaea decrees that the whole Diocese of the Orient is under jurisdiction of the See of Antioch. He is right, if he sees it under the lens of the division that took place. You citing his statement does no justice in showing how he is in fact taking this in the context of pre-division. He even acknowledges that Egypt, being a different see should keep out of this issue. You explicitly referenced this as well in your own article explaining this. But this makes no sense if the entire Diocese of the Orient also by Jerome’s time, covers Egypt as well since it would make his statements, inconsistent. With this in mind, it is safe to say that Jerome was simply viewing the canons with the division of the diocese of the Orient in mind.
When this is noted, your entire argument is really just a huge molehill made over the division of the diocese which Jerome took into account whilst explaining Canon 6 of Nicaea. The whole “statement of canon 6” argument also wouldn’t work here since should this canon be seen in light of the division that took place, there isn’t any contradiction or opposition to it. It still abides by what it had stated. If any, you are the one making mountains out of this. I’m simply explaining how and why it isn’t such at all. In fact, once more a false dichotomy is attempted here where I either accept that Jerome is wrong, or make a mountain out of a molehill over how this supposed mistake isn’t consequential. If any Tim K, you are the one who had and has been doing this, I’m simply showing how such is in fact inconsequential and doesn’t entail Jerome being wrong at all.
The same is to be said with your attempts to bring Pope Innocent I into this which doesn’t work. It is more or less the same with the context of Jerome where the division of the Diocese of the Orient is also taken into account when viewing Canon 6. After all, the ignorance of such would simply raise confusion.
Of course, true enough, Canon 6 doesn’t say that the whole Diocese of the Orient belongs to Antioch. Why? Because by its time it shares the diocese with Egypt. But by the later part of the 4th century, the Diocese is divided into two such that Antioch is indeed in charge of the Diocese of the Orient since the territories of Egypt is now under a separate Diocese. This in mind, scholars, Jerome and Pope Innocent I ain’t wrong. They just took this change into account.
But Tim K, we all know that a huge mountain have to be made on this to justify your cherry picking of scholarship. Such is dishonest and wrong. If you are right on this, we can easily find other articles, essays, books and so on that makes this point, that is those of an academic nature.
But alas, no. This is not what we get. We see how presuppositionalists must find cracks where there are none or simply play the game by fallacy. No surprise when Presuppositionalism is in fact a fallacy in itself. It’s simply circular reasoning.
Actually now that I thought about it, the whole evolution and age of the universe question is a wrong question to ask.
Rather the question should be,
Do you consider yourself a Presuppositionalist Tim K?
Ex Calvinist,
Can you give us some insight into the original question? To me it appeared that your question on evolution and the of age of the earth came out of nowhere, and then just as suddenly was withdrawn. Since the question was intended to gauge my reasonableness, would you mind telling us the thought process that made you decide to withdraw the question so suddenly?
Thanks,
Tim
Yes.
I’m aware of that which is why I called it a “red herring” but I wanted to see your response in particular to the consensus in the scientific community and the corpus of data backing evolution and the universe being billions of years old up.
Then, I thought that it would be much more appropos to simply ask about your stance on Presuppositionalism instead since it’s much easier and we don’t have to spend time talking about some secret secular agenda or Rome being responsible for all that.
Timothy K, sorry I have been so slow to respond to your last posts but I worked over the weekend and given my work schedule do not have enough time to respond during the week. Hope to give a response this weekend , but I did not see your response to this posting I made previously.
Timothy P
April 24, 2016 at 6:16 am
Timothy K, these quotes were taken from JND Kelly on a Catholic apologist website and I wonder is you agree or disagree with JND Kelly.
“So says J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford scholar and one of the greatest Protestant patristic scholars of the 20th century. Schaff may have been good last century, but his accounts on the Eucharist are incomplete and misleading. Further, Kelly goes on to say concerning -figura- —
“Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.’
“YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’
“All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them [as do Catholics today — see the Catechism, paragraphs 1333ff].
“In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine.” (JND Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, page 212)
Timothy Kauffman
Again I apologize for the slowness of my response and I wanted to thank Ex-Calvinist for shedding some light on the testimony of the “experts” that you brought up. I have neither the time , energy or expertise to discuss all those issues but I still see in your debate style a repeated attempt to misdirect the discussion to avoid the actual subject being discussed. It’s very similar to the OJ Simpson trial where the prosecution had DNA evidence linking OJ to the crime and yet the defense team was able to raise the issue that in the past police have planted evidence to convict a person of a crime. And so while I freely admit that experts can make mistakes, although Ex-Calvinist has raised questions about the examples you gave, the point is that what is your evidence that in this particular instance the experts are wrong? You have already admitted that you do not have a background in ancient Greek or Latin and yet you are challenging those who you know to have that background but on what basis? The following comment you gave I think is extremely revealing
Timothy Kauffman wrote
” Thus, I am happy to read the experts. They are often helpful. But they often err, and so often capitulate to Rome and defer to late 4th century novelties to understand the first three centuries of Christianity, that they simply cannot be considered the final say. Where they are helpful, I am happy to seek their aid. Where they are in error, I am also happy to point it out.
So Timothy Kauffman, point out your evidence why J. N. D. Kelly, Phillip Schaff, and Darwell Stone are wrong when they tell us that
““YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized..””
Maybe I am mistaken but as I see it Timothy Kauffman you have not provided a shred of evidence that the experts are wrong in this particular instance. So it would seem fairly obvious to me that you agree with the experts when they agree with you but disagree with them when they do not agree with you even if you have no evidence to point to to show they are wrong.
So we all agree with your premise that experts can make mistakes but if you are going to disagree with them on a particular issue I would suggest you be able to show why they are wrong in this instance. And if you can’t it’s pretty obvious that you disagree not based on any rational basis but simply because their comments do not fit with your theological background.
So either provide experts who disagree with those mentioned or explain based on your knowledge of the ancient Greek and Latin why you disagree with their comments.
Ok. JND Kelly expounded upon the idea of the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper in the Early Church and on pages 212-213 of Early Christian Doctrines, has this to say of Cyprian:
Kelly has a lot more to say of Cyprian, and Cyprian’s beliefs about the Lord’s Supper, and cites him further on page 215 as early support of the Eucharistic sacrifice:
And yet, for all of his elucidation of Cyprian on sacrifice, oblation, the Lord’s Supper and the elements, JND Kelly omits this one critical element in Cyprian’s thinking: that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper:
If Jesus’ blood does not manifest until after “Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed,” and we are to imitate Him in our celebration of the Last Supper, then neither are we to “offer His blood” during the Eucharistic meal, for neither did He offer His blood at the Last Supper, for He could not offer His blood until after He “had first been trampled upon and pressed.” And He had not yet been trampled and pressed at the Last Supper. Yet JND Kelly makes no mention of this in his expansive survey of the Early Church Fathers. Quite an omission.
Further, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia concedes, Cyprian may have had “no Christian writings besides Holy Scripture to study besides those of Tertullian” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Cyprian of Carthage), and Tertullian took this same passage to have bread to represent Jesus’ body figuratively:
These things must be taken into account in our understanding of Cyprian’s use of language, but JND Kelly omits them. That is why I do not defer to Kelly, for even a schoolboy is “able to show why [JND Kelly is] wrong in this instance”.
Now, in order to keep this conversation productive, why not provide a definition of “real presence”?
Thanks,
Tim
Here the ignorance of linguistic context strikes again. Tertullian’s use of “Figura” here doesn’t even mean “figure” as in the sense of modern symbolism.
Ernest Evans in his commentary notes this to be “shape” and certainly shows how “figura” as used by Tertullian here isn’t mere symbol in the modern sense.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FbdMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA321&lpg=PA321&dq=tertullian+figura&source=bl&ots=5qNH0y2aWT&sig=0pRR6jxz0le9F0eLKijS1cenlME&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRmfL_y8rMAhXCFsAKHRhMDBMQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=tertullian%20figura&f=false
Here, the ancient view of “symbol” expounded by Crockett comes into play once more.
Spinks and Bradshaw both see “figura” as referring to “manifest”. Darwell Stone also shows use of a form of the Apostles’ Creed in Latin that use the term “Figura” in reference to the Holy Spirit. So if any we get differing scholars across decades all converging on more or less the same conclusion on this.
You shown no sources or even any reason why your render of “figura” is correct. If any that’s just projecting your views onto him and the Latin he used. You are not an expertise in the Latin language and thus cannot say anything unless you got reference to an authority on the subject matter. And by authority, I mean academical sources, not phony apologetics.
The citation of Crypian is also inadequate and shows ignorance of context. Crypian was arguing against those that refused to use wine in the Eucharist and only use water instead. Paragraph 7 simply stresses the relation between Isaiah 63:4 and the Passion of Christ. Thus the expression at the conclusion of this paragraph should be seen as how the “type” and “antitype” must match each other, alongside the primary point of the whole epistle, the use of wine in the Eucharist. Christ being “trampled and pressed” is in reference to the Passion of Christ. The Last Supper forms part of this before accumulating into his crucifixion.
So no Tim K, you haven’t really proven anything here at all.
Ex Calvinist,
Thank you for your comment. Your citation of Evans provides a great illustration of why your “cut and paste” approach to apologetics is so ineffectual. Evans cites Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 40, as follows:
Here, the English (from Schaff) is as follows:
By simply performing a Google search and then cutting and pasting a hyperlink without reading the content of the argument, you have aptly demonstrated how you have missed both Evans’ and Tertullian’s actual point: Tertullian was arguing against Marcion’s docetism which posited that the human “body” of Jesus was altogether mere semblance without any true reality. As I have argued elsewhere (as with Timothy P recently), the early church fathers used Jesus’ words at the last supper to argue against such errors by showing that Jesus’ figurative language regarding the bread and wine would not make sense if Jesus had not possessed a real body and real blood, since the bread and wine are poor antitypes of a nonphysical archetype. And in fact, that is precisely how Tertullian reasons, which you would have seen if you had researched the citation from which Evans was quoting him, instead of just cutting and pasting your Google search results.
Tertullian wrote, as cited above, “A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.” Bread can hardly be a figure of a phantom; thus, Jesus was no phantom, for He said, to cite Tertullian, “this is the figure of my body,” and later in the same chapter, “the figure of wine to describe His blood.” His use of bread and wine to figure His flesh and blood shows that He really had a body and blood. It does not mean that the bread and wine were really His body and blood.
By being unwilling, or even unable, to distinguish between (a) the Early Church’s use of the elements of the Lord’s Supper to disprove the gnostics and docetists, and (b) their recognition of the use of antitypes and figures of bread and wine to symbolize His body and blood, Roman Catholic apologists are constantly offering early church arguments against gnosticism and docetism as if they were proof of the real presence, ignoring that those same church fathers explicitly affirm that the bread and wine are not the things they symbolized.
Here Tertullian combines the essence of those two arguments (both a and b) into a single paragraph—bread is a poor figure of Jesus’ body if Jesus’ body was just a phantom, but nevertheless the bread is still only a figure. Evans does not counter that, but rather affirms that it is a figure of something real. Irenæus expressed the essence of those two arguments separately as in Book V, Chapters 1 a 2 of Against Heresies, where he’s arguing point a) against the Ebionites: “Vain indeed are those who allege that He appeared in mere seeming,” and “He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh.” Here Irenæus is clearly arguing against those who denied Jesus took on a physical body. He uses the elements of the Lord’s supper to reduce their position to absurdity just as Tertullian did—the bread and wine make no sense if Jesus did not take on real flesh and real blood. And yet when speaking about what the elements of the Lord’s supper really are, he argues point (b), that they are really antitypical, or symbolic, as in Fragment 37: “these antitypes”.
Thus, it is no surprise that throughout Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnæans, in which he is arguing against the gnostics, he continually goes back to the physical and spiritual reality: “in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual,” and “pray that it may be confirmed in faith and love, both corporeal and spiritual,” because his detractors thought Jesus’ life and death had been spiritual only. Like Irenæus and Tertullian, Ignatius uses the elements of the Eucharist to emphasize that Jesus’ use of bread and wine nullifies the attempt of the gnostics to claim that He had no physical body. The early church knew that bread and wine were ridiculous as symbols if they symbolized something that had never manifested physically. But they did not believe they symbols were what they symbolized until Gregory of Nyssa in the late 4th century. Thus it is nonsensical of Schaff to use Gregory of Nyssa to understand what Tertullian and Irenæus really meant. It is an anachronism, and a foolish one at that. Experts should have known better, and he did not.
In any case, I admit that I am surprised that Timothy P objected to my appeal to Irenæus own words on the Eucharist to help us understand Irenæus on the Eucharist! Ironically, Timothy P’s earlier argument against my understanding of this rings hollow in light of Tertullian’s argument. Timothy P wrote to me:
And here’s Tertullian:
I provide Tertullian’s whole chapter 40 of book IV of against Marcion for your edification, below.
Best,
Tim
——
“In like manner does He also know the very time it behooved Him to suffer, since the law prefigures His passion. Accordingly, of all the festal days of the Jews He chose the passover. Luke 22:i In this Moses had declared that there was a sacred mystery: “It is the Lord’s passover.” Leviticus 23:5 How earnestly, therefore, does He manifest the bent of His soul: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” Luke 22:15 What a destroyer of the law was this, who actually longed to keep its passover! Could it be that He was so fond of Jewish lamb? But was it not because He had to be “led like a lamb to the slaughter; and because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He not to open His mouth,” Isaiah 53:7 that He so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood? He might also have been betrayed by any stranger, did I not find that even here too He fulfilled a Psalm: “He who ate bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.” And without a price might He have been betrayed. For what need of a traitor was there in the case of one who offered Himself to the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by force as taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another Christ, but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing prophecies. For it was written, “The righteous one did they sell for silver.” Amos 2:6 The very amount and the destination of the money, which on Judas’ remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter’s field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued and gave them for the potter’s field.” When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: “I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,” which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed “in His blood,” Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, “Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress?” The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, “He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes” Genesis 49:11 — in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.”
Timothy K
I find the conversation extremely productive for the simple reason that you continue to try and change the main issue. The question is not do the experts or an expert ever commit an error, (and I am sure we could have a long drawn out debate on your comments above) but your unwillingness to admit you have no experts to refute Kelly’s comments
“Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.’
“YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’
Now if Kelly was the only expert correcting the misrepresentation you have been giving your readers when you argue against the real presence by citing when a church Father calls the Eucharist a type, figure , symbol , then attacking Kelly might serve some purpose. but as it is you continue to simply avoid the fact that you have no experts to back up your position. Obviously I knew you did not as I have had this debate with Brian Cullition and he likewise was not aware of any authorities on the subject that could back up his position. So Brian accused the Catholic apologist of taking the experts out of context. At least you are honest enough to admit you disagree with all the experts. But I do think you owe it to your readers to provide the proper context when you cite a Father’s use of the terms type, symbol, figure etc. Now maybe all the experts are wrong on this specific issue. I am more then willing to listen to your argument but your argument above simply confirms my previous comment that you have not provided a shred of evidence that the experts are wrong on this issue.
I had to laugh when you asked for my definition of “real presence”. Reminds me of the debate I had where the Protestant debater said “I believe in the real presence, I just don’t believe Christ is really present”. OK
Hi, Timothy P,
In your previous comment you said,
In response to that explicit request from you about what JND Kelly wrote on page 212 of his book, Early Christian Doctrines, I responded to you that JND Kelly, an expert in the field, had written about Cyprian’s view of the Lord’s Supper on page 212, but in his whole work had omitted Cyprian’s belief that the Lord could not offer His blood to us to drink until after He had been pressed down and trampled, i.e., at the Cross. Thus, in Cyprian’s view, it was impossible for Jesus to give to His disciples the “blood” of His cup at the Lord’s Supper, since His actual blood wasn’t actually in the cup at the time. Since JND Kelly had in fact cited Cyprian’s view that we must do as Christ did at the Last Supper, but had omitted that specific point that Cyprian had made—that Jesus blood wasn’t actually in the cup—and further that Cyprian had gleaned what he had from Tertullian who explicitly stated that Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said “This is My body,” I hold that JND Kelly was wrong on that specific point.
In other words, you asked me a specific question about what a specific expert had written on a specific page of his book about this specific topic, and said that if I cannot provide an expert to disagree, at least explain why I disagree. I explained why I disagree.
To that, specific response to your specific question, you responded,
You asked a question. I answered the question that you asked. I don’t understand how that is “changing the main issue.”
I’ve asked several times now for your definition of the “real presence”. Can you define it?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman wrote
“And yet, for all of his elucidation of Cyprian on sacrifice, oblation, the Lord’s Supper and the elements, JND Kelly omits this one critical element in Cyprian’s thinking: that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper:
“Assuredly, therefore, mention is made of wine, that the Lord’s blood may be understood, and that which was afterwards manifested in the cup of the Lord might be foretold by the prophets who announced it. The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7)”
Now I ask, was the point of the above paragraph from Cyprian as suggested by Timothy Kauffman ” that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper”???? Or was Cyprian pointing out that we could not drink the blood of Christ unless two events had occurred. First the Crucifixion and second the Last Supper. Cyprian makes no comment one way or the other rather Christ gave His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper. And why would you want to try and read into the passage something that is not there? Hmmmm. No crucifixion, No Last Supper— “neither could we drink the blood of Christ”
Timothy Kauffman, I also thought your criticism of JND Kelly for not reviewing the quote you gave from Cyprian where you try to twist what Cyprian is saying a little hypocritical. Let’s look at other quotes from Cyprian on the Eucharist that you left out and I will let the reader decide rather Cyprian had a Catholic or Protestant view of the Eucharist. No need for me to try and explain the point that Cyprian is making
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (Alt)
St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,
“So too the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb – slain as a type of Christ – should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,
-“The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,
Description of an event in which an infant was taken to a pagan sacrifice and then the mother recovered it and brought it to Mass.
“Listen to what happened in my presence, before my very eyes. There was a baby girl, whose parents had fled and had, in their fear, rather improvidently lift it in the charge of its nurse. The nurse took the helpless child to the magistrates. There, before the idol where the crowds were flocking, as it was too young to eat the flesh, they gave it some bread dipped in what was left of the wine offered by those who had already doomed themselves. Later, the mother recovered her child. But the girl could not reveal or tell the wicked thing that had been done, any more than she had been able to understand or ward it off before. Thus, when the mother brought her in with her while we were offering the Sacrifice, it was through ignorance that this mischance occurred. But the infant, in the midst of the faithful, resenting the prayer and the offering we were making, began to cry convulsively, struggling and tossing in a veritable brain-storm, and for all its tender age and simplicity of soul, was confessing, as if under torture, in every way it could, its consciousness of the misdeed. Moreover, when the sacred rites were completed and the deacon began ministering to those present, when its turn came to receive, it turned its little head away as if sensing the divine presence, it closed its mouth, held its lips tight, and refused to drink from the chalice. The deacon persisted and, in spite of its opposition, poured in some of the consecrated chalice. There followed choking and vomiting. The Eucharist could not remain in a body or mouth that was defiled; the drink which had been sanctified by Our Lord’s blood returned from the polluted stomach. So great is the power of the Lord, and so great His majesty!”,
-“The Lapsed” Ch. 25, circa 249-258 A.D.,
“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”,
Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,
“There was a woman too who with impure hands tried to open the locket in which she was keeping Our Lord’s holy body, but fire flared up from it and she was too terrified to touch it. And a man who, in spite of his sin, also presumed secretly to join the rest in receiving sacrifice offered by the bishop, was unable to eat or even handle Our Lord’s sacred body; when he opened his hands, he found he was holding nothing but ashes. By this one example it was made manifest that Our Lord removes Himself from one who denies Him, and that what is received brings no blessing to the unworthy, since the Holy One has fled and the saving grace is turned to ashes.”,
-“The Lapsed” Ch. 26, circa 249-258 A.D.,
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.”,
Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,
Timothy P, you seem to believe that Cyprian’s point was “that we could not drink the blood of Christ unless two events had occurred.” And yet he says plainly that we could not drink of His blood unless one event occurred: the crucifixion: “neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed.” You seem to think that the reference to “and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink” is a reference to the Lord’s Supper, but the chapter you cited, as Cyprian states plainly, begins with the statement that “the Holy Spirit testifies this same thing concerning the Lord’s passion.” The cup Jesus had to drink first was the one His father had given Him to drink, and He did not drink of it until the Cross. And if we could not drink the cup unless Christ “had first drunk the cup” (and Christ did not drink the cup until Calvary (Matthew 20:22-23, Mark 10:38-39, Matthew 26:39-42)) then neither could the apostles. And neither could we.
The reason this matters on a doctrinal level is that Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus took away our sins on Thursday night at the Lord’s Supper, but Cyprian clearly believed that He took away our sins on Friday at Calvary:
Contrast that with the Roman Catholic view:
Cyprian was certainly no Roman Catholic.
In a follow up comment, you leveled the charge of hypocrisy. From what I can gather, you think I am a hypocrite because I pointed out a single omission of JND Kelly’s survey of Cyprian in a book in which he had purposed to provide a survey of Cyprian’s views on the Lord’s Supper, while I myself did not in response provide an exhaustive survey of all of Cyprian’s teachings on the Lord’s Supper. I do not believe you understand what the word “hypocrisy” means, so I will let it go.
You provided a list of quotes which are proposed as evidence, I presume, that Cyprian had a Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist. Among those quotes you will find one alleged to be from Cyprian’s letter to the Ephesians in 258 A.D.. It is actually from letter 62, paragraph 14 in 256 A.D., which was not a letter to the Ephesians. I point that out only to show that your “cut and paste” approach to apologetics does not serve you well, for it shows that you are simply cutting and pasting without familiarity with the content or context of what you are cutting and pasting. It is a good example of why you should not trust the “experts” from whom you cut and pasted it.
If you examine Cyprian a little closer, you will find that because he became a metropolitan bishop almost immediately upon conversion and was but a child, he often used “sacrifice” and “commemoration” and “memorial” interchangeably, so his reference to a sacrifice at the Lord’s supper does not of necessity mean that he thought it was an actual sacrifice, especially, as I noted above, because he did not even think the Last Supper was an actual sacrifice to take away sins, and insisted further that we must do as Christ did at the Last supper. Thus, he did not believe we should participate in what you would call the Mass sacrifice. For you to take Cyprian the way you do, without reference to the context, shows that you are imputing your current views of the Mass Sacrifice onto Cyprian. I wrote on this issue more extensively in my eight part series, Their Praise was their Sacrifice. You can read about Cyprian in Part 5.
Since one of the places that continues to misrepresent Cyprian’s letter 62 as a letter to the Ephesians is The Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, why don’t you provide what I have now four times requested of you: a definition of “the real presence”?
Thank you,
Tim
Just finished work at 10 PM so as usual will have to hold off til weekend to fully respond. Cyprian comment was
“Assuredly, therefore, mention is made of wine, that the Lord’s blood may be understood, and that which was afterwards manifested in the cup of the Lord might be foretold by the prophets who announced it. The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7)”
Timothy K responded
” Timothy P, you seem to believe that Cyprian’s point was “that we could not drink the blood of Christ unless two events had occurred.” And yet he says plainly that we could not drink of His blood unless one event occurred: the crucifixion: “neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed.” You seem to think that the reference to “and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink” is a reference to the Lord’s Supper, but the chapter you cited, as Cyprian states plainly, begins with the statement that “the Holy Spirit testifies this same thing concerning the Lord’s passion.” The cup Jesus had to drink first was the one His father had given Him to drink, and He did not drink of it until the Cross. And if we could not drink the cup unless Christ “had first drunk the cup” (and Christ did not drink the cup until Calvary (Matthew 20:22-23, Mark 10:38-39, Matthew 26:39-42)) then neither could the apostles. And neither could we.
Now my response is one event or two events? Cyprian says
“so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first 1)been trampled upon and pressed, and had first 2)drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph
Now if the cup in that second verse is the crucifixion I don’t think I or anyone reading this has drank that cup. Didn’t you say the topic of this discussion was the Last Supper? “Drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.”
Now I am sure you are going to disagree but surely we can agree that your statement “that Cyprian’s thinking:[was ] that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper” is no where to be found in the verses you provided. Do you know what the meaning of the word explicit is?
Thank you for the correction on the quotes from Cyprian. Of course I noted no attempt to address the quotes directly and I am again surprised that you are not seeing a pattern here. Again note I made no attempt to explain the quotes, just listed them. And your response is to point out that one of the quotes was not actually written to the Ephesians. I would have thought you would have wanted to directly address the quotes and explain why Cyprian doesn’t really mean what it sounds like he means. I pointed out in the quote you gave that Cyprian didn’t say what you suggested he was saying.
Real Presence. As Clement of Alexandria stated “Oh the Incredible Mystery”. Will try to explore the mystery with you this weekend.
Timothy P, you wrote,
Here is the Scripture:
See also Mark 10:38-39. That Jesus is not here referring to the Last Supper is evidenced by the fact that after the Last Supper, He has yet to drink the cup:
Yes, the apostles drank the cup, too. If you will read Letter 62 in its entirety, you will find that that is precisely what Cyprian meant, for his admonition was to those who were attempting to avoid a martyr’s death by avoiding wine in the Lord’s Supper: “But how can we shed our blood for Christ, who blush to drink the blood of Christ?” (Letter 62:15). That was why they were avoiding wine—to avoid being detected with wine on their lips, betraying their Christian identity. Indeed, the very context of Letter 62 was that believers had indeed been given the same cup to drink, and were attempting to avoid the “cup of martyrdom” by using water instead of wine.
In any case, you also wrote,
That’s why I said, “I point that out only to show that your “cut and paste” approach to apologetics does not serve you well, ….” That was my only point in highlighting the problem with cut and paste apologetics. You paste things you have not thought through. But you continued,
Actually, if you will read the e-mail, I said that in pointing out the error, I was not responding to the citations, but only to your cut and paste problem. But when it came to addressing the quotes directly, I provided to you a link in which I addressed the quotes directly. As you are pressed for time and cannot always answer every question that is asked, I think you can understand that if you raise a question about something that I have addressed elsewhere, it is easier just to provide a link to where I answered the question. Feel free to look at the link I provided in which I addressed your citations, and more.
Best,
Tim
Let’s return to the last 6 quotes given by Irenaeus and rather Timothy Kauffman is trying to change what Irenaeus is saying
First I Timothy P wrote
“Now if you want to change what Irenaeus says you have to be willing to substitute the “symbol of the body” for the Body, the “symbol of the blood”, for the Blood.”
Timothy Kauffman replied
“I don’t believe I have ever said I wanted to change what Irenæus says. Can you point out where I suggested any such thing? I don’t understand why you would start to defend your position by suggesting something I have never said or claimed. I would kindly request an explanation for why you worded it that way, especially in a conversation in which you allege “to try and keep [me] from [my] skills of misdirection.” And yet, you open with what is to me a plain misdirection. Why would you do that?
I like what Irenæus says, and I don’t think it should be changed. That is why I rejected the clumsy translation that actually changed what Irenæus said”
So lets look at the original quotes again and your explanation. Irenaeus wrote
2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
3) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
4. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
5. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
6. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
7)Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
And your comment on what Irenaeus said
” Taking the rest of your allegedly “implicit” references to the “real presence,” but keeping them in their context, there is simply nothing else in his works to suggest what you call the “real presence”:
2) of course, if He didn’t really take on flesh, “nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body”. That’s quite true. If he didn’t have a real body and real blood, how can the bread and wine symbolically represent a communion of either? I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
3) of course, “He has acknowledged the cup … as His own blood … and the bread … as His own body”. He has done so by antitypes, or symbols. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
4) of course, when “the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made.” They are made so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
5) of course, the bread and wine “having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ;” they become so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
6) of course, “the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood.” They are made so antitypically, as Irenæus has said. I don’t know Protestant who would disagree with him here.
7) of course, “the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” It is so antitypically, as Irenæus has said.”
Now Timothy Kauffman, where do you find that word antitypically in those quotes provided by Irenaeus? You find where the Eucharist is called an “antitype” in a fragment of Irenaeus’s writings and somehow use that to explain 6 verses where the word is never used to try and justify your position. Are you serious? I am sure when Christ said “This is my body” you would say I have no problem with what Christ said but what he meant was “This symbolizes my Body”. And you still have made no attempt to explain why Christ said “This is my Body” and not “This symbolizes or represents my Body”.
Would you not agree that we would not even be having this debate if Christ had used the words you think he should have.
Now when I provided the quotes above I had no reason to try and explain what Irenaeus was saying. No need to explain that Irenaeus was speaking realistically. So why oh why Timothy Kauffman did you have to try and explain that Irenaeus was speaking antitypically?
Timothy Kauffman, I hope to continue this exchange and again it is refreshing to have this discussion without the name calling that I was subjected to on the One Fold Blog. I definitely plan this weekend to review you article on Cyprian but I did want to challenge you on the following interchange. Apparently a Catholic blog that I had “cut and paste” from attributed a quote from Cyprian to the Ephesians and you pointed out that it was from an earlier letter that Cyprian wrote. I responded
Timothy P
“Thank you for the correction on the quotes from Cyprian. Of course I noted no attempt to address the quotes directly…”
To which Timothy Kauffman responded
That’s why I said, “I point that out only to show that your “cut and paste” approach to apologetics does not serve you well, ….” That was my only point in highlighting the problem with cut and paste apologetics. You paste things you have not thought through.”
So the question must be asked does cutting and pasting innumerable quotes from the Church Father’s that show their belief in the real presence serve the Catholic apologist well in this debate? Of course it does. Look at Bob’s long list of quotes from the Fathers and follow the evidence. Take each Father and place the quotes Catholics use to document that that Church Father believed in the real presence and compare it to the meager quotes that Protestant apologist come up with which they invariably have to explain to try and make their point. The scholarship has been done on both sides and believe me if the Protestant apologist were able to cut and paste long lists of quotes supporting their position they would be doing it. But the lists simply do not exist. That’s a fact and Timothy Kauffman if you dispute the fact why don’t you give me your list from Irenaeus that show support for you position and let’s compare then with the Catholic list.
Again Timothy Kauffman I commend your willingness to let Bob post his list and me to give the quotes from Irenaeus and Cyprian. I know Brian Culliton on the One Fold Blog started blocking the “cut and paste” quotes and of course you can see why.
I haven’t forgotten about you request for my understanding of the real presence. Hope to post a number of comments this weekend.
Sorry to be again so slow to respond. I believe 2 weekends ago I tried to respond to your question about the definition of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Maybe I didn’t hit the post button but in essence the term is used in Christian theology regarding the doctrine of Jesus Christ being present in the Eucharist in reality or substance, not merely symbolically or metaphorically. Of course as a Catholic we define Christ as being present “body, blood soul and divinity”. I’m sure we could get into a lot of debating over subtle nuances but basically as a non theologian I see the options as the Eucharist being a symbol alone, a symbol with Christ being present spiritually only, or a symbol with Christ being present not only spiritually but in reality. Does a miracle occur at the Eucharistic service? As Clement of Alexandria exclaimed, “Of the incredible mystery”.
Just another comment about the use of metaphor and Ignatius and as I reflected upon it further and Edoardo’s attempt to explain the metaphor I wanted to try and put into context this quote from your article Timothy Kauffman. I had said when metaphors are used generally it is obvious what the metaphor is to the reader.
Timothy Kauffman wrote
“Ignatius’ alleged defense of the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist falls apart when we examine his prolific use of metaphor in his letters. A metaphor is a figure of speech “in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.” His letters are positively riddled with them.
Protestants eagerly embrace Jesus’ use of metaphor in John 6, and have no qualms with consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in the context of the meaning He assigned to the metaphors. “Eating” His flesh and “drinking” His blood (John 6:53) are metaphors for “coming” to Him and “believing” in Him (John 6:35). Christians must therefore “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood” if they are to live eternally. To refuse to “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood,” is the metaphorical equivalent of refusing to come to Him and refusing to believe in Him, and that is a rejection of the Father Himself (John 12:48-49).”
Now for probably most Protestant readers that just makes perfect sense because they have been indoctrinated in accepting a metaphorical meaning to Christ’s words. But how many Protestant readers are actually aware of how Christ’s Jewish disciples and listeners would have taken his word’s metaphorically.
In the language of the Bible the metaphor “to eat one’s flesh” meant to persecute, abuse, and destroy one’s character:
Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. (Psalm 26:2)
By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Isaiah 9:19-20)
And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine. (Isaiah 49:26)
You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. (Micah 3:2-3)
Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. […] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. (James 5:1,3)
And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)
Do you really think Jesus meant “He that persecutes Me has eternal life”?
As I mentioned previously Metaphors generally jump out at you. In fact if they don’t jump out at you it’s a pretty poor metaphor. So given the background that Christ would have known how his Jewish listeners would have understood him in a metaphorical sense, how is it conceivable that he would have not called them back and explained the “metaphor”? And why oh why would Christ have said John 54 “because My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink”.!!!!!!! Is this the language of one speaking metaphorically?
Just had a chance to review Cyprian’s epistle 62. I wanted to review it because of the claim Timothy K made
“And yet, for all of his elucidation of Cyprian on sacrifice, oblation, the Lord’s Supper and the elements, JND Kelly omits this one critical element in Cyprian’s thinking: that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper”
I would encourage everyone to read the entire letter, but no where does Cyprian state that Jesus did not give his body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the last supper. But sometimes just one little statement says it all. From the same epistle Cyprian writes ” how can we shed our blood for Christ, who blush to drink the blood of Christ?” What I find amazing is Timothy Kauffman mentions this quote and it’s like water off a duck’s back. Rather then paying attention to what the Father is saying the effort is made to try and interpret what the Father is saying to support one’s theological background. In the process of reading Timothy Kauffman’s article on Cyprian et al
I did want to follow up on a point I had made earlier about how all the apostolic churches, is Catholic, Orthodox and
Coptic etc mix wine with water in their Eucharistic service as mentioned by Irenaeus when he spoke of the “mingled wine”. I asked of Timothy Kauffman
“Do you have mingled wine at your Eucharistic service?”
To which Timothy Kauffman replied
“Yes, we do, but I think you are reading into Irenæus’ something that you ought not. He said,
“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God…” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V.2.3)
Do you use manufactured bread in the Lord’s supper? I do. The mingled cup refers to the manufacturing process for wine, just as the reference to manufactured bread refers to the making of the bread. Wine doesn’t grow on vines. Grapes do. Bread doesn’t grow on stocks. Wheat does. The bread and wine have to be made. In the process of making wine for common use, the final step is to mix the merum with water to make it suitable for drinking. It’s not like Irenæus was adding a step in the liturgy. Do you think he was? Why do you ask?”
Now it’s hard for me to believe Timothy Kauffman that you had read Cyprian’s epistle 62 before the above comment and not realized that when the Church Father’s were talking about the mingled wine they were not talking about the manufacturing process of making wine. From that epistle Cyprian writes
“13. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated. hence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church— that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed— from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united. ”
Now where is the wine and water mixed or mingled? In the cup, not in the manufacturing process. In fact Cyprian specifically details the manufacturing process of the bread where Flour is mixed with water, not Bread mixed with water, In fact the mingling of wine and water is mentioned by a number of the Church Fathers. And taken in context of Cyprian’s whole epistle, where did this tradition of mixing wine with water begin? How about Jesus Christ?
Timothy P, I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. When Cyprian writes, “But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ…” what do you think he meant?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, you say you want to understand what I am saying but the discussion is rather the mingled cup refers to the manufacturing process of wine as you claimed or is it a part of the liturgical service as currently practiced in all the churches that can trace their roots to the apostolic age, ie Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic etc. I’ll be glad to comment on what I think Cyprian meant when he stated the people are “made one with Christ”, but again let’s review. Now Irenaeus started out this discussion although the mixing of wine and water is mentioned by a number of Church Fathers. Irenaeus wrote
When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God…” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V.2.3)
Timothy Kauffman replied
“Do you use manufactured bread in the Lord’s supper? I do. The mingled cup refers to the manufacturing process for wine, just as the reference to manufactured bread refers to the making of the bread. Wine doesn’t grow on vines. Grapes do. Bread doesn’t grow on stocks. Wheat does. The bread and wine have to be made. In the process of making wine for common use, the final step is to mix the merum with water to make it suitable for drinking. It’s not like Irenæus was adding a step in the liturgy. Do you think he was? Why do you ask?”
So is the mingled cup referring to the wine making process? Let’s look at Cyprian’s words again.
“13. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But ****when the water is mingled in the cup with wine****, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of *****water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup****, that that mixture cannot any more be separated. hence, moreover, nothing can separate the Church— that is, the people established in the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that which they have believed— from Christ, in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore,***** in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered*****. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. ******Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other*****; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united. ”
Now obviously Cyprian is not referring to the manufacturing process of wine unless Timothy Kauffman it is your understanding that that manufacturing process occurs using the “cup of the Lord”, Now as a young altar boy I can remember the priest pouring a small amount of water into the “cup of the Lord” prior to the consecration but hadn’t thought much about it until a number a years ago I came upon a Coptic website that discussed the fact that this was an apostolic tradition followed in the Coptic Church. And of course Cyprian’s whole argument in the epistle is the need to follow the tradition handed down from the Lord.
Now what does Cyprian mean when he states that the people “are made one with Christ” in the mixing of the wine and water. Obviously he is using symbolic language as he does when he writes
“in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united. “
Timothy P, you wrote,
Indeed, I do. Which is why I said, “Timothy P, I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.” Is your belief that I really do not want to understand what you are saying? On what facts do you base that belief? You continued…
Why yes, that is, in fact, what the discussion was about. In the process of having that discussion, you mentioned paragraph 13 of Cyprian’s 62nd epistle, and I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by bringing it up.
Just so I can understand, let me recap your summary. When Cyprian says,
To this you responded,
“Obviously?” In what way is it obvious to you if he does not actually say he’s being symbolic?
Just so I understand your thinking, when Cyprian says the people are made one with Christ when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, they are not really, actually, truly, made one with Christ? So the people are not really made one with Christ when the water and wine are mingled—they are only made one with Christ symbolically when the water and wine are mingled?
And Cyprian really means, “in the water is understood the people [symbolically]”, and “in the wine is showed the [symbolic] blood of Christ,” and “the [symbolized] people is made one with [symbolized] Christ” and “conjoined with Him [symbolically]”, so that he means all of this symbolically, and not really, literally, actually? How did you know that from the text if he didn’t actually use the term “symbol” in the whole paragraph?
Yes, it is about the manufacturing process. But before I get to that, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Please let me know if I have understood you correctly.
Thank you,
Tim
Obviously I knew Timothy Kauffman where this line of questioning was going and I find it amusing that at least so far you have ignored the fact that the wine and water are mixed in the Lord’s cup and as I expected focus on the fact that a Church Father will use symbolic language in discussing the Eucharist. Why would a Catholic be upset about the Eucharist being called a symbol or bringing out symbolic aspects of the Eucharist when the Council of Trent called the Eucharist a symbol. In this particular case we are discussing when the wine is mixed with water IN THE LORD’S CUP prior to the consecration, “in consecrating the cup of the Lord”. At that moment the wine and water are entirely symbolic, so why would I be bothered by Cyprian’s symbolism? But I obviously can see why from the Protestant perspective since one has no quotes from the Church Father’s denying their belief in the real presence one is left with grasping at straws that do not undermine the Catholic position.
What I actually find most interesting Timothy Kauffman is that you and Brian will try to argue that the early church Fathers were teaching a symbolic presence and not the real presence but yet have no explanation as to how the switch to belief in the real presence took place. Who was the first Church Father who taught this heretical doctrine and how did they manage to convert the entire Catholic Church to this belief without a historical record? I have tried to answer your question about my understanding of the real presence and what Cyprian meant when he said people are joined to Christ. Now I have asked you numerous times to explain what would happen in your church if someone came in teaching the doctrine of the real presence. No protests? You never answered my question! And do you mix the wine with the water in THE LORD’S CUP? And do you “consecrate the cup of the Lord” in your service as Cyprian mentioned? And you brought up that in the manufacturing of wine water is added to merum to produce the wine. Can you explain why the Fathers always seem to mention mixing wine with water and not merum with water?
Timothy P, as I clearly wrote,
I said that because I know that the conversation is about the manufacturing process, but because you brought up Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 62, paragraph 13, I wanted to make sure I understood what you meant by that paragraph of that letter.
You wrote,
I did not say a Catholic would be upset about that. Rather, what I asked, was
I note that you have avoided the question, but have merely restated the very thing about which I am asking. You simply restated, “At that moment the wine and water are entirely symbolic,” but did not answer my question about how you know that if Cyprian did not say that was the case. You still have not answered that question, and yet you complained of me:
Of course I have not yet answered that question. You took weeks even to define the term “real presence.” I am unwilling to answer a question in which your terms are undefined. Now that you have defined the term we can pick up our conversation on that thread. But by the time you finally responded with a definition, you had also posted a great many other comments on related subjects, and at the moment we are talking about one of those comments. In particular, the comment to which I refer was posted by you on May 24 in which you said:
At that point, you cited paragraph 13 of Cyprian’s Letter 62. Thus, in response to your comment about the meaning of Cyprian Letter 62, paragraph 13, I asked you a question about what you think he meant in that paragraph.
Because I prefer not to allow conversations to run amok, I am reading each comment and asking you questions about each comment in order to understand what you are saying—believe it or not, the things you say and believe are not entirely clear to me. So, if you can simply answer the question without diversions, in what way is it obvious to you that Cyprian’s language is entirely symbolic if he does not actually say he’s being symbolic? That is not a complicated question, and there is no need to avoid it by changing the subject.
Additionally, from what you have said so far, it appears to me that you believe the tradition of mixing the water and the wine in the cup is a tradition that originated with Christ and that that Cyprian is simply restating that tradition. And thus, ever since the Last Supper, the tradition has been to mix the water and the wine in the cup as part of the liturgy of the table? Is that your understanding? That this practice of mixing the water and the wine in the cup at the table has been received from Christ?
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, you wrote :
“Additionally, from what you have said so far, it appears to me that you believe the tradition of mixing the water and the wine in the cup is a tradition that originated with Christ and that that Cyprian is simply restating that tradition. And thus, ever since the Last Supper, the tradition has been to mix the water and the wine in the cup as part of the liturgy of the table? Is that your understanding? That this practice of mixing the water and the wine in the cup at the table has been received from Christ?”
Again my position in these debates are so much easier then yours. All I have to do is provide the exact words of the Church Father and let them speak for themselves. No need to try and substitute “merum” when the Father states wine, no need to add antitype when the word never appears in the quotes I gave from Irenaeus, no need to interpret Christ’s words “This is my Body” with “This symbolizes my Body”. So where did I get the idea that Cyprian “believed the tradition of mixing the water and the wine in the cup is a tradition that originated with Christ and that Cyprian is simply restating that tradition”. Well, let’s let Cyprian speak for himself. And I quote
9. Nor is there need of very many arguments, dearest brother, to prove that baptism is always indicated by the appellation of water, and that thus we ought to understand it, since the Lord, when He came, manifested the truth of baptism and the cup in commanding that that faithful water, the water of life eternal, should be given to believers in baptism, but, teaching by the example of His own authority, that the cup should be mingled with a union of wine and water. For, taking the cup on the eve of His passion, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Drink all of this; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day in which I shall drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.” Matthew 26:28-29 In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord’s sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion. But how shall we drink the new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of His Father, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine, nor mix the cup of the Lord by the Lord’s own tradition?
10. Moreover, the blessed Apostle Paul, chosen and sent by the Lord, and appointed a preacher of the Gospel truth, lays down these very things in his epistle, saying, “The Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, This is my body, which shall be given for you: do this in remembrance of me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you shall show forth the Lord’s death until He come.” 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 But if it is both enjoined by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and delivered by His apostle, that as often as we drink, ***we do in remembrance of the Lord the same thing which the Lord also did, we find that what was commanded is not observed by us, unless we also do what the Lord did; and that mixing the Lord’s cup in like manner we do not depart from the divine teaching*******; but that we must not at all depart from the evangelical precepts, and that disciples ought also to observe and to do the same things which the Master both taught dud did. The blessed apostle in another place more earnestly and strongly teaches, saying, “I wonder that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into grace, unto another gospel, which is not another; but there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any otherwise than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be anathema.” Galatians 1:6-9
11. Since, then, neither the apostle himself nor an angel from heaven can preach or teach any otherwise than Christ has once taught and His apostles have announced, I wonder very much whence has originated this practice, that, contrary to evangelical and discipline, water is offered in some places in the Lord’s cup, which water by itself cannot express the blood of Christ.
So Timothy Kauffman, in the quotes from Cyprian when Christ was mixing wine and water, was he referring to the Last Supper Christ had with His apostles or their last wine manufacturing session?
Timothy P, again you have managed to write a long comment without answering the question I asked. It appears to me that you are avoiding it. My question was:
And remember, your “position in these debates is so much easier” than mine because all you have have to do is “provide the exact words of the Church Father and let them speak for themselves.”
So, please answer my question. In what way is it obvious to you that Cyprian’s language is symbolic if he does not actually say he’s being symbolic? And remember, there is no need (apparently) to add “entirely symbolic” to Cyprian’s letter when the words never appear in the quote you provided. Now, allowing Cyprian to speak for himself, in what way is it obvious to you that Cyprian’s language is symbolic if he does not actually say he’s being symbolic?
We’ll get to the merum part, which is quite easy, but we were talking about Cyprian and you said his words “in the wine is showed the blood of Christ,” and “when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes” (Cyprian, Letter 62, paragraph 13) were entirely symbolic. Now it sounds very much to me like Cyprian is saying that “in the wine is showed the blood of Christ” occurs at the very moment the water is mingled with the wine. Why do you say he is being “entirely symbolic” here? Are the words “entirely symbolic” in the citation you provided? If so, please point that out to me so that Cyprian can speak for himself, and I am unable to find where those words occur.
And yes we will get to the merum part, but I’m trying to understand what you believe about the citation you provided by Cyprian. That is the only thing we’re talking about right now, so please try to stick to that question.
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, you finished your last comment
“And yes we will get to the merum part, but I’m trying to understand what you believe about the citation you provided by Cyprian. That is the only thing we’re talking about right now, so please try to stick to that question”
????”the only thing we’re talking about right now”. But the comment you made just before that comment you finished with
“Additionally, from what you have said so far, it appears to me that you believe the tradition of mixing the water and the wine in the cup is a tradition that originated with Christ and that that Cyprian is simply restating that tradition. And thus, ever since the Last Supper, the tradition has been to mix the water and the wine in the cup as part of the liturgy of the table? Is that your understanding? That this practice of mixing the water and the wine in the cup at the table has been received from Christ?”.
Now what was I supposed to do other then posting Cyprian’s remarks paragraph 9, and 10 which clearly show that Cyprian did believe that this mixing of the water and wine in the Lord’s cup was received from Christ. In fact Cyprian declares
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be anathema.” Galatians 1:6-9
I realize many questions go back and forth in any debate and I have every intention of answering your questions. In fact the question as to what led me to believe that Cyprian was speaking symbolically when he wrote : “For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; (Cyprian, Letter 62, paragraph 13)” I think is an excellent question. It’s a great starting point in a discussion as to how to tell if someone is speaking literally or metaphorically. I’ll try to make some postings today to at least give my opinion. Fair enough? In the meantime could you have some of your friends read paragraph 9, 10 and 11 of Cyprian’s Letter 62 and find out if they agree with me that Cyprian believed that the mixing of the wine and water in the Lord’s cup was instituted by Christ and handed down by the apostles. I’m just curious.
Timothy P, Again you have written a lengthy comment without answering my questions. I wrote,
That is merely a statement of what I believe to be true. It is not a question, and yet you attempted to answer it simply by pasting Cyprian. The questions were what followed, and you did not answer those questions. The questions are:
What are your answers to those questions? You responded as if there was nothing you could possibly do except “posting Cyprian’s remarks”. But those questions are not about what Cyprian taught, but about what you personally believe. Cyprian cannot answer them for you.
Thanks,
Tim
The question Timothy Kauffman is not about what I believe or what Cyprian believed but what the Lord Jesus Christ taught and that is the point Cyprian is making in the first two paragraphs of his epistle.
1. Cyprian to Caecilius his brother, greeting. Although I know, dearest brother, that very many of the bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine condescension, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; yet since some, either by ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and in ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught, I have thought it as well a religious as a necessary thing to write to you this letter, that, if any one is still kept in this error, he may behold the light of truth, and return to the root and origin of the tradition of the Lord. Nor must you think, dearest brother, that I am writing my own thoughts or man’s; or that I am boldly assuming this to myself of my own voluntary will, since I always hold my mediocrity with lowly and modest moderation. But when anything is prescribed by the inspiration and command of God, it is necessary that a faithful servant should obey the Lord, acquitted by all of assuming anything arrogantly to himself, seeing that he is constrained to fear offending the Lord unless he does what he is commanded.
2. Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. For when Christ says, “I am the true vine.” John 15:1 the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures.”
I know you don’t like my posting Cyprian’s remarks but how else is one going to understand what the Father’s taught without being familiar with their writings. My concern is that you are not even studying the Father’s commentaries. Just like the question of the real presence of course I am going to post the Father’s comments verbatim where they explicitly express their belief in the real presence. I would love to post Cyril of Jerusalem’s entire catechetical lectures where he describes the worship service and I hope others would take the time to read those writings. And when it comes to mixing wine with water in the Lord’s cup I am going to post Cyprian’s comments where he states this tradition comes from the Lord. And when Cyprian is making the same points as I have made I have no problem with Cyprian answering for me.
Timothy P,
You wrote,
I like you posting Cyprian’s remarks very much. The problem is not that you posted Cyprian’s remarks, but rather that you posted Cyprian’s remarks in response to my question about what you believe to be true. You stated,
But what you believe was precisely the question that I asked. I asked a very simple question:
I am very familiar with Cyprian’s writings. I have never seen anything in his writings about what Timothy P’s understanding is about anything.
So, once again, Timothy P, do you believe that Jesus mixed the water and the wine in the cup at the table?
I am not asking you to recite what Cyrpian believed. I’m asking you what YOU believe about the mingled cup. Your priest mixes the water and the wine at the altar. Did Christ do that? If so, how do you know?
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, again sorry to be so slow in response. Now I know you are an extremely intelligent gentlemen so when I responded “And when Cyprian is making the same points as I have made I have no problem with Cyprian answering for me” I would have assumed that you would have understood my position since you claim ” I am very familiar with Cyprian’s writings”. But yes I believe Christ mixed wine and water at the Last Supper . How else can you explain the practice of mixing wine and water in the early Church’s Eucharistic services. And they weren’t manufacturing wine as you have suggested. If anyone does a Goggle search of mixing wine with water in ancient times you can find many references that this was a common practice in ancient Greece and Rome. Mixing wine and water is discussed as part of the Paschal meal the Jews celebrated. In the book of Proverbs a thousand years before the Gospel Wisdom calls out “Come eat my bread and drink the wine I have mingled.” And how appropriate that what pours out of Christ’s side when pierced with a lance? Wine and Water!
And so when Cyprian writes
“Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine.”, all I can ask Timothy Kauffman is why you do not follow the tradition of the Lord?
Now I pointed out that mixing of wine and water was part of the early church Eucharistic tradition and when Irenaeus mentioned the mingled cup Timothy Kauffman replied
“The mingled cup refers to the manufacturing process for wine, just as the reference to manufactured bread refers to the making of the bread. Wine doesn’t grow on vines.”
So where the early Christians in the habit of manufacturing wine at their worship services? Justin Martyr writes
“Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine AND WATER are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen “.
So Timothy Kauffman, do you think Justin Martyr is referring to their manufacturing wine? Tell me about your worship service. Wine, Grape Juice, Water?
Timothy P,
Thank you very much for your response. You need not apologize about a slow response. We are all busy, and there is no rush. You wrote,
Ok, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right, and Jesus mixed the water and the wine at the Last Supper. Let’s also assume, again for the sake of argument, that Cyprian also taught and believed that Jesus mixed the water and wine at the Last Supper, for he wrote that we must keep the tradition of the Lord “in mixing and offering the cup of the Lord” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 62, paragraph 16). We ought, after all, “observe what He taught … do what He did,” as he wrote the same paragraph.
Now, I note that you have cited Justin Martyr’s First Apology, paragraph 67, in which it says that “bread and wine and water are brought” forward to the person presiding at the Lord’s Supper (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 67). Thus it appears that you believe the tradition of the Lord—i.e., what He taught and did—is that water and wine are brought to him as water and as wine unmixed, and that He personally mixed the water and wine in the chalice. So you have insisted throughout our discussion, and with Cyprian, that “nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did.” And the Lord, so you say, mixed the chalice.
But two paragraphs earlier, Justin Martyr had said that the “wine and water” that are brought to the president have already been mixed together in the cup. In other words, the gifts that the people bring forward are bread and a cup of wine mixed with water:
The cup presented to the man presiding at the Lord’s Supper, just as the Lord presided at the Last Supper, has already been mixed, and therefore, the one presiding at the supper does not mix it. It has already been prepared for him. “Our teacher of these things,” Justin says, “is Jesus Christ” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 13). Justin clearly believed that the cup Jesus used at the Lord’s Supper had already been prepared for Him, and that He did not mix it. That is Justin in the 2nd Century, insisting that the chalice had already been mixed before Jesus took it.
Then there is Cyprian in the 3rd Century in Carthage, who, as you say, insisted that the Lord mixed the cup Himself.
And then in the early 4th century, Aphrahat of Persia, when describing the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, has the cup already mixed before the Bridegroom is seated:
As Roman Catholics helpfully instruct us, the Mass is the Wedding Feast: “We can understand how the Mass is a wedding feast by turning to the Book of Revelation” (Catholics United for the Faith, The Mass and the Heavenly Wedding Feast). And thus, the wedding feast is the Mass, and Aphrahat, in depicting the Wedding feast, has the cup already mixed beforehand.
That said, since you believe that it is an Apostolic tradition that “Christ mixed wine and water at the Last Supper,” would it be fair to conclude that you believe the Apostolic tradition of the celebrant mixing the water and wine at the table was observed in the first century, then unfortunately lost in the second century, recovered in the third, unfortunately lost again in the fourth, and then finally recovered again later?
Or, more succinctly, why did Justin and Aphrahat “not follow the tradition of the Lord?”, and more to the point, why did they think they had received their misguided tradition from Christ, if that is not what Christ did?
In any case, to answer your question,
The answer is simple: bread is baked; wine is prepared. That is the “manufacturing” process, for “manufacture” simply means “to make by hand.” The “wine” used at the Lord’s supper was “prepared wine,” made by hand, which is to say “manufactured wine,” merum mixed with water before the celebrant even arrives at the table, just as the bread is baked before it is placed on the table. Thus, Irenæus’ reference: “the mingled cup and the manufactured bread” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 5.2.3).
To insist, as you have, that it is an Apostolic tradition that Jesus mixed the water and the wine in His chalice, leaves the Early Church in hopeless misunderstanding and contradiction about “what Christ did.” What you will find if you dig a little deeper is that Justin, Irenæus, Clement, Cyprian and Aphrahat all understood that Jesus used mixed wine at the Last Supper, and not a one of them ever actually says Christ mixed it Himself. Thus, the Roman Catholic encyclopedia, very tellingly, informs us,
Even Roman Catholicism isn’t sure why they do it. We know Jesus used wine. At His time, wine was merum mixed with water, because that was how wine was prepared for a feast. Jesus sent His disciples to prepare the feast (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:14-15; Luke 22:8-9), and I have no reason to assume that they prepared it any differently than they would any other feast—by preparing the wine in advance by mixing merum with water. A mingled cup, as it were.
What you are lacking is any historical ground at all for your conviction that Jesus prepared the wine Himself.
Thanks again for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation with me.
Tim
As usual may take me a little time to respond, since we now how 2 points of contention. But let’s expand your definition of manufacture.
Simple Definition of manufacture
1
: the process of making products especially with machines in factories
Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary
Examples: manufacture in a sentence
Full Definition of manufacture
1
1
: something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery
2
2
a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor
b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery
3
3
: the act or process of producing something
Adding water to wine can hardly be described as a manufacturing process, but if you insist in your Church is it the practice to add water to merum or wine as in accord with early Church tradition? And can you show me where in the Bible or the early church Fathers the word merum is used. And since I responded to your question will you now tell me what would happen if someone in your church started preaching the doctrine of the real presence as I had defined previously per your request.
I’ll be glad to respond to rather Christ mixed the wine with water but again let me quote Cyprian’s opinion
“Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine.”. Hmmmm. What the LORD FIRST DID ON OUR BEHALF.
Thank you for your response, Timothy P. You wrote,
Why would you “expand” it? Irenæus was not using the term to refer to something made with machinery or in a factory. My definition of “manufacture,” as provided above, simply means “to make by hand.” It comes from the Latin, manu (hand) factum (made). That’s just what it means.
You also wrote,
That will come as a tremendous surprise to winemakers who insist that adding water to pressed grape product is in fact part of the winemaking process. Some examples for you (I’m sure you can find more):
Do you not believe wine was made by hand back in apostolic times? Or to put it another way, do you not believe wine was manu factum back then? The Eucharistic Prayer in Roman Catholicism is “We have this bread to offer, which human hands have made; … we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and the work of human hands.” By the time the priest says that the wine is the work of human hands, it is after he has mixed it. Your own liturgy testifies that mixing water and wine is part of the manufacturing process.
The question before us is not (or at least should not be, for the answer is obvious), “Is adding water to wine part of the wine manufacturing process?” (it surely is).
The question before us is, “Is adding water to wine part of the liturgy of the table?” You say it is, based on Cyprian in the 3rd century. There is no earlier mention of it. Justin said the wine is mixed with water before it ever gets to the table. I think we can agree that it was mixed by hand, and at least wine manufacturers will agree (even if you do not), that such mixing is part of the wine manufacturing process. In this telling note from a Roman Catholic explanation of the liturgy, the priest washes his hands as a symbol of internal purification, but back in the day, he had to wash his hands because all the people had brought the stuff they caught, harvested and made, including bread and wine:
Yes, people brought bread and wine with them to church. They had made it. In making it, they had added water to the wine as part of the process. It had already been mingled. Thus when Justin Martyr says “There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water,” it’s just the people bringing their gifts forward for the liturgy—all made by hand prior to the liturgy of the table.
Thus, there is no need to answer the second half of your question: “…but if you insist in your Church is it the practice to add water to merum or wine as in accord with early Church tradition?”
Where in the early church tradition is water added to wine as part of the liturgy? In Cyprian? Read Letter 62 in its context, and he’s simply against using water alone. He says wine has to be added to the water. He doesn’t really make case for liturgizing the act of mixing them. He just says you can’t use water alone—you have to add wine in there somewhere.
But along those lines, if Cyprian is your source for mixing wine and water at the table, then it is clear that he must be authoritative on its color, too. Would you agree, based on Cyprian, that the Lord taught us to use red wine, not colorless wine?:
And thus, it would be a violation of apostolic tradition to use wine that is not red? And since in the same paragraph, Cyprian insists that believers must be given to drink of the same cup, would agree as well that the cup from which all participants drink must be mixed? And the mixture must be red? Since Cyprian has this on the authority of apostolic tradition?
In any case, back to Irenæus, he referred to “et mistus calix, et factus panis” (Against Heresies, 5.3.2) which is literally “the mixed cup and the made bread.”
We don’t make the bread as part of the liturgy, and we don’t mix the wine as part of the liturgy because there is no authority to require us to do either. But we do use bread and wine, and yes, believe it or not, the wine we use has an awful lot of water included in it when it is made—just like in the early church. That’s just how wine is made.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, you wrote:
“But we do use bread and wine, and yes, believe it or not, the wine we use has an awful lot of water included in it when it is made—just like in the early church. That’s just how wine is made.”
Actually your last post will help us hopefully clarify the issue being discussed and I am afraid by your own examples you clearly are wrong on this issue. As a preview I am glad that apparently you admit that as part of your liturgical service you do not mix wine with water but instead drink wine which during the “manufacturing process” water is used. Very important distinction because that is not what the early Church Fathers are referring to and you clearly understand the difference as documented by your comments. Let’s look at the original comment from Irenaeus.
“He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the *MINGLED CUP* and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
Timothy Kauffman concerning the term mingled cup wrote the following;
“Do you use manufactured bread in the Lord’s supper? I do. The mingled cup refers to the manufacturing process for wine, just as the reference to manufactured bread refers to the making of the bread. Wine doesn’t grow on vines. Grapes do. Bread doesn’t grow on stocks. Wheat does. The bread and wine have to be made. In the process of making wine for common use, the final step is to mix the merum with water to make it suitable for drinking. ”
Now I have repeatedly asked Timothy Kauffman to show me where the Church Fathers use the word merum and since he has not responded I assume he has not been able to find that word in their writings. And I pointed out
“Adding water to wine can hardly be described as a manufacturing process…”
To which Timothy Kauffman replied
“That will come as a tremendous surprise to winemakers who insist that adding water to pressed grape product is in fact part of the winemaking process. Some examples for you (I’m sure you can find more):
“As much as 67% of the final volume of lower end wine kits is water that is added by the wine maker.” (The Happy Winemaker, Water in Winemaking)
“…winemakers need be very carefully (sic) how much water to add to their grape must/juice…” (Wine Business, Water Dilution)
“Does the water you use in winemaking matter? I say yes indeed, especially for two important applications: Yeast rehydration and kit concentrate dilution.” (Winemaker, Softened Water)”
Now in the examples mentioned they never mention adding water to wine as part of the wine manufacturing process. In fact Timothy Kauffman, you obviously know the difference because and I quote
“That will come as a tremendous surprise to winemakers who insist that adding water to pressed grape product is in fact part of the winemaking process”.
What was that????? “adding water to pressed grape products”. Now Timothy Kauffman you clearly understand the distinction and adding water to wine is not part of the manufacturing process for making wine. That’s like saying part of the bread manufacturing process is adding water to bread.
But what about Irenaeus’s use of the word manufacture. I wrote
“But let’s expand your definition of manufacture.”
Timothy Kauffamn wrote
“Why would you “expand” it? Irenæus was not using the term to refer to something made with machinery or in a factory. My definition of “manufacture,” as provided above, simply means “to make by hand.” It comes from the Latin, manu (hand) factum (made). That’s just what it means. ”
Timothy Kauffman, Irenaeus never used the word to describe the Wine. The words used in general by the Father’s was Mingled or Mixed”. And there are numerous examples in the Father’s where they are specifically speaking of mixing or mingling WINE AND WATER .
And again I mention this is not just a practice in the Catholic Church but all the Churches which can date their pedigree back to the time of the Apostles. As I mentioned before the topic I first found on a Coptic website!
Have a great day. Topic today at Mass was Mercy and Forgiveness.
Thank you, Timothy P,
You wrote,
As I wrote two weeks ago,
You may feel free to assume whatever you like, but I’m still talking about Cyprian. You will recall that you took some time to provide a definition of the Real Presence. I am simply trying to keep the conversation focused on your citation of Cyprian. I will return to merum as I have said.
You insisted,
I responded that indeed, adding water to wine is indeed part of the winemaking process, and provided multiple examples from winemakers who indeed add water to their wine in the process of making the wine. Believing to have caught me in a contradiction, you wrote,
If you understood winemaking, you would not say such a thing. “pressed grape products” = “merum” = “the blood of the grape”, all of which refer to pure, undiluted, unmixed wine. Merum is undiluted wine, or more precisely, merum is wine alone, or wine without water, or wine that has not yet been mixed with water. If you add “water” to “wine without water,” the end result is actually “wine.” Which is to say, if you add water to merum, the end result is wine, since merum is, in fact, wine that has not yet been mixed with water. How do you make wine? By adding water to undiluted wine to dilute it into regular wine.
You continued,
Now if “flour” and “bread” were the same word, that would in fact be the case. You would add water to bread (flour) to make bread (bread). As it stands, however, “flour” and “bread” are not the same word, so we do not add water to bread to make bread. Agreed.
However, in winemaking you add water to merum to make wine, but merum is just shorthand for pure wine. So yes, as part of the winemaking process, you add water to pure wine. The end result is diluted wine. Wine without water, plus water, is wine: mixed wine, diluted wine, mingled wine.
You may note that Cyprian made just such a point in the very epistle from which you have been making your argument. The cup of the Lord is not water alone, nor wine alone (merum), but both mixed together. Of course it is. That’s how you make wine. And just like the cup is wine mixed with water, the bread is flour mixed with water, because adding to water is part of the manufacturing process for both:
Now Cyprian does not say anything about “manufacturing” here, but I think you’ll agree that he has sufficiently described the process for breadmaking for you to conclude that he is indeed talking about the bread manufacturing process without actually using the word “manufacture.” In fact he continues in the same sentence to refer both to the mingling process for wine and to the breadmaking process:
Now it is true that in paragraph 13, Cyprian has not used the term manufacture, but he is certainly talking about the process of manufacturing bread, and he does so in the same context of describing what is, in fact, the manufacturing process for wine. So Cyprian has simply described the winemaking process and the breadmaking process, observing that in both cases water is added as part of the manufacturing process. Notably, he does so to show that mixing water with wine and water with flour enhances the symbolism of the elements, since in Cyprian’s calculus, water symbolizes us, and just as we are mixed in the bread with Jesus, we ought to be mixed in the wine with Him too. You can take or leave his inferences from the mixing of water and flour and the mixing of water and wine alone (actually, I recommend that you leave them), but you can’t get around the fact that he and Irenæus (whom you cite above) both refer to mixing water with wine in the same context that they mention making bread. No surprises there. In any case, as your own lay apologists argue, the people in those days brought the bread and wine with them to church:
Yes, indeed. The people would have brought bread and wine with them to church for the collection. From among the food that was brought as a collection for the poor, some bread and wine would be brought forward for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And as your own apologists will agree, mixing water with the wine was simply part of the manufacturing process for wine. The people would have brought mingled wine and manufactured bread with them.
In any case, to get back to your argument from Irenæus, “the mingled cup and the manufactured bread” is simply a parallelism, a literary tool to convey the same thing. He continues to use parallelisms throughout the chapter, saying, ”
Thus, “mingled cup” and “manufactured bread” are simply parallelisms to convey the same thing: the wine and bread are made by human hands. Indeed they are. Irenæus is clearly making the same point, a parallelism in which the winemaking process and the breadmaking process are recounted in parallel in order to drive his point home.
But let’s get back to Cyprian. Keep in mind that I am at this moment trying to focus on what you believe about Cyprian’s teachings. I will get to your other questions in time, but I want to keep our conversation on a reasonable pace, and reasonably focused. In my last comment to you, I included a few questions about Epistle 62 that you did not answer. Can we get back to those? I asked,
If Cyprian is your source for mixing wine and water at the table, then it is clear that he must be authoritative on its color, too. Would you agree, based on Cyprian, that the Lord taught us to use red wine, not colorless wine? (see Cyprian, Letter 62, paragraph 7), “In Isaiah also the Holy Spirit testifies this same thing concerning the Lord’s passion, saying, ‘Wherefore are Your garments red, and Your apparel as from the treading of the wine-press full and well trodden?’ (Isaiah 63:2) Can water make garments red?) And thus, it would be a violation of apostolic tradition to use wine that is not red?
And since in the same paragraph, Cyprian insists that believers must be given to drink of the same cup, would agree as well that the cup from which all participants drink must be mixed? And the mixture must be red? Since Cyprian has this on the authority of apostolic tradition?
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation with me.
Tim
Sorry will have to respond more fully this weekend. I agree with you that Irenaeus and Cyprian are showing the similarities of the process in making bread and wine but they are also displaying the differences. Why the emphasis on the “mixed” and “mingled” wine! Where do the Church Fathers speak of the “mixed” or the “mingled” bread. You can’t ignore the fact that a distinction is being made.
Now Timothy K, you wrote
If you understood winemaking, you would not say such a thing. “pressed grape products” = “merum” = “the blood of the grape”, all of which refer to pure, undiluted, unmixed wine.
Grape juice is a pressed grape product but is not merum or wine. Now you said that in your Church you drink Mingled wine, but from what I can tell you don’t mingle or mix the water with the wine during the service. And I am assuming you believe the manufacturer of the wine you use in your service takes merum, adds water to it and then sells it to you. You may be right but I don’t think the manufacturer would admit it. No doubt water is used in the manufacturing process, but I doubt that they make merum and then add water to it. If you will let me know what wine maker we are talking about I can check it out.
Thank you, Timothy P. You observed:
Why indeed? And why do they always speak of the mixed or mingled wine in the same context that they speak of the breadmaking process? It’s because they were speaking of the process for the making of each element of the Lord’s Supper. Baked bread. Mixed wine.
Well, to keep this on topic, Cyprian speaks of it in the very same paragraph that you cited:
He says something similar in Epistle 75, “For when the Lord calls bread, which is combined by the union of many grains…”
You continued,
Of course not. There is no basis for such a liturgical rite. That is why we are having this conversation. You continued,
Well, since “merum” is pure wine, and water is an indispensable ingredient in wine, then yes, that is exactly what they do. In fact, honest winemakers admit it, but they all do it, as you can read about here:
Notably, the water is added in order to moderate the alcohol content. The same reason they added water to wine in Jesus’ day.
In any case, you said, “Grape juice is a pressed grape product but is not merum or wine.” Why not? Grapes can ferment on the vine, so why would “pressed grape product” not be “pure wine” or merum?
For the sake of clarity, and to make our conversation more productive, I want you to understand that yes, we use “mingled wine” in our church service (that is grape product with water), but I say so to make the point that we use manufactured wine. We do not mix it ourselves. As far as I can tell from Justin, Irenæus, Clement and Cyprian, that was their only point in their multiple references to mixed wine and manufactured bread. We do not mix the wine in the service, just as we do not bake the bread in the service, as there is no Scriptural case to be made for it. It is also clear that there is no patristic support for it, either.
In any case, I do look forward to your more detailed answer this weekend to the questions I was asking, namely,
Thank you,
Tim
Again I appreciate your patience and apologize for not responding last weekend. It seems I never have a free moment. I’ll be glad to comment on the red wine issue but we have hardly finished on the question of mixing wine and water and will need to highlight the points of disagreement. Apparently a contributor to One Fold thinks it’s ridiculous that we are debating the issue of mixing wine and water, so I kind of hate expanding the topic but after we make our summary arguments I would be glad to touch on the color issue. Just for the One Fold reader however I think it’s important to understand why we would be debating this issue. We of course were debating what the Church Fathers taught concerning the belief in the real presence in the Eucharist when I commented
“Do you believe that the Apostles instructed the first Christians on whether Christ was really present in the Eucharist or just symbolically present? I would like to know who you lay the blame on. Apostles terrible teachers or early Christians many of who were martyred just too stupid to realize it was all symbolic?
Do you have mingled wine at your Eucharistic service?. Read Justin Martyr’s account of the Eucharistic Supper. Wine mixed with water. Do you remember when you were little and the Priest mixed the wine with water. Almost 2000 years of mixing wine with water, and yet after the Protestant Reformations some Christians have started using grape juice.
How about the “Invocation of the Holy Spirit” at the Eucharistic service that Irenaeus mentions. Do you practice that in your service at the time of the consecration? Do you remember this Eucharistic prayer, “And so Father, we bring you these gifts. We wish you to make them holy BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT THEY MAY BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF YOUR SON, OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.” Timothy K, at your service do you practice the invocation of the Holy Spirit to change the bread into symbolic bread? Do you need the Holy Spirit to create a symbol?”
Now my point of the Father’s making a big deal over the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the mixing of wine and water is that these are practices that are clearly visible in all the apostolic Churches that date themselves to the time of the apostles, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic etc. Now Timothy Kauffman, I have asked you numerous times what would happen in your Church if the minister started teaching the doctrine of the real presence. You know but have not been willing to admit there would be a mass exodus. Similarly you have admitted that in your Church they do not mix wine and water, and you have suggested in the early Church the wine and water were mixed at home and then brought to the Church. We will focus on your evidence but what would happen if I showed up at your Church and insisted that the wine needed to be mixed with water at the service to follow apostolic tradition. Now the parishioners might not leave the Church but there would at least be some discussion. But in the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Church history such a discussion never takes place to my knowledge. And why not. Tradition!!!!!!! So how did these sneaky Church leaders create this innovation without a ripple? It’s similar to the infant baptism question. I am amazed how some Protestants can believe that the apostles did not authorize infant baptism when it was obviously universally practiced in the early Church. Can you imagine the Apostles teaching their followers they should not baptize infants and yet the universal Church falls into such a practice within 300 years. They are having arguments over when to celebrate Easter but not infant baptism.
Now I mentioned that you suggested they mixed the wine at home and that your Church follows a similar practice. You wrote
“In any case, as your own lay apologists argue, the people in those days brought the bread and wine with them to church:
“…the gifts of the people … may have included fresh fish and live chickens as well as bread and wine!”(Holy Spirit Interactive, Liturgy of the Eucharist)
Yes, indeed. The people would have brought bread and wine with them to church for the collection. From among the food that was brought as a collection for the poor, some bread and wine would be brought forward for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And as your own apologists will agree, mixing water with the wine was simply part of the manufacturing process for wine. The people would have brought mingled wine and manufactured bread with them.”
Timothy Kauffman, you constantly see what you want to see instead of what a Church Father wrote or in this case a Catholic writer. The Catholic writer made absolutely no mention of mixing the wine and water and then bringing it to the service. Where do you see that? In fact the whole basis of your argument seems to hinge on a single comment from Justin Martyr where Justin writes ” There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water” but then writes “Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine AND WATER are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen “. Now only Justin can explain the apparent contradiction but I think we can both agree nothing in Justin’s statements suggest that the wine and water were mixed in the people’s homes and then bought to the service.
Timothy Kauffman, you wrote
“For the sake of clarity, and to make our conversation more productive, I want you to understand that yes, we use “mingled wine” in our church service (that is grape product with water), but I say so to make the point that we use manufactured wine. We do not mix it ourselves. As far as I can tell from Justin, Irenæus, Clement and Cyprian, that was their only point in their multiple references to mixed wine and manufactured bread. We do not mix the wine in the service, just as we do not bake the bread in the service, as there is no Scriptural case to be made for it. It is also clear that there is no patristic support for it, either. ”
Timothy Kauffman, what there is no patristic support of is that they mixed the wine and water at home and then brought it to the service. In fact your only evidence so far is that a Catholic writer wrote they brought wine to the service. That’s not very convincing. How about some Patristic evidence.
I offered to contact the wine manufacturer that makes the wine you use in your service to see if they mix wine with water or use wine in the manufacturing process when they make their wine. Now I assume you do understand the difference. In the first situation you have wine and dilute it with water. In the second situation you add water before or during the fermentation process. Now I think we both agree that what the Fathers were talking about is adding water to wine, would you not agree?
Whoops, I try to proof read but not to confuse everyone, the above line should read
“I offered to contact the wine manufacturer that makes the wine you use in your service to see if they mix wine with water or use water in the manufacturing process when they make their wine.”
Sorry!
Just to drive home the difference between diluting wine and using water to make wine during the manufacturing or fermentation process, I have to challenge again your following statement
Timothy K wrote ” I responded that indeed, adding water to wine is indeed part of the winemaking process, and provided ***multiple examples*** from winemakers who indeed add water to their wine in the process of making the wine.”
Timothy K, I looked at your multiple examples and have yet to find one where the person states they are adding water to wine. Yes they admit when making wine they use water but they don’t say they add water to wine. . Now maybe there are some winemakers that dilute their wine after the fermentation process has been completed but from what I understand the water is added during fermentation or before because the high alcohol content can actually stop the fermentation without completion of the process. So you are correct, the final alcohol content is less but of course what really matters is how does it taste.
But again what matters is we both agree that the Father’s are talking about mixing water with wine, and as I mentioned previously adding water to wine was common in the ancient world.
Timothy P, you wrote:
Yet one of the references I provided said,
Again, you can read the complete article here. I don’t know how they can be any more explicit than to say they are adding water to wine. That’s what they said. They added water to wine. Why? Because of a recent, unpalatable trend toward selling what the ancients would have called merum: “…winemakers began selling us bottles of highly alcoholic jam, and forgot how to make wines of balance and finesse.”
One point that I think you’re missing is that “merum” is in fact “wine without water” or “wine unmixed with water” or “wine that has not yet been mixed with water.” It is sometimes called “pure wine,” “wine alone,” “unmixed wine,” “undiluted wine,” or Clement’s delightful “Bacchic fuel,” or “the hottest of liquids—wine,” to which the antidote of temperence (water) must be added. The above article made reference to it when it referred to “highly alcoholic jam.” The point is, however, that unmixed wine is, nevertheless “wine,” so to make “wine,” you have to add water to “wine.” It’s a subtle but significant semantic issue. For bread manufacturing, you do not add water to bread to make bread, but for wine you do add water to wine to make wine. If “flour” was called “bread,” then yes, absolutely, you would add water to bread to make bread. And if “merum” was called “wine” (which it is), you would add water to wine to make wine.
The Early Church Fathers were simply referring to that parallelism when they spoke of adding water to bread. In the citation I provided from Cyprian, he used explicitly parallel language to make exactly that point:
Cyprian was here saying that they added water to wine just as water is added to flour. It’s a reference to the production and manufacturing process. If you understood winemaking, you would know that “wine alone” is merum. Cyprian’s statement reduces to “the cup of the Lord is not merum alone or water alone … just as the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone.” It is a simple reference to the winemaking process. It was not a reference to a liturgical rite.
Consider:
Wine is made by first collecting grapes. Bread is made by first collecting grains.
The next step for wine is pressing the grapes. The next step for bread is grinding the grains.
The next step for wine is mixing merum with water. The next step for bread is mixing flour with water.
Of course bread has to be baked and wine has to poured. The two production processes do not mirror each other perfectly. But as long as you understand that “merum” is simply undiluted wine, then the mixing of wine with water is the obvious manufacturing equivalent of mixing flour with water.
When you read the Early Church Fathers, they understood this quite well. That is why they repeatedly referred to those two manufacturing processes, as we can see with Cyprian’s citation above. And just as Cyprian said the mingling of the water with wine suggests that “the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes” (Cyprian, Epistle 62, paragraph 13), Chrysostom said exactly the same thing about the mixing of the bread:
Yes, the Early Church Fathers referred to mixed wine. They also referred to mixed bread. They referred to mingled wine. They also referred to mingled bread. They referred to water added to wine to make wine. They referred to water added to flour to make bread. They referred to grapes pressed out to make wine. They referred to grain ground to flour to make bread. In short, they referred to the manufacturing process for both bread and wine. Roman Catholicism misunderstood this and thought the Fathers had made a liturgical rite out of mixing wine with water, and the magisterium has imposed it on the people dogmatically. But the first patristic reference to actually having the water and wine on the table to be mixed liturgically is from Ambrose at the end of the 4th century. No earlier.
You continued,
There is no contradiction, Timothy P, between,
and
“Wine mixed with water” is “wine and water.” That’s what wine was back then. Pure wine plus water. What was brought forward was already in the cup, and already mixed, and what was mixed was wine and water.
You continued,
Actually, that’s not quite true. Justin had already said that at the worship service, “we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, paragraph 13)
At the weekly gathering, Christians assembled and brought food—”all things wherewith we are supplied”—with them. It is that over which the prayers are said, and then someone brings forward bread and wine already mixed with water over which additional prayers are said, and Justin says “not as common bread and common drink do we receive these.” Before the prayers were said, the bread and drink were common. Afterward, they were not. But the wine had already been mixed with water—the common drink of the day—before it was ever brought forward. Why? Because wine mixed with water—which is wine—was the common drink of the day.
So yes, Justin’s statements suggest exactly that: “Justin’s statements suggest that the wine and water were mixed in the people’s homes and then bought to the service.” Just like the bread wasn’t baked at church either.
In any case, I think we can agree that Justin makes no mention of the water and wine being mixed at the table. In fact, even Cyprian doesn’t mention it. To find the historical evidence for your rite, you will have to wait—as you do with so many of your novelties—until the end of the 4th century.
Thanks,
Tim
No w I asked
“Where do the Church Fathers speak of the “mixed” or the “mingled” bread.”
To which Timothy Kauffman replied
” Well, to keep this on topic, Cyprian speaks of it in the very same paragraph that you cited:
“in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread” (Cyprian, Epistle 62, paragraph 13)”
Again Timothy Kauffman you see what you want to see. Yes the word mixed is used but not to describe the bread. What is “collected, ground and MIXED together? No, not the bread, it is the grains. So finding the word mixed doesn’t help your argument and in fact the fact that the Father’s never speak of the Mingled Bread or the Mixed Bread simply displays the fact that although there are parallelisms between the production of the wine and bread there are obvious differences. The Fathers are taking wine and mixing it or mingling it with water. They are not taking bread and mixing it or mingling it with water. So try as you may I would be surprised if you can find a Father describing the Bread as the Mixed or Mingled Bread. And again if you can give me the name of that wine maker I would be happy to check and see if they dilute their wine , ie Mix or Mingle, or do they use water in the fermentation process.
Timothy Kauffman, Let’s review. We apparently agree although not mentioned in Scripture Christ offered Wine mixed or mingled with water. Now you have claimed that the wine you use in your Church is also mixed with water, but so far have been unwilling to tell me what wine you are using so I can verify this. And I would doubt that when someone purchases the wine used in your service that they make any effort to check how the wine is manufactured. Obviously it was important to Cyprian who claimed apostolic Tradition that wine must be mixed with water, but Timothy Kauffman you have still been unable to prove that current winemakers produce wine and then add water to the wine. Obviously I noticed your lack of evidence. On your last post, you wrote
“Timothy P, you wrote:
“I looked at your multiple examples and have yet to find one where the person states they are adding water to wine. Yes they admit when making wine they use water but they don’t say they add water to wine”
Yet one of the references I provided said,
“Robinson raised a few hackles recently when she repeated leading Rhône winemaker and industry kingpin Michel Chapoutier’s suggestion that the solution to this soaring alcohol was to add water to the wines.”
Again, you can read the complete article here. I don’t know how they can be any more explicit than to say they are adding water to wine. That’s what they said. They added water to wine. “”
Timothy Kauffman I want to thank you for providing the article where they explain what they mean by adding water to wine. Are they really adding water to wine or to GRAPE MUST? Let’s read !!!!!!!
“If Earth has a scribe you could call the opposite of the semi-retired Parker, that’d be Jancis Robinson, the British expert. Robinson raised a few hackles recently when she repeated leading Rhône winemaker and industry kingpin Michel Chapoutier’s suggestion that the solution to this soaring alcohol was to add water to the wines.
““Lots of winemakers do it, and I think we should make it legal and bring it out in the open. It’s the future of wine …””
“The southern Rhône is too warm for Syrah,” Chapoutier said. “Of course we don’t want to reduce the alcohol by physical means. If you use reverse osmosis to reduce the alcohol, you sacrifice some of the aromas. When you physically concentrate the grape must, you concentrate everything – including less desirable aspects. So how about simply adding back the water lost by evaporation? If you harvest on the basis of the ripeness of tannins in Grenache you risk having wines at 15.5 or 16 per cent alcohol at least. We experimented and found that adding water did actually result in better wines.”
Claiming, with typical Gallish arrogance, that he was the “only one to actually talk about it”, Chapoutier went on to say “lots of winemakers do it, and I think we should make it legal and bring it out in the open. It’s the future of wine … I love to make a tasting of 2003s, adding a little water to them – they’re much better.”
As he has attempted for many years to make wines in Australia, which is hotter than the Rhône, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that M. Chapoutier was triggered to speak by things he learnt here, where “the black snake” – the water hose – has always been a key part of the sensitive winemaker’s arsenal.
How we let the snake slither from our official public memory is not simply the result of the Parkerilla fashion. In Australia, like France, the addition of water to grape must is illegal.”
Now was the author talking about adding water to wine, ie diluting wine or merum. Or is the author talking about adding water to the GRAPE MUST during the manufacturing process as I have been suggesting from the beginning.
Timothy Kauffman, repeatedly you have suggested that I just don’t understand how wine is made but from your examples obviously you don’t seem to understand the process. Do you believe in France and Australia that they allow the winemakers to add water to their wines but not to the grape must during the manufacturing process? Are you serious?
Is there a winemaker out there that dilutes their wine and then sales it? I guess it’s possible but you have failed to show that the wine you use in your religious service is mixed or mingled with water. And I am sure the person who purchases the wine is not looking for Mixed or Mingled Wine.
I haven’t forgotten the questions was the wine mixed at home or at the religious service and what is the evidence if any that Jesus mixed the wine. And did Cyprian state it was apostolic tradition that the wine must be red. Hope to address these issues this weekend and then hopefully we can get back to discussing the real presence.
Timothy P,
You wrote,
I have never at any point in our conversation agreed on any such thing.
You continued,
I have claimed that the wine we use in Church is mixed with water because mixing water with wine is just part of the manufacturing process for wine, as any winemaker will tell you. We do not use merum in our church. Neither did Jesus or the early church. You continued,
We also do not check to see how the bread is manufactured, either, except to make sure it’s unleavened. We use bread that has been baked, and wine that has been made. The bread had water mixed into it as some point, as did the wine, but we don’t check. I don’t know why you insist on going down this path. All I said was, yes, “We use wine mixed with water because that is what wine is.” I never said “We use wine mixed with water because the scriptures or apostolic tradition demand it.” Why would I provide you the type of wine so you can go and make sure it has water in it? Of course it does. It also has grapes. It’s wine! But your question is phrased in such a way as to suggest that we thought we had to make sure. Of course we do not check to make sure. That would be like checking to make sure the bread had flour in it or that it was baked. Of course it has flour. Of course it was baked. It’s bread! Of course the wine has water in it. It’s wine! One of the major ingredients in wine is water. So yes, we do use wine in our church, and wine is made with water.
You continued,
Sure I have. As you yourself noted, the winemakers add water to must. Must may refer to unfermented or partially fermented grape juice or wine. That’s why when the manufacturers add water to must, they are adding water to wine, and in fact say it exactly that way. That’s why the article I quoted was entitled “Putting water into wine…”. The winemaker makes must, which is wine, and then adds water to that to make wine for consumption. That’s why the whole article is about “adding water to wine,” and how “the solution to this soaring alcohol was to add water to the wines.”
Must is called wine. Merum is called wine. Add water to must to get wine. Add water to merum to get wine. If must is wine, and merum is wine, then you are really adding water to wine as part of the manufacturing process to get wine, which is what I’ve been saying the whole time. Your initial objection was to my statement that adding water to wine is part of the manufacturing process for wine, and even from your counterarguments that truth has been born out. Even today manufacturers add water to wine to make wine.
When you say “wine,” I think you mean the finished product on the shelf. When you say “wine mingled with water” you mean “the finished product off the shelf plus even more water.” But that whole tradition is based on a misunderstanding. When the early church says “wine and water” or “wine with water” or “wine mingled with water” they mean the finished product. They do not mean “the finished product plus even more water.” That would be silly. Just read the history of winemaking, and the Greek, Jewish, Roman and Early Christian aversion to drinking merum straight, and you’ll understand. Even Clement of Alexandria believed that the wine Jesus made at the Marriage at Cana was merum already mixed with water. Nobody would have served straight merum at a wedding, and yet the wedding host drank it directly after it was taken out of the waterpot without mixing, and said it was good wine. It obviously wasn’t merum! Why would Clement insist that the miracle of making wine out of water was a miracle of making water into “wine mingled with water”? Becuase that’s what wine is! Wine (merum) mingled with water.
In any case, I really can’t let you drag this out any longer. Your next post has to answer the question that I have been asking about Cyprian because your argument is about the apostolic authority of Cyprian based on your quotes from Cyrpian. Last chance:
I look forward to your answer.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, I wouldn’t be dragging out the debate on the mixed or mingled wine if you would admit your error, and with each post you dig a deeper and deeper hole you have to climb out of. But I don’t want to take a chance on your ending this debate so let’s address the question of Cyprian and the red wine. You wrote
“In any case, I really can’t let you drag this out any longer. Your next post has to answer the question that I have been asking about Cyprian because your argument is about the apostolic authority of Cyprian based on your quotes from Cyrpian. Last chance:
If Cyprian is your source for mixing wine and water at the table, then it is clear that he must be authoritative on its color, too. Would you agree, based on Cyprian, that the Lord taught us to use red wine, not colorless wine? (see Cyprian, Letter 62, paragraph 7), “In Isaiah also the Holy Spirit testifies this same thing concerning the Lord’s passion, saying, ‘Wherefore are Your garments red, and Your apparel as from the treading of the wine-press full and well trodden?’ (Isaiah 63:2) Can water make garments red?) And thus, it would be a violation of apostolic tradition to use wine that is not red?
And since in the same paragraph, Cyprian insists that believers must be given to drink of the same cup, would agree as well that the cup from which all participants drink must be mixed? And the mixture must be red? Since Cyprian has this on the authority of apostolic tradition? ”
So did Cyprian teach that the Lord taught us to use red wine and that this was handed down by apostolic tradition. No he did not. Timothy Kauffman, you love to speculate and have the Fathers say things they never said. Irenaeus 6 times explicitly teaches the doctrine of the real presence and you want to add the words, “made so antitypically”. Your comment “So yes, Justin’s statements suggest exactly that: “Justin’s statements suggest that the wine and water were mixed in the people’s homes and then bought to the service.” is pure speculation since Justin does not describe the moment the wine and water are mixed. Just another example . Timothy Kauffman wrote “And yet, for all of his elucidation of Cyprian on sacrifice, oblation, the Lord’s Supper and the elements, JND Kelly omits this one critical element in Cyprian’s thinking: that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper”. Only one problem Timothy Kauffman, Cyprian never said “that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper”. You repeatedly attribute to the Church Fathers points of view that they never express. Now I would invite anyone to read the entire epistle 62 and show me where Cyprian states the Jesus said the wine must be red, or Cyprian says on apostolic authority that the wine must be red? Yes Cyprian quotes Isaiah “Wherefore are Your garments red, and Your apparel as from the treading of the wine-press full and well trodden?’ (Isaiah 63:2) Can water make garments red?” , but Cyprian’s point is obvious, water cannot make garments red. In fact Cyprian states that , “Can water make garments red?. But nowhere in Epistle 62 does he extrapolate that point to suggest the Jesus said the wine must be red. Pure speculation.
Now if the use of red wine was a major issue I would assume that we would read in scripture or in the writings of the Church Fathers that the wine must be red. I’ll do a little speculating myself and assume that most of the wine used was likely red, but without a specific command to use red wine who am I to demand that red wine be used.
Now Timothy Kauffman, I have made an honest effort repeatedly to answer your questions but from the beginning I have repeatedly asked what would happen in your Church if the preacher or someone would come in teaching the doctrine of the real presence.? You know as well as I do there would be a mass exodus out of the church but you expect us to believe that in the 4th Century that is exactly what happened in the Universal Church and what happened. Not a whimper of protest!!!!! Now that I have answered your request I’ll try to post on the mistakes you made on your last post.
Timothy P, you wrote,
No, you have not. You insisted that Cyprian is authoritative, and so I posed this question in reference to Cyprian about using red wine, and drinking from the mixed cup on June 12. I have since then repeated the question to you multiple times, and you have spent 4 weeks avoiding the question, refusing to answer, and today you finally provide a partial answer. That is not an “effort repeatedly to answer.” Rather, it is four weeks of repeatedly not answering.
You wrote,
You have not answered my request. There were two questions: should we use red wine based on Cyprian, and should all participants drink from the mixed cup, based on Cyprian.
I look forward to your answer.
Tim
Now Timothy Kauffman, let me address some of the mistakes from you last post. Timothy Kauffman, you wrote
“That’s why the article I quoted was entitled “Putting water into wine…”.”
Now it’s quite possible that I am confused but are we talking about the same article where this statement was made.
“How we let the snake slither from our official public memory is not simply the result of the Parkerilla fashion. In Australia, like France, the addition of water to grape must is illegal.”
Now if that is the article you are referring to, it was entitled
“Black Snake slithers into alcohol debate”, not “Putting water into wine.”. Are we talking about the same article? And I asked you before is it your belief that it is legal to dilute the wine but not add water to the grape must since you seem to suggest that adding water to wine is how wine is made?
The article appeared under two titles:
Black Snake Slithers into alcohol debate
and
“Putting water into wine”
It is the same article, syndicated under two titles. Yes, we are speaking of the same article.
Tim
Timothy Kauffman you wrote
” I have claimed that the wine we use in Church is mixed with water because mixing water with wine is just part of the manufacturing process for wine, as any winemaker will tell you.”
Now obviously I have some problem with that statement when the article you provided stated
” In Australia, like France, the addition of water to grape must is illegal.”
Now I try to keep an open mind and asked a friend of mine who makes his own wine if he adds water and he told me he did not. So I decide to google “How is wine made” and printed the first article addressing the topic to see if they mention adding water to wine. Below is the response I got
“In it’s simplest terms, wine is made by planting vines, growing grapes, picking and crushing those grapes, allowing their juices to ferment, and putting the resulting liquid into bottles.
However, for wineries, the answer to the question “how is wine made” is much more complex than this.
Winemakers have important decisions to make during every step in the wine making process. These decisions can either favorably or unfavorably effect their final product. Of course, mother nature also has a say.
The basic wine making steps are:
Choosing A Vineyard
The location chosen to plant wine grapes is perhaps the most important decision a wine maker has. Climate, weather, topography, and soil composition must be perfect for the vines to
produce, and for the grapes to ripen properly.
Deciding When To Harvest
The next most important factor in wine making is choosing the right time to harvest (pick) the grapes.
The grapes must be harvested in peak condition for their particular variety. Several factors will be considered including sugar levels, color and taste.
It’s also important for grapes to be picked carefully so they’re not bruised or split. Both hand picking and machine harvesting procedures are both used today. Hand picking is the method preferred by many fine wine producers and used most often in France.
Preparation And Crushing
At some point, the grapes will be separated from their stems and leaves, usually by a special machine. If left in contact with the grapes too long after harvest, stems can give off a bitter unwanted taste.
It is at this point that red grapes will be treated differently than white grapes.
White wine grapes are crushed and their juice is separated from their skins.
Red grape skins will remain with their juice to impart their color, tannins, and flavor to the wine.
This is the essential difference between red wines and white wines. Red wines owe their color and complex textures and flavors to the time their juice remains in contact with their skins.
Fermentation
Fermentation is the process that converts a grape’s naturally occurring sugar to alcohol. All wine grapes have some wild yeast present already, but these yeast strains are very unpredictable.
Most wine makers today add specialized cultured yeasts to produce more predictable results. Sugars may also be added.
Fermentation can take place in several types of vessels, depending upon the type of wine being made.
The proper length of time and correct temperature are very important in fermentation.
Stainless steel vats or oak barrels may be used for white wines. Oak barrels, American or French, are typically used for red wines. However, in what type of vessel a wine ferments in, and for how long they ferment, is up to each individual winemaker. The type of fermentation vat or barrel chosen will also give the wine some of its flavor.
At some time during the fermentation process or just after fermentation, red wine skins are separated from their juices.
Racking – Fining – Filtering
Once the appropriate alcohol content has been reached and fermentation is complete, the yeast and any other particles left behind must be separated from the finished product.
This is done by racking (pumping just the liquid out of the fermenting vat or container, fining (further clarifying the liquid), and filtering if necessary.
Bottling and Aging
The final step in the wine making process is putting the finished liquid into its bottle and labeling it. Some wines will be ready to drink right away. Most will be aged for a time before they are released to the public.
We hope you enjoyed this wine making information and that your question how is wine made has been answered”
Hmmmm. This winemaker apparently does not know that adding water to wine is an essential step to winemaking. And of course it is illegal in France and Australia!!!! Now I am not going to be bold enough to say that some winemakers don’t add water to the grape must , but I doubt that there are very many that dilute their wine with water. Timothy Kauffman, what would you do if you pulled up to the gas station and found out they were diluting your gasoline with water? But I guess the question is grape must the same thing as wine? Timothy Kauffman writes “Must may refer to unfermented or partially fermented grape juice or wine”. Is Grape Must the same thing as wine? Let’s check the internet to see what wine is and what grape must is.
Timothy P,
Thank you for the article you cited, in which no mention of adding water to wine is made. I note that the article also included this telling statement:
Yes, the process of winemaking is much more complex than the simple article you cited for evidence. By acknowledging as much, the article is essentially conceding that it is not sufficient for understanding actual winemaking. As I noted in my previous citations in which I cite actual winemakers at actual wineries, one of the important decisions that winemakers have to make during the winemaking process is how much water to add to the wine.
You have now several times pointed out that the articles refer to adding water to grape must rather than adding water to wine or adding water to merum, as if you had found a contradiction in my reasoning. As I have already pointed out though, grape must is called “wine” which is why the winemakers who add water to must describe the process as adding water to wine. Must is just another word to describe merum:
I have insisted from the beginning that the way to make wine is to add water to merum. So when you cite the article with this triumphant intro,
it simply highlights your ignorance of the winemaking process. Yes, they are adding water to grape must. Of course they are. As I have shown you, grape must refers to grape merum, and grape merum is known as pure wine.
Now, to return to your initial objection, all the way back on June 7, you wrote,
And yet I have shown you repeatedly that adding water to merum (which is called wine) and to must (which is also called wine) is in fact part of the wine manufacturing process. Jancis Robinson is described as “the most respected wine critic and journalist in the world,” and she cites authoritatively industry kingpin Michel Chapoutier‘s insistence that adding water results in better wines:
Later in the article, industry magnate K. H. Knappstein cites Roly Birks, five decades in the wine industry, who said that he mixed water in the wine at the crusher, as part of the manufacturing process, which is to say that he adds water to the merum:
Now after all those authoritative sources that insist that adding water to merum, to must or to wine is indeed “described as a manufacturing process,” you want to switch the argument from whether adding water to wine is legal. Well, I’m not going to engage in your bait and switch. I insisted from the beginning of this discussion that adding water to wine is part of the manufacturing process, and the best you can do is cite a friend of yours, and an article that, by its own admission, does not address the complexities of wine manufacture, and merely describes winemaking as putting grape product into bottles. Of course it is. In the process, honest winemaker will tell you that they add water.
Honestly, Timothy P, enough of the rabbit trails and obfuscation. Please just answer the questions that I asked a month ago. Any further diversions and you’ll be classified as a troll and barred from any further comments. And please do not wait four more weeks to answer the questions I posed about your specific comments about Cyprian.
Best regards,
Tim
Timothy Kauffman, pointing out that adding water to wine must is illegal in France and Australia can hardly be described as a diversion, when we are discussing rather in your Church the wine that is used has been mingled with water. In fact I find it almost laughable given your unwillingness to disclose the manufacturer and make any effort to find out. You made a specific claim and so far have not provided any evidence to support that claim. And as I have pointed out from the beginning there is a major difference in adding water to grape must during the manufacturing process and the mingling of wine and water described by the Church Fathers.
I also find it amazing that you would accuse me of following rabbit trails and threatening to classify me as a troll (which I don’t think is a very Christian comment) and banning me from any further comments if there are any further diversions. At least to me pointing out that it is illegal to add water to grape must in France and Australia in a discussion rather your Church uses wine mixed with water is a heck of a lot less of a diversion then discussing the color of the wine.
Since you did not provide the entire Cyprian quote I will have to go back and review since the part you provided says nothing about believers drinking from the same cup. Not sure what your point is going to be but somehow I would classify it as another diversion.
Hmmm, apparently I have now been put on moderation. Found this article on wine fraud which I am sure you will find a diversion but I find relevant since from the beginning I have been pointing out the difference between the adding of water to wine in the ancient cultures , ie mingling or mixing wine and water and the current practice of adding water to the grape must or as this article implies to the grapes during the wine making process, The excerpt is from Wikipedia on Wine fraud.
While some winemaking techniques have gone through phases of being considered fraudulent and are now generally accepted practices, a few practices have done the opposite. One of the most controversial is adding water to wine in a technique known today as humidification. Master of wine Jancis Robinson calls the act of using water to “stretch out” or dilute wine “possibly the oldest form of wine fraud in the book.”[19] Water has a long history of being used to dilute wine in order to make it more palatable. The ancient Greeks thought it was “barbaric” to drink undiluted wine.[15] They further believed that undiluted wine was unhealthy and that the Spartan king Cleomenes I was once driven insane after drinking wine that was not diluted with water. Today, few people dilute their personal drinking wine for consumption like the Greeks, but the use of water during the winemaking process is still prevalent.[20]
Today water is used to help balance extremely ripe grapes that would have a concentration of sugars and phenolic compounds. Modern winemaking has begun to promote higher levels of ripeness and longer “hang time” on the vine before harvesting. This increased emphasis on ripeness has had the countereffect of producing wines with higher alcohol levels (often over 15%). In many countries, such high alcohol levels qualify the wines for higher levels of duties and taxes. The practice of adding water to grape must can dilute the wine to such a degree that the overall alcohol by volume drops to below the percentage threshold for these higher taxes.[19] The deliberate act of diluting a wine with water in order to pay less duties and taxes is illegal in several countries.[15]
The gray area between accepted practice and fraud is where water is added to the winemaking process as a means of “quality preservation”. Water is often used during the winemaking process to help pump grapes through equipment and to “rehydrate” the grapes that have begun to shrivel from the extended hang time. This rehydration is used to help balance the wine and hopefully to prevent “dried fruit” flavors that may be unpalatable to the consumer. In the United States, the California Wine Institute has stipulated guidelines that allow for the addition of a certain amount of water to compensate for the loss of natural water in the vineyard from dehydration. The use of water has been argued by its proponents as necessary to prevent stuck fermentations. Despite being allowed limited legal use, the practice of adding water to wine is still shrouded in controversy, and few winemakers willingly admit to it.[19] A “code word” for the practice in the wine industry is adding “Jesus units” in a play on words about the Biblical story of the miracle performed at the Marriage at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine.[21][22][23]
I plan to supply the definitions of wine and grape must to see if they are the same thing, Lord willing. And then let’s discuss believers drinking from the cup.
Timothy P,
The fact that you are even entertaining a search to determine if “wine” and “grape must” are the same thing suggests to me that the point of this conversation is completely lost on you. I have never said “wine” and “grape must” are the same thing. I have simply stated that “grape must” may refer to wine, as the dictionary plainly stated. I have also said “merum” is called wine. I have provided evidence that water is added to “grape must” during the wine manufacturing process, and since “grape must” is indeed called wine, then adding water to “grape must” is in fact “adding water to wine to make wine,” which I have maintained since this conversation began. I have also provided evidence that water is added to merum during the wine manufacturing process, and since merum is indeed called wine, then adding water to merum is in fact “adding water to wine to make wine,” which I have also maintained since this conversation began. You may note that “wine” does not mean exactly the same thing every time it is used, as anyone paying attention to this conversation could have easily understood by now. And yet in the face of plain statements by wine manufacterers that adding water to wine during the wine manufacturers is actually quite common, you still deny that adding water to wine is part of the wine manufacturing process.
You wrote,
You may have missed the fact that it was not my opinion, but a simply stated fact. I provided a hyperlink to the authoritative source that defines “must” as “unfermented or partially fermented grape juice or wine”. For the record, the following statements are all from dictionaries indicating that mustum can be called wine, mustum can refer to merum, and merum is called wine unmixed with water:
Now go back to the article which refers to adding water to “grape must” (which is called wine) and adding water “at the crusher” (where the merum is produced) and you have summary statements that amount to adding water to wine as part of the manufacturing process to make wine. That you would respond with a google search to find out of “must” and “wine” are the same thing is a non sequitur. Nobody has alleged that they are “the same thing.” I have only insisted that “must” may be called “wine,” and “merum” is “pure wine” as the dictionary plainly conveys, so adding water to either is adding water to wine to make wine.
You wrote,
If “grape must” is partially fermented wine, then that is exactly what they are saying. If merum the pure product of the pressed grape from “the crusher,” then that is exactly what they are saying.
Earlier, you had written, “No doubt water is used in the manufacturing process, but I doubt that they make merum and then add water to it.”
And yet, that is exactly what the article described them as doing—and that from world renown wine experts and manufacturers.
In any case, “adding water to wine as part of the wine manufacturing process” is now settled, Timothy P. Any further objections to that plainly evident truth will be cause for adverse moderation decisions. You wrote,
No, Timothy P. I have already provided a definition of mustum. No more diversions. Please just answer the question that I have been asking you for weeks now.
Thank you,
Tim
Obviously not all wine manufacturers add water to their wine and your definition of grape must is very misleading but let’s go on to the cup that believer’s drink from. When we discuss rather the wine was mixed at home or at the liturgical service and rather Christ mixed wine with water we will need to clarify your misrepresentations. So Paragraph 7 Cyprian wrote:
” 7. In Isaiah also the Holy Spirit testifies this same thing concerning the Lord’s passion, saying, “Wherefore are Your garments red, and Your apparel as from the treading of the wine-press full and well trodden? ” Isaiah 63:2 Can water make garments red? Or is it water in the wine-press which is trodden by the feet, or pressed out by the press? Assuredly, therefore, mention is made of wine, that the Lord’s blood may be understood, and that which was afterwards manifested in the cup of the Lord might be foretold by the prophets who announced it. The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.”
Now Timothy Kauffman asked
“And since in the same paragraph, Cyprian insists that believers must be given to drink of the same cup, would agree as well that the cup from which all participants drink must be mixed?
Now a little background on Cyprian’s statement is needed because you and I disagreed what the statement “and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink. Actually I’m glad you brought up this paragraph as it is a good example of how you repeatedly misrepresent what a Church Father teaches. Let’s see how Timothy Kauffman again twists a Church Father’s words in attacking a leading expert in early church history. Timothy Kauffman, citing the above paragraph 7 wrote
“I responded to you that JND Kelly, an expert in the field, had written about Cyprian’s view of the Lord’s Supper on page 212, but in his whole work had omitted Cyprian’s belief that the Lord could not offer His blood to us to drink until after He had been pressed down and trampled, i.e., at the Cross. Kelly had in fact cited Cyprian’s view that we must do as Christ did at the Last Supper, but had omitted that specific point that Cyprian had made—that Jesus blood wasn’t actually in the cup—and further that Cyprian had gleaned what he had from Tertullian who explicitly stated that Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said “This is My body,” I hold that JND Kelly was wrong on that specific point. ”
Their is only one problem with Timothy Kauffman’s comment. Timothy Kauffman also wrote
” Thus, in Cyprian’s view, it was impossible for Jesus to give to His disciples the “blood” of His cup at the Lord’s Supper, since His actual blood wasn’t actually in the cup at the time. ”
Timothy Kauffman also wrote
JND Kelly omits this one critical element in Cyprian’s thinking: that Jesus did not—and indeed could not—give His body and blood to the disciples to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper:”
But
Cyprian never said “it was impossible for Jesus to give to His
disciples the “blood” of His cup at the Lord’s Supper, since His actual blood wasn’t actually in the cup at the time. What Cyprian said was
“so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 62, paragraph 7)
Cyprian did not say
“so THE APOSTLES could not drink the blood of Christ
AT THE LAST SUPPER because Christ had not trampled upon and pressed”
Quite a difference between what Cyprian said and what Timothy Kauffman suggest he said. And then Timothy Kauffman you criticize an experton the writings of the early Church Fathers because JND Kelly did not misread the quote as you did. It’s just like when you stated that Cyprian stated that Jesus taught that the wine must be red and that it was part of apostolic tradition that the wine must be red. Now if you are going to change what the Father’s say, I’m sure you can have them teaching about anything.
Now what about the phrase
” had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.”
Now Timothy Kauffman asked
“And since in the same paragraph, Cyprian insists that believers must be given to drink of the same cup, would agree as well that the cup from which all participants drink must be mixed?
Now Timothy Kauffman you had insisted that that cup was Christ’s crucifixion while I pointed out that it more likely represented the cup at that last supper which Christ shared with his disciples since the whole discourse is about mixing the wine and water in the Lord’s cup as Christ had done and taught. Do we use the same cup Christ and the apostle’s used? No. Do we drink from the same cup by following what Christ did and what was handed down by Apostolic tradition? Yes. And we mix wine and water in the Lord’s cup.
Timothy P,
You observed,
You know very well that it is not my definition of grape must. I provide them once again. Francis Edward Jackson Valpy in his Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language says “mustus” is “fresh wine” and “as merum for merum vinum”:
As you well know, I did not write the Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language. It is not my definition. It is Valpy’s.
Then I provided this link from the wiki online Latin dictionary:
As you well know, I did not write that entry in the online dictionary. Mustum simply refers to young wine. That’s just what it means. Your initial objection to my statement that adding water to wine is part of the manufacturing process was disbelief, and you responded, “Are they really adding water to wine or to GRAPE MUST? Let’s read!!!!!” That’s right. Let’s read. And if you will read you will find that must is young wine. And thus, they add water to wine as part of the manufacturing process for wine.
If you’ll check your sources you will find that the juice still in the grape on the vine is sometimes called wine. (i.e., “And scarce the grapes contain the wine they have within” (Ovid, Tristium, Book IV, chapter VI). And you will find that freshly crushed grape juice is called “mustum” or “young wine.” And you will find that once the solid matter is strained, it is called “merum” or “pure wine.” And then when water is added to the merum it is called mixed wine, or simply wine. From grape to crusher to strainer to chalice, and in all steps in between, that juicy stuff in the grape is called “wine,” and therefore adding water to wine to make wine is as ancient as the day is long. It’s just the way wine is made, and importantly, it is the way wine was made when Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples. Enough already.
Speaking of which, of course I do not believe the cup to which Cyprian referred in Epistle 62, paragraph 7 is a reference to the Last Supper. I have said plainly in my exchanges with you that I do not believe he is referring to the chalice there, but rather to Christ’s own death, and the death of the martyrs who would follow Him. In fact the whole of epistle 62 is in the context of martyrdom, and what Cyprian believed to be inappropriate attempts to escape martyrdom by using water instead of wine at the Lord’s Supper. And yes, it is true that you have expressed your belief that Cyprian’s reference to the disciples drinking from “the same cup” is a reference to the Last Supper. (See your comment above, dated May 10). In other words, I am arguing from your position in order to prove the absurdity of your position. It is called reductio ad absurdum. It is not a formal or even a material contradiction to adopt an opponent’s position for the sake of demonstrating its absurdity.
In any case, you spent a great deal of time on that point, and then again failed to answer the question I actually asked.
I asked more than a month ago:
You answered,
An attentive reader will notice that you still have not answered my question. It is an elusive way to avoid answering the question while appearing to answer it.
So, once again, Timothy P, Must the cup from which all participants drink be mixed? Yes or no?
If you would like an earlier reference, perhaps you will consider this from Justin Martyr the previous century:
As you know, Justin taught that He had learned all these things from Jesus Christ. Do you agree with him? Do you think the cup from which all participants drink must be mixed?
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy P,
As I promised, no further comments from you will be allowed. Remarkably, now five weeks since I asked the question, you insist on diversions, distractions and anything except the specific topic that you raised: Cyprian as an authoritative source for an apostolic eucharistic rite. Even in your most recent comment, which I did not publish because you still refused to answer the question I posed in early June, you made this comment about grape must:
Grape must is considered by Roman Catholicism to be a legitimate altar wine, as “Fr. Z” informs us in his article, “What sort of “wine” is valid for Mass?“:
Fr. Z is simply restating the findings of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a 1994 letter signed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that grape must was a legitimate wine to use at the altar (although at the very limit of legitimacy).
Of course you can drink must. Must is called wine. Adding water to grape must as part of the manufacturing process is actually adding water to wine to make wine. But that is a fact you apparently are unwilling or unable to digest. Although, even in that, you are not far from grasping my point: your apparent distaste for drinking “must” straight is the same objection the Early Church had to drinking “merum” straight. But add some water, and it becomes palatable and—as the early church rejoiced to point out—mixed, and thus an appropriate figure for the incarnation in which God “mixed” Himself with man.
In any case is clear to me that I could provide source, after source, after source, after source—even from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church—indicating that grape must can be imbibed and is called wine and can be used at the altar, and therefore “adding water to must” is actually “adding water to wine as part of the manufacturing process to make wine.” But even with that you would not desist in your objections, because objection (rather than intelligent conversation) is clearly your goal here.
I wish you well, but I do not share your objective.
Tim
Shame on you Timothy Kauffman. You knew from the start that grape must was not wine and now try to suggest that grape must is the same thing as mustum. How can you call yourself a Christian! I knew you were a phony when you started acting like you were a Latin scholar. And obviously the expert on wine making had no idea that adding water during the wine making process was illegal in some countries. You would never admit that you have no idea if the wine you use in your Church service is mingled or mixed with water. I hope you ask forgiveness when you sip that wine at your church service.
Nothing has strengthened my faith more the debating people like you and Brian Culliton. Obviously no one ends a debate when they are winning a debate and it was obvious to me given the head whipping I was giving you my time on your site was limited. I will sleep like a baby tonight but I believe you will have many sleepless nights with the guilt of deceiving yourself and others. I will pray for you
Timothy P,
I normally wouldn’t allow this last comment from you, but your interesting final objection is fascinating to me and may be instructional to my readers. Thomas Aquinas, no less, and the whole teaching magisterium of the Roman church, refers to “must” as “mustum” and “wine,” but you still will not have it, so much more do you strain after victory than truth:
Must is mustum is wine. And must, to cite your esteemed theologian, can be used in the sacrament because it “has already the species of wine.”
You started by objecting that water can be added to wine as part of the wine manufacturing process, only to discover that it can be, and is. You have a friend who is an amateur winemaker and does not know about adding water to wine—and you take his answer as authoritative—yet world renown experts add water to their wine to make it more palatable, and speak freely of it in those terms. You claimed that the Church Fathers made no reference to merum, only to find out that they did. You claimed that the Scripture does not mention merum, only to find out that it does—in your very own Latin Vulgate. You claimed that grape must is not wine, only to find that Aquinas says it is. You claimed must cannot be imbibed, only to find out that it can. In fact must is used in your own mass at times, and that with the consent of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, because it satisfies the definition of wine. Of course must has to be strained, or clarified, because it has particulate matter in it. It is no less “wine” on account of that.
I now leave you to your own devices. You may draw your own conclusions as to why you have been banned from further dialogue here. You have guessed at a reason. I can assure you, there are many reasons to end a discussion, and you have not identified the cause of your dismissal.
I wish you well,
Tim
Wow, that had to be the worst exchange I may ever witnessed on the internet. Tim P is so incredibly hardened by the supposed infallibility of the RC Magisterium, he reads all reality through it’s lens and discards everything else that stands in its way. It’s quite frightening when you think about it. Timothy Kauffman, there had to be a few times where you thought you were the crazy one when writing back to Tim, trust me, it’s him not you. Like my father used to say, if Rome tells you Vanilla is Chocolate, then it is. Your dialogue is a great example of what discussing Christianity with a RC really boils down to, “the Magisterium says so, period end of story.” Great work on this blog, i look forward to your future articles.
Thank you for your comment, Dan. You observed correctly,
That is what is called Sola Ecclesia, the heart and soul of Roman Catholicism and all of its apologetics. Even when the Magisterium is cited regarding something as banal as using must or mustum in the Eucharist because it has the species of wine (and therefore by Rome’s own standard, “adding water to grape must” is “adding water to wine”) the irresistible urge of the Roman apologist is to cry “out of context!” or “deception!” unless you are citing the magisterium for the sole purpose of defending the Roman religion.
Sola Ecclesia is precisely where the conversation would have led, as Timothy P well knows, had he simply answered the questions I posed 5 weeks ago. That is why he so studiously and obstinately avoided it. Five weeks of arguing about merum and must, instead of answering two simple question: if Cyprian is authoritative on mixing wine, should he not also be authoritative on the color of the wine and the everyone drinking from the mixed cup?
For reference, here is Timothy P’s statement after I stated that “wine and water” in the Early Church fathers is a reference to the ingredients and manufacturing process of wine, stated as it so often is in juxtaposition to the manufacturing process of bread:
To this same paragraph from Cyprian, Timothy P had inferred with enthusiasm, “Hmmmm. What the LORD FIRST DID ON OUR BEHALF.” Oh, yes, what the Lord DID, indeed. And again, “when it comes to mixing wine with water in the Lord’s cup I am going to post Cyprian’s comments where he states this tradition comes from the Lord.”
To this, I responded with my questions: if Cyprian is your authoritative source on using mixed wine, is he not also authoritative 1) on the color of the wine that is used, and 2) that the mixed cup should be offered to all present to drink? After all, the Lord DID both, according to Cyprian.
Timothy P could never muster an answer to the former (except to claim that Cyprian never said that Jesus taught that the wine should be red), and then could only offer Jesuitical sophistry on the latter. Let us examine the matter more closely:
First, Cyprian’s Epistle 62 is about the errant practice of using water alone at the Lord’s Supper. That practice is contrary to what Jesus did and taught. Cyprian emphasizes that repeatedly:
The whole epistle is about what Cyprian believes Jesus taught and did.
Shouldn’t Roman Catholics also use red wine, therefore, since Cypriain clearly believes Jesus taught and did this? After all, Cyprian uses the same foundational principle to establish that “mingled wine” was in the cup as he does to establish that “red wine” was in the cup: the Holy Spirit’s voice in the Old Testament Scriptures. Here are Cyprian’s foundational arguments for both:
To Cyprian, these arguments from the mouth of the Holy Spirit argue forcefully for wine in the cup (not water alone) and particularly red wine in the cup. According to the Cyprian, the Holy Spirit had testified in advance what was in the cup: red, mingled wine. Why must we not use water alone? Because that would be contrary to that which Christ both prescribed and did (paragraph 1), did and taught (paragraph 1), both taught and did (paragraph 10), that He has once taught (paragraph 11), spiritually prescribed (paragraph 15), both taught and did (paragraph 17), what He taught, and what He did (paragraph 19).
In the face of this, Timothy P responds that Cyprian did not actually say that Jesus taught that we are to use red wine. A plain reading of the epistle shows that Cyprian in fact believed that the Holy Spirit had prophesied red, mingled wine, and that Jesus in fact used red, mingled wine, and taught us to do likewise.
The source of Timothy P’s cognitive dissonance is easy enough to discover: his Magisterium says it doesn’t matter what color the wine is, so it really doesn’t matter. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Altar Wine says “It may be white or red.”
But Cyprian did not think it could be white or red. He clearly thought the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ taught that it should be red, because only red wine could figure blood, and the red wine prophesied by the Holy Spirit is “that which was afterwards manifested in the cup of the Lord” (paragraph 7).
For some reason, Timothy P believes Cyprian must be supremely authoritative on mingling wine and water, because Cyprian says mixed wine was in the cup, but not authoritative on the color of the wine, even though Cyprian invoked the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, the Apostles and Christ Himself not only to show that it must be mingled, but also to show that it must also be red. Cyprian thought it was wrong to use water in the Eucharist because it was not mixed wine, and because it was not red for by His example Jesus had taught that it was to be both mixed and red. The cause of Timothy P’s cognitive dissonance is clear: Sola Ecclesia. He wants to use Cyprian to prove a point, but in his heart he knows it doesn’t really matter what Cyprian said. All that matters is what the Church says. Sola Ecclesia.
Regarding the second question, the early church clearly taught that the mixed cup was administered to all present. I cited Justin Martyr, First Apology, paragraph 65: “each of those present … partake of the bread and wine mixed with water“. Clearly Timothy P thought Cyprian was talking about the common cup in paragraph 7: “the cup of which He should also give believers to drink.” (Epistle 62, paragraph 7), and that common cup that He gives believers to drink must have been mixed—so authoritative is Cyprian in the mind of Timothy P.
Therefore I asked Timothy P: if Cyprian is authoritative on mingling, shouldn’t he also be authoritative that all present are to drink wine mixed with water. After all, Justin said so clearly. Timothy P responded with an answer befitting of the Jesuits themselves:
Timothy P could not, of course, answer without Jesuitical equivocation because the Roman Church teaches that the mixed cup does not need to be offered to all. As can be read in Mike Hayes’ article, Why do Priests Pour Holy Water Into the Main Chalice Instead of Each Cup?, it clearly does not matter whether mingled wine is offered to every one present. What matters is that water is mingled with wine in the main chalice used by the priest, and if everyone else drinks from an unmixed cup, no problem, since the General Instructions of the Roman Missal do not require it. Besides, Hayes adds tellingly, “it can send a mixed message” if water is mingled in every cup.
Mixed message? Justin Martyr didn’t think it was a mixed message. Justin Martyr thought he had received these teachings from Christ: “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ” (First Apology, paragraph 13); “He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.” (First Apology, paragraph 67). Why is Justin not authoritative here, in his works the century prior to Cyprian?
Evidently—and we have known this all along—it was never Justin Martyr or Cyprian that proved or supported an allegedly “apostolic teaching” to which I am asked to subscribe. The hermeneutic of every Roman apologist is to claim apostolicity on the basis of the Early Church Fathers, but to find in their writings only that which upholds what the Church teaches to be true. Everything else, as we have cited the Catholic Encyclopedia numerous times, was just “stray private opinion.”
Thus, when Timothy P is confronted with Justin Martyr’s plain statement that wine is brought to the table already mixed (paragraph 65), he insists that Justin has contradicted himself because in paragraph 67, Justin says “bread and wine and water” are brought forward for the Eucharist. “Now only Justin can explain the apparent contradiction,” sayeth Timothy P. But it is a contradiction introduced not by Justin, but by Rome, and a “contradiction” easily resolved by the understanding that “wine and water” was “wine” to them, for it was “pure wine” mixed with “water” to make wine. There is therefore no contradiction to say “bread and wine and water” are brought forward, and also that “bread and a cup of wine mixed with water” are brought forward, for “wine mixed with water” is “wine and water,” which is simply “wine.”
If Rome would simply abide by the historical context in which Justin wrote, it would be clear that adding water to wine was part of the manufacturing process for wine, for wine for drinking was just “pure wine plus water,” or, as the ancients would say, “merum with water,” or “wine and water.”
But when given the opportunity to choose historical context over the Magisterium, the Magisterium must prevail, and thus does Rome impose a contradiction on Justin that would have been foreign to him, and thus does Rome selectively demand that wine be mingled, on the authority of Cyprian and Justin, but sets aside Cyprian’s insistence that the mingled cup be red wine, and Justin’s insistence that the mingled cup to be offered to all, even though both claimed that this “apostolic teaching” originated with Christ! Or, more succinctly, Sola Ecclesia.
All of which could have been discussed openly and conversationally had Timothy P not spent five weeks dissembling on what merum and mustum actually are. Both, as we have shown, are called “wine,” as is the final product when mixed with water. That is called “wine,” too.
Thanks again,
Tim
It is funny how Tim K displays the same cognitive dissonance and loves retconning
Can you be more specific?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
In today’s sermon message, it started out as a small indictment against Roman Catholicism and their global promotion of “will worship” and man made idols. It was a fascinating look at Acts 7:17-50 and the parallel’s we have in today’s Christian church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYNi1rvpnM
There is the link. Sermon starts on 1:30 and is where the indictment against Rome begins.
Quick question:
The Catholic encyclopedia says:
“Easter is the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year. Leo I (Serino xlvii in Exodum) calls it the greatest feast (festum festorum), and says that Christmas is celebrated only in preparation for Easter. It is the center of the greater part of the ecclesiastical year. The order of Sundays from Septuagesima to the last Sunday after Pentecost, the feast of the Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, and all other movable feasts, from that of the Prayer of Jesus in the Garden (Tuesday after Septuagesima) to the feast of the Sacred Heart (Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi), depend upon the Easter date.”
On this subject of a Christian easter, do you know when the feast was originally established? I could only find this comment by the “Protestant” Christianity Today publication:
http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/when-is-easter-11629556.html
“Setting the Date
During the first three centuries of the Church, when believers were frequently under persecution, there was little effort to establish uniform observances of the Christian festivals. However, when Constantine became emperor and Christianity was no longer illegal, it was possible to consider more carefully the date of Easter. One of the purposes of the Council of Nicea in 325 was to settle that date. Constantine wanted Christianity to be totally separated from Judaism and did not want Easter to be celebrated on the Jewish Passover. The Council of Nicea accordingly required the feast of the resurrection to be celebrated on a Sunday and never on the Jewish Passover. Easter was to be the Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.”
Do you happen to know specifically in the Council of Nicea where this feast was established as a required Christian holy day celebrated by all protestants (except the reformers of course) and roman catholics?
Thank you, Walt. I’ll give it a listen later in the week.
On your question of Easter:
Working backward from Eusebius (c. 260 – 340 A.D.):
Eusebius records Constantine’s letter after the council of Nicæa. In that letter, Constantine said,
Council of Nicæa (325 A.D.):
The Council does not establish the celebration of Resurrection Sunday canonically, but there is an oblique reference to it in Canon 20, where the synod prohibits kneeling “during the season of Pentecost.” The “season of Pentecost” is the 50 days from the festival of first fruits to the feast of ingathering mentioned in Exodus 23:16. (See a good writeup on it here: What is Pentecost?) Jesus rose from the dead on the feast of first fruits, and the Spirit descended on the apostles 50 days later. The Early Church recognized the significance of Jesus’ and the Spirit’s fulfillment of those two festivals and the period between them, in addition to Jesus’ fulfillment of the Passover and other feasts. So the Early Church marked the passage of the 50 days between Resurrection Sunday and the coming of the Spirit from antiquity, since they were the fulfillment of the ancient festivals.
In the Synodal Letter of the Council of Nicæa to the Egyptians, the Greek version makes a reference to the Council setting the matter of “the holy pasch,” although the Latin version does not include that claim. (See the link to the Council of Nicæa, above, for that Synodal letter and the note about the Latin version.) Perhaps it is not odd that the Latin version omits the reference, since it was the eastern, not the western, church that was divided on the issue (see chapter 23 of Eusebius’ History, Book V).
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (256 A.D.)
In his letter to Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian complained that “Pope” Stephen in Rome was trying to impose a universal date for the celebration of the Lord’s resurrection, instead of recognizing “that there are some diversities” that do not of necessity need to be eliminated. Rather, people of various regions and customs ought to be free to celebrate when and how they wish:
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 A.D.)
A full century before the Council of Nicæa, Tertullian summarized what would eventually become canon 20 of Nicæa. Note that if there is a practice considered unlawful from Paschæ to Pentecostem, then somebody was keeping track of the date of Paschæ:
Irenæus (early 100s – c. AD 202)
When “Pope” Victor in Rome attempted to impose by fiat a standard celebration of the date of the Paschal Feast, he presumed to excommunicate the whole church in Asia Minor for disagreeing with him. For this presumptuousness he earned a strong rebuke from Irenæus who insisted that it was the prerogative of the regional churches to celebrate as they pleased:
Irenæaus went on to explain that the Roman bishops before Victor had not even celebrated Easter, and what is more, had not allowed the diversity among the various churches to become a cause of division as Victor had made it:
More than this, Irenæus refers to a time when Polycarp (69 – 155 A.D.) had come to Rome and would not agree with “Pope” Anicetus on the date of the celebration, and disagreeing, they nonetheless celebrated the Lord’s Supper together and did not let such a minor matter cause division, since as noted above, “this variety in its observance” had originated “long before”:
Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (c. 130 – 196 A.D.)
As noted above, the churches in Asia disagreed with Victor on the dating of Easter. Polycrates response to Victor was stern and defiant:
That is as good a summary as can be compiled on the dating of Easter in the Early Church. Notably, different communities celebrated it differently and on different dates and for different durations, many bishops in Rome before Victor had not celebrated it at all, those who celebrated it differently than Rome claimed to do so on the authority of the Apostles (an implicit denial that Apostolic authority resided in the Bishop in Rome, to go with Firmilian’s explicit denial of apostolic authority in Rome), and nobody made an issue of it until Victor and Stephen, both of whom had to be held in check by the rest of the church and were roundly rebuked for their presumption.
There was no universal date until Nicæa, it appears, and then only for consistency among the churches, not dogmatically or canonically.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you find any data that differs from the above.
Tim
The Gnostics thought flesh was evil and that the spirit was good. They couldn’t stand the thought that Jesus, in flesh, was actually God. What’s interesting is that when Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans he didn’t say stay away from the Gnostics because they deny the incarnation. He didn’t say stay away from the Gnostics because they deny Jesus died on the cross. Instead he uses the Eucharist to say that they deny the Eucharist is Christ’s body.
You have a problem here. If the Eucharist in Ignatius’ letter is just a metaphor, then this letter really doesn’t address the Gnostic teaching, it actually encourages it. If the Eucharist isn’t his real flesh, but a metaphor, then why should they believe that Jesus really died on the cross?
Would you have said that it was a metaphor if Ignatius said that the Gnostics deny the Incarnation or that Jesus died on the cross? Certainly not. Yet those would have been stronger evidence against the Gnostic heresy if he was only using a metaphor talking about the Eucharist.
Thanks.
Thanks, Mark. I am probably missing your point, so I’ll need some explanation. You wrote,
Why, then, were they to avoid them?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I think my point was very clear.
Since you should be very familiar with Gnostic teaching given this erudite post, you would know what it means that Gnostics denied Jesus died on the cross. However, just let me know what you think the Gnostics believed about Jesus dying on the cross and then what part of this statement that needs further explanation and then I may be able to elaborate for you.
Thanks,
Mark
TIM: Why, then, were they to avoid them?
MARK: (quoting Ignatius) “because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”
Let me repeat for you. If Ignatius was speaking metaphorically, it does not repudiate the Gnostic position, it actually endorses it. He didn’t say they do not believe that Jesus was Incarnate or that he didn’t die on the cross. You wouldn’t think those were metaphors, would you?
Mark, thank you for your response. Let’s recap:
1) you said, “He didn’t say stay away from the Gnostics because they deny Jesus died on the cross.”
2) I said, “Why, then, were they to avoid them.”
3) you responded, ostensibly “quoting” ignatius, “because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”
That’s whats missing, then, isn’t it? Where did Igniatus say “Avoid them because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”?
That’s why I asked for clarification. You seem to believe that Ignatius literally said “Avoid them because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”.
Can you help me find that quote where he says that, specifically, is why they are to avoid them?
Thanks for your help.
Tim
Tim,
I am glad to see that you are at least consistent in defending the Early Church Heretics. However, as Ignatius said, “It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public.” This said in reference to the fact that they “confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” So, there you go, Ignatius is warning Christians to avoid the Gnostics. (Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics).
The thing is, you already know this and are trying to misdirect as you always do. You persist in going down rabbit trails to make the conversation spiral into minutia to avoid responding directly with what I wrote.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark, thank you for acknowledging that nowhere in Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnæans does it say, “you should keep aloof from such persons because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”
I responded directly to what you originally wrote by asking you what you meant by what you wrote, and you refused to answer that question. Instead, you simply responded, “I think my point was very clear.”
Ok.
And I still have no idea what your objection is or the significance of your claim that “He didn’t say stay away from the Gnostics because they deny Jesus died on the cross.”
If you will elaborate on that we can continue this conversation.
Thanks,
Tim
I am sure your mother, apparently a devout Catholic, has prayed for you since you left the faith. St Augustine’s mother also prayed all the time for her son. He became a great Church Father. It’s never too late.
Tim, I can tell you are an intelligent man, but you aren’t that clever. All of your responses are typical of someone who doesn’t want to answer. I’ve asked what you don’t understand and you refuse to answer. That’s why I changed the subject to your mother.
I think most people reading Ignatius understand why he told Christians to be aloof of the Gnostics. It’s not that difficult to understand and you haven’t given any explanation as to why you don’t agree. I could ask you to show me in the Bible where it says we are saved “by faith alone” and you wouldn’t be able to. Do you not believe that you are saved by faith alone? I mean if the Bible says it, then quote it.
Are you now claiming that Ignatius was part of the “true church” you are trying to weave together? You seem to imply that he thinks the Eucharist is symbolic so why not be part of your parade?
Mark, I don’t know what you meant by “He didn’t say stay away from the Gnostics because they deny Jesus died on the cross.”
Can you tell me what you meant by that?
Thanks,
Tim
I guess was not that clear for you. Gnostics didn’t believe God took on human flesh. Jesus only appeared to be human (denying the Incarnation) and he only appeared to die on the cross (it was a cruci*fiction*). But we agree that Jesus did become man and did die on the cross, and so did Ignatius.
Now, why didn’t Ignatius mention either of these two things that the Gnostics deny? Instead, he mentions the Eucharist. You hold out that Ignatius was just using a metaphor. However, Ignatius was just using a metaphor then he should have talked about the Incarnation or the cross instead. And right after this explanation of why they are heretics, he writes, “It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public.” So much for a call for unity.
No, the only way Ignatius’ writing makes any sense is that he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If he was just being metaphorical he did a terrible job at refuting Gnostic heresies.
Mark, you wrote,
That is why I wanted to understand your observation. It appears to me that you are saying that in his letter to the Smyrnæans, Ignatius did not mention Jesus becoming a man or dying on the cross, but that he only mentioned the Eucharist. And yet a cursory reading of the letter has Ignatius repeatedly talking about the incarnation, the passion and the resurrection.
In fact, he twice indicated that the heretics deny that He became a man and died:
In this letter, he repeatedly juxtaposes Jesus’ suffering with being raised, and His passion with His resurrection—read for yourself to see that “suffering” and “passion” included Christ’s death on the cross in Ignatius’ thinking. So yes, he actually mentions both of those two things that the Gnostics deny, and actually mentioned that they denied it. It is remarkable to me that you could read the letter to the Smrynæans and not notice what Ignatius actually wrote to them.
That’s why I don’t understand how you can say that Ignatius “didn’t … mention either of these two things that the Gnostics deny”. Of course he did. Did you even read the letter before posting the comment?
Tim
I agree he did mention Christ’s suffering and having a body in this letter. However, that is not why he said to avoid the Gnostics. The Gnostic sects were abstaining from the authorized, public Eucharist of the Church. They did still practice a Eucharistic feast, but according to Ignatius such Eucharists would not be regular or valid. Why? “because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
It is the same for the Catholic Church today to tell a Catholic not to partake of a Baptist communion service because they deny the real presence of Christ.
Thank you, Mark. I am glad that you agree Ignatius mentions Christ’s suffering and having a body in this letter. It’s hard to believe you ever imagined otherwise.
In any case, you continued nevertheless, saying that the heretics’ denial of the incarnation and death of Christ “is not why he said to avoid the Gnostics.” You seem to be quite focused on chapter 7, but chapter 7 is not the only time he says to avoid Gnostics.
You may have noticed that in the first four chapters he spends a lot of time talking about how Jesus was crucified “both in the flesh and in the spirit” and “that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh,” and that He was “nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh”. He continues in this vein saying that “He suffered all these … He suffered truly,” and “that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh,” and that He was “not an incorporeal spirit,” and that He had both “flesh and spirit,” and was “possessed of flesh.” It’s almost like he is correcting the errors of the Gnostics.
He then says to the Smyræans, “I give you these instructions” to guard them because they “must not only not receive, but, … not even meet with” these heretics. It’s almost like he is saying to avoid the Gnostics. And by my reading, nary a mention of the real presence yet.
Can you help me find any references in these first four chapters to the Gnostic rejection of the real presence as the reason why the Smyrnæans must not meet with or even receive the heretics?
Thanks,
Tim
I noticed you haven’t allowed my post past your moderation. Why not?
Additionally, you asked in a post, “Can you help me find any references in these first four chapters to the Gnostic rejection of the real presence as the reason why the Smyrnæans must not meet with or even receive the heretics?”
He doesn’t need to. This actually makes the point I just made. He doesn’t need to say it because he says it in reference to the real presence in the Eucharist.
Actually, Mark, back when you still believed Ignatius had not mentioned Jesus’ incarnation and His death in his letter to the Smyrnæans, you also thought he didn’t mention avoiding the heretics until “right after this explanation” of the alleged “real presence” in chapter 7. But now that I have proven that he instructed them to avoid the heretics back in chapter 4, right after mentioning Christ’s incarnation and death but with no mention of the “real presence” in the Eucharist, suddenly the facts don’t matter because they don’t support you.
You opined,
Mark, I asked where Ignatius talks about rejection of the real presence prior to his first admonition to avoid the heretics, and you responded that he doesn’t need to say anything about it because he says it in reference to the real presence in the Eucharist.
Do you understand why your statement is confused and nonsensical? The fact that you cannot understand this is why you are perpetually under moderation.
Have a good day.
Tim
Tim K.,
You asked, “Can you help me find any references in these first four chapters to the Gnostic rejection of the real presence as the reason why the Smyrnæans must not meet with or even receive the heretics?”
Again, the reason why Ignatius told the Smyrnaeans to avoid the heretics is because of the Gnostic’s rejection of the real presence. I’ve already explained why that is. If they deny that Jesus had a body and deny that he suffered on the cross, naturally they will deny the Eucharist is his body. If one denies A and B, one will deny C as well. What’s interesting is that you are saying A and B are literal but C is a metaphor. This makes no sense in connection with Ignatius’ letter.
If Ignatius wanted to use a metaphor, he might have said something like this: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not that Jesus truly was Incarnate” or “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not that Jesus truly suffered and died on the cross.” Obviously THOSE aren’t a metaphor. But Ignatius says, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Remember, Gnostics were also holding Eucharistic feasts believing that the Eucharist was just a metaphor.
Thanks,
Mark
Tim K, I’ve given a reply and you apparently don’t want it disseminated to the “masses” who read your site.
You said, “Actually, Mark, back when you still believed Ignatius had not mentioned Jesus’ incarnation and His death in his letter to the Smyrnæans.”
Well, that is your assumption which is again incorrect. I was specifically addressing Chapter 7 which was the heart of you trying to refute the real presence. I’ve already explained WHY the Gnostics were not participating in the Eucharist. You don’t address what I write and you don’t allow posts the posts which contradict you. You aren’t seeking truth, really.
You should consider renaming your blog from “Out Of His Mouth” to “Out Of Tim K.’s Mouth” because you are playing fast and loose with history.
One last thing, The World Communion of Reformed Churches signed a “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” with Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodist leaders last week at a church in Wittenberg, Germany. According to a WCRC press release, “The declaration stated that mutual condemnations pronounced by the two sides during the Reformation do not apply to their current teaching on justification.”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/reformed-church-body-signs-declaration-on-justification-to-overcome-divisions-with-catholic-church-191494/
Oh, Mark, your creativity knows no bounds.
In response to my observation that you “believed Ignatius had not mentioned Jesus’ incarnation and His death in his letter to the Smyrnæans,” you attempted to rewrite the conversation by saying:
No, Mark, you were not. Here’s what you actually wrote:
You were addressing the whole letter, not chapter 7.
Well, read chapters 1-4, Mark. He says to stay away from the gnostics because they deny that Jesus had a body and that Jesus died on the cross. He doesn’t say anything about the Eucharist until chapter 7, and when he does, he says the best defense against their error is to study the prophets and the passion and resurrection narratives of the gospel:
If his intent was to prove the “real presence in the Eucharist” why skip past the last supper narratives (where you think it is fully proved) and start with the passion narratives through the resurrection narratives? I know why, and so do you: the actual point of his epistle was to remind the Smyrnæans that “He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself” (to the Ephesians, chapter 2).
The point of his letter was not to prove the real presence in the Eucharist. If it were, he would have said,
Instead, he points the Smyrnæans to the passion and resurrection narratives where what is fully proved is that Jesus truly suffered, truly had a body, and was truly raised up from the dead. Just what you’d expect if Ignatius was using the Eucharist as a metaphor for the reality of the incarnation.
Have a good day.
And if you are wondering how I might know this information, I put your name into YouTube and listened to part of your conversation with the anti-Catholic organization CAnswers.
Mark said ” I could ask you to show me in the bible where we are saved by faith alone and you won’t be able to show you.” I’ll show you Mark. Jesus said simply in Mark 1:15″ repent and believe IN the gospel ” The gospel is news that is believed in, it is not done, it is not the law. Paul says in Galatians law is not faith. So, the mass you worship would be anti gospel or anti Christ because it is the
the summit of your salvation which asks you to do something to be saved. True believers are spared from judgment simply by repenting and believing IN the gospel. It’s told and believed in, not done.
Kevin, where is the word “ALONE” found in Mark 1:15? James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE”. James 2:26 “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead”. So Kevin can you be saved without being justified and with a dead faith?????
Paul says justified freely by his grace. Rome says justified cooperating with His grace. Who should I believe?The man who got it directly from Christ? Or antichrist ? Augustine ” how was Abraham justified, what does the Apostle say? ( Paul) Abraham was justified by faith, Paul and James don’t contradict each other, good works FOLLOW justification” Seems like Augustine understood. And yet your religion tells you go worship the Jesus wafer and merit his merit at the mass. That’s not the gospel. And that’s why the Wafer you worship is called the death wafer. It brings a mark on the forehead and wrist and binds those to spiritual death forever. So next time you go earn and eat more of justification at your mass think about the gold cup lie in the Roman priests hand and the wafer that will send your soul to hell. Stern warning from the scriptures . Think hard about it. God bless
Hmmmmm. The Bible says we are justified by works . Let’s run it by one more time
James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE”. James 2:26 “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead”.
So Kevin, why don’t you answer my question. Can a dead faith save you?
” Hmmmmm the bible says that we are justified by works.” Galatians 2:16 saysb” No one will be justified by observing the law. For if righteousness came through the law Jesus died for nothing.” Try again Timothy P. Here is a hint. Look at Augustines explanation for James 2. I put it in my post to you. And then read Romans 4:16. If a RC wants to be justified by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone in that verse. Incidentally that verse says it’s guaranteed with those who are of Abraham the believer. He isn’t called Abraham the cooperator. You can repent from your goodness today and believe IN the gospel Mark 1:15. I’m praying for you.
Timothy P you said ” The bible says we are justified by works” The context of our discussion was justification. 1 Corinthians 13 isn’t a statement on the gospel or justification, it is a statement about of the importance of love in the Christian life. No one would deny that. But as Catholics often do, they confuse justification with sanctification, infusion and regeneration. And that is why you make the argument for works righteousness as ” the gospel” Justification by faith formed in love in the Roman religion is just code for works righteousness. It is the one thing that Paul would not give an inch on in the book of Galatians 2:5 and neither will we. The whole book of Galatians was written to those undermining jbfa. And Paul is clear in justification before God, it’s by faith alone apart from anything we do, have done, or will do. Rome fatally confuses the for us with the in us. God forgives and accepts us solely based on his goodness, for no other reason. That is the glorious good news gospel of scripture.
Tim, is it ok to ask you how many parts are left to this series and your near term plans for future articles. The K
Kevin, your quote
” You can repent from your goodness today and believe IN the gospel Mark 1:15.”
is a perfect example of what a twisted Gospel you follow. It’s the same twisted Gospel that ignores 1 Cor 13 “and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing”. So much for the doctrine of Faith alone. You do understand the word alone don’t you? Or how about, “So now faith, hope and love abide, these three, but the greatest of these is love’.
Kevin,
Three or four more ought to do it.
Tim
Timothy K. sorry to be so long to respond to our discussion about the word “antitype” . I cut and pasted our discussion and wanted to respond to your last comments. I started off the discussion
“Timothy P
May 14, 2017 at 6:57 am
Antitype
ANTITYPE, ἀντιτύπον (Heb 9:24; 1 Pet 2:21) signifies a counterpart, and refers to the fulfillment of a type (τύπος, G5596, which occurs sixteen times in the NT). Persons, events, and things, in Scripture, and esp. in the OT, are often types of what later appear in the NT. The pascal lamb, e.g., was a type, and Christ is the Antitype. In all types and antitypes there is some sort of likeness. The earlier type is a rough draught, or sketch, of the later antitype. Adam was a “type of the one who was to come” (Rom 5:14), and so were Melchizedek, Abraham, Aaron, Joseph, Jonah, and others. The various kinds of types prepared the way for the antitypes—and the Antitype of antitypes is Christ.
Reply
Timothy F. Kauffman
May 15, 2017 at 9:18 am
It is not clear to me what was intended by providing this definition of antitype. In any case, the reference should be 1 Peter 3:21, not 2:21. ἀντιτύπον does not appear in 1 Peter 2:21.
Tim
Reply
Timothy P
May 24, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Thank you for the correction Timothy K. Do you agree with the definition?
Reply
Timothy F. Kauffman
May 25, 2017 at 5:20 am
Do you?
Reply
Timothy P
May 29, 2017 at 2:27 pm
Antitype is not a word used often in daily speech and in fact not sure I have ever come upon the word other then in religious discussions dealing with typology. The above definition seems to be the consensus of definitions in that setting although as we have discussed any word will frequently have multiple meanings. That is one of the reasons Sola Scriptura is so untenable. No only are we dealing with the difficulty of translation where the translator frequently show their personal bias but even if one was reading the initial text arguments over a specific word or phrase are bound to occur. By the way, would you accept the Eucharist as an antitype to the type Manna in the Old Testament?
Timothy F. Kauffman
May 30, 2017 at 8:59 am
I cannot accept the definition because it reduces to absurdity when applied to the very verse it invokes: Hebrews 9:24. If you look at the verse, it uses antitype in exactly the opposite way that the definition does. The temple made with human hands is merely the antitype, while the temple in heaven, which Christ entered, is “the true.”
Jesus is never called an antitype anywhere in Scripture. He is the second Adam, but not the antitype of Adam. He is the real paschal lamb, not its antitype.
Thanks,
Tim”
Now the question does the definition reduce to absurdity the verse it invokes? No it does not unless you have misinterpreted the definition. The definition says that the antitype is a “counterpart, and refers to the fulfillment of a type”. The definition does not say that the antitype is “the true” person, event or thing. So which came first, the heavenly sanctuary or “the holy places made with hands”. Obviously the heavenly sanctuary, for the holy places made with hands “are copies of the true things”. How could they be copies if the heavenly sanctuary did not already exist? The heavenly sanctuary in this case is the Type, the fulfillment of the type , ie the Antitype was the earthly sanctuary made with human hands.
Timothy K, you wrote
” Jesus is never called an antitype anywhere in Scripture. He is the second Adam, but not the antitype of Adam. He is the real paschal lamb, not its antitype. ”
Let’s try reading between the lines. Romans 5:14 “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was nor like the transgression of Adam, WHO WAS THE TYPE OF THE ONE WHO WAS TO COME”. Now if Adam is the type, what does that make Christ?
I was interested in why you challenged the definition of Antitype and as I mentioned it is not a word commonly used in every day speech. It is of course occasionally found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and it seems to me your challenge is basically precipitated by a desire or a wish to some how change the meaning of the word. Maybe you can give us a correct definition of the word “antitype”?
Timothy P, you wrote,
It makes Him the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45).
You continued,
Since the proposed definition was absurd on its face, it cannot be “the definition.” I suggest you offer one that is not inherently nonsensical. You continued,
Yes, it is occasionally used in the writings of the early church fathers, as in Cyril of Jerusalem who said that ‘oil’ is the ‘antitype’ of the Holy Spirit:
Now, according to your flawed analysis of Romans 5:14, if the oil is the antitype, what does that make the Holy Spirit? The “type”? The “rough draft”? The “sketch”?
The flaw in your proposed definition is in thinking that the “antitype” is the “fulfillment” of a “type.”
Nowhere in Scripture is that even suggested.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy P, you wrote,
First, I did not say it reduces the verse to absurdity. I said the definition reduces to absurdity. You continued,
The definition you provided ALSO says:
That is stated as a rule in a definition you provided. In Hebrews 9:24, the heavenly temple was EARLIER, and the temple made with human hands came LATER.
Now read Hebrews 9:24, the verse your definition invoked to show the meaning of “antitype”. In that verse, the EARLIER thing is the “greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Hebrews 9:11), and the LATER thing made with human hands is the “example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5), the lesser thing perfected with lesser sacrifices (Hebrews 9:23).
Now according to your own definition of antitype, the EARLIER thing is the sketch, the rough draft. According to the Scriptures, the heavenly temple came earlier, and the one made with human hands is the shadow, the pattern, the lesser that came later.
So according to the definition you provided, Jesus entered the “rough draft” the “sketch” to offer better sacrifices.
Do you believe Jesus entered the sketch or rough draft when He entered “the heavenly things themselves,” “into heaven itself”?
As I said, the definition reduces to absurdity when applied to Hebrews 9:24. It makes the Heavenly Temple the sketch, or the rough draft.
Thanks,
Tim
Just so everyone can understand why the meaning of the word antitype is significant I wanted to post this quote from Irenaeus that Timothy Kauffman had provided earlier.
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected (τελεσαντες, completed) the oblation (or in the Latin translation in Migne, et postea finita oblatione), we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes [symbols] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Irenæus, Fragments, 37).
Lots to discuss about the meaning of the word Antitype, but I don’t believe the word means symbols.
Just wanted to post the quote from the New Advent Website
37
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1 And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.
Timothy P, you wrote,
Ok, what does it mean?
Tim
Timothy K, I already gave a definition which you called absurd but it appears everyone seems to be in agreement with the initial definition I gave you. Note the following discussion between the difference between a type and antitype.
“A type is an Old Testament foreshadow of something usually brought to further light in the New Testament. Other words to help explain the concept could be pattern, model, template, preview, snapshot, puzzle piece, one part of a portrait, blueprint, or a prefigure.
An antitype is the foreshadowing in its more full state. It is the fulfillment, in a manner of speaking, of the type. It is the OT idea of it come into fruition, it is what the type was in some way pointing towards. The type may be thought of as the sign for a road but the antitype is more like the actual road with the pavement and all that. The analogy is limited but I want to give a variety of perspectives on the relationship between type and antitype in hopes to make it more clear as to just what the theological concept entails.
I am using type in a broad sense here, as it is easy to become extremely precise in what one calls a type and then use other labels to describe the other OT foreshadowings of Christ. But here I will use type as a relatively sweeping term in order to show three examples of types from the Old Testament which anticipate Christ in John.
1. Jesus is the Final Passover Lamb. In the Old Testament, a lamb was slain every Passover to mark the Exodus. More specifically, it recollected how the Israelites escaped the wrath of the Destroying One in the Tenth Plague by the blood of the Lamb. This is how they were rescued, and we are also rescued by the blood of the Lamb. Also, the Passover Lamb would not have any of its bones broken and neither did Jesus (Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).
2. Jesus is the True Manna. In John 6, Jesus explained the Old Testament points to Him. He told the people he was the true bread come down from heaven and if people ate of his flesh they would love forever, whereas in the wilderness people had to eat again and again and yet they still eventually died. Jesus is the antitype of the manna in the Old Testament.
3. Jesus is the New Moses. In the Old Testament, Moses delivered the Israelites from bondage. Jesus saves his people from their sins with his actions. John 1:17 even compares Moses to Jesus: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Jesus gives another grace, like Moses gave, and it is built upon the “work” of Moses but it is the completion of it – the ultimate step in God’s grace program, if you will (John 1:16). And just as Moses explained YHWH to the people, Jesus exegetes the Father!
Other parts of the NT explain that since Moses’ revelation was rejected (Luke 16:29–31), Jesus’ words were rejected. Yet in John 12:41 Jesus says that Isaiah had written about Him; this again shows that Jesus understood the OT to be full of types and prophecies about him. This does not mean every single thing in the OT is a type but simply that the OT does indeed point to Jesus.”
Now Timothy K, you wrote:
” The flaw in your proposed definition is in thinking that the “antitype” is the “fulfillment” of a “type.””
and yet in trying to define the difference between type and antitype the above author wrote that the antitype was “the fulfillment, in a manner of speaking, of the type.”
Now what I am interested in knowing is where did you find the quote on Irenaeus Fragment 37 you posted where it says “receivers of these antitypes [symbols] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal”. Was the” [symbols]” in that original quote or did you insert it? I have been looking and have not found any definition where the word antitype means symbol.
Timothy P, thank you for providing a definition of “antitype” from Vocab Malone, “a Phoenix-based Christian hip hop artist and slam poet.” Surely authoritative in any theological discussion. How did you get to this point that you would defer to a hip-hop blogger who attempts to define “antitype” without even citing the two verses in the Scriptures where the term is used?
You are correct that I have identified the flaw in your proposed definition is in thinking that the “antitype” is the “fulfillment” of a “type.” You will note that the same flaw exists in the citation you quoted here. You can keep on citing flawed definitions and I’ll keep telling you they don’t make sense. To have a conversation you have to respond to my actual objections instead of simply cutting and pasting more definitions as if you could convince me by the sheer number of them. They’re wrong. Here’s why:
Vocab Malone said, “An antitype is the foreshadowing in its more full state.”
Ok. Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 says the heavenly temple “which the Lord pitched” is “true” in comparison to the one made with hands which is just the antitype. That’s what Scripture tells us. Your definition would require that the one the Lord’ pitched Himself in Heaven be the “type,” and therefore less true, because the “antitype” is more real than the type, for the one made with hands is the temple “in its more full state.” Your definition fails and will continue to fail until you bring it in line with the Scriptures. Additionally, your definition requires the “type” to be the “pattern,” and yet the Douay Rheims Catholic translation actually renders “antitype” in Hebrews 9:24 as “pattern.” How can both the type and the antitype be “the pattern”? What’s the word for the thing that is actually “the real thing“?
You continued,
Ok. Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Mysteries, II on Baptism: “those things [baptism], which were done by you in the inner chamber, were symbolic [συμβολα]” (paragraph 1). In paragraph 4 he says this is all symbolical, “you made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol [συμβολικου] at the three days burial of Christ.” Then paragraph 6 he says baptism “is the antitype [ἀντίτυπον] of the sufferings of Christ.” Not only does Cyril use “antitype” and “symbol” interchangeably when referring to Baptism as an image or figure of Christ’s death, but he calls Baptism the “antitype” of the sufferings of Christ. By all the definitions you have provided, Cyril must have meant that Christ’s sufferings were only the “type,” and that Baptism is Christ’s sufferings “in its more full state,” making baptism the fulfillment of Christ sufferings, that were just a foreshadowing, or a type.
Again, On the Mysteries, III, on Chrism, “And to you in like manner, … there was given an Unction, the anti-type (αντιτυπον) of that wherewith Christ was anointed;” (paragraph 1). Unction is the act of applying oil to the forehead, and in paragraph 3 he says that unction is “symbolical” (xσυμβολικως). By all the definitions you have provided, Cyril must have meant the Holy Spirit was only the “type” of Himself, and that Oil is the Holy Spirit “in its more full state.”
Now John of Damascus clearly understood the significance of “anti-type” as a “symbol” because he insisted that nobody would call the bread and wine anti-type unless they were doing so prior to the consecration, when they were still only symbolic. He believed that after the consecration, the bread and wine were really the body and blood of Christ, and therefore were not antitypes anymore:
Timothy P, I have come to you with the Scriptures and from the Early Church and medieval Fathers, who, as you have acknowledged, used the term antitype. And you respond to me with the definition of antitype from a hip hop artist and slam poet. May I kindly request that you respond to my actual arguments instead of simply seeking out more definitions that don’t even address the Scriptural use of the term?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, These Catholics are faced with the crucial question you must have had to answer in you own life, and that is to believe the gospel of scripture you must reject earning your salvation at what your church calls the necessary summit of your salvation. Catholics are apprehensive about viewing Ignatius correctly because it would be a fundamental rejection of the thing they are told will get them to heaven. I’m not sure Tim that Protestants today understand the utter lie of transubstantiation and the mass in that it is inviting into condemnation and hell all over the world each day millions. We must pray for these people.
Kevin, Ignatius wrote:
” If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you the nature of the dispensation of which I have begun to treat, with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection.
Especially will I do this if the Lord make known to me that you come together in common, man by man, through grace – individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God;
and if you thus obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”
Kevin, who but those who believe in the real presence would be bold enough to call the Eucharistic bread “the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ”. Open your eyes Kevin. You have never answered me if you were willing to share those quotes of Irenaeus with friends for another opinion as to their meaning. The Truth will set you free.
It is the medicine of immortality and antidote to believers because it is a commemoration and a remembrance of the cross which nourishes our faith the scripture tells us. Mark 1:15 ” repent and BELIEVE in the gospel. Believing the gospel alone justifies a man, not worshiping bread and carrying it around in the streets. That is idolatry. Paul calls it bread 11:26. Paul says ” Christ in us the hope of glory, not Christ in bread the hope of glory. Christ is in my heart, not in bread. His Spirit is in my heart, not in bread. ” The righteous shall live by FAITH” not by bread. You read Ignatius fatally through Roman lens. Ignatius isn’t saying the bread keeps us from dying, but our faith which is nurtured by this great remembrance. Hebrews says without faith it is impossible to please him, not worshiping bread. You are running around in circles to avoid the simple meaning do antitype which means symbol. Christ is the builder of the house, Moses is just a member of the household. Christ made Moses. He is the builder Hebrews 3.
Timothy P,
Writing to Kevin, you observed,
And yet you know very well by now that the “quotes” you gave from Irenæus were a jumbled mix of various citations from his works, not even in the order he wrote them. I have asked you repeatedly to cite them in their original context, in their original order, citing the source rather than simply listing them as “Irenæus’ comments on the real presence.” I’ll note again, as well, that in those comments, Irenæas does not even mention the words “real” and “presence.”
Cite them in context, in order, identifying which work of Irenæus each quote comes from, and then you can have a productive conversation. Until then, you’re just trolling.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., in Tim P’s defense, it seems anyone who has valid arguments that don’t agree with you castigate as “trolls” and ban them. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in Church History (though I have a Ph.D. in another field) to see where your arguments are flawed, contrary to what you believe. But heck, even Ph.D.s in Church History disagree with you, as I have shown.
I’ve clearly laid out my arguments but instead of addressing them you keep them in moderation so others can’t see. You are about to do the same with Tim P.
The real troll here is Kevin, yet you let his comments slide all the time because you agree with him. This demonstrates that you aren’t a truth seeker, just a propagandist. You are a peddler of fake news.
Mark, you wrote,
I don’t consider the definition provided by a hip hop slam poet to be a “valid argument.”
You continued,
I said Timothy P was trolling because for more than a year now he has cut and pasted Irenæus’ alleged “comments on the real presence,” and for the same amount of time I have been asking that he present Irenæus’ statements in the correct order, and indicate their sources. He does not think he should have to do so, but he keeps coming back demanding that the allegations be answered. It’s his typical cut and paste nonsense, and I don’t appreciate it. I did not “castigate” him for disagreeing with me. If he wants to make legitimate arguments he has to do better than simply to re-cut and re-paste the same nonsense over and over again demanding that we ask our friends what they think of statements from Irenæus that are not even about the real presence.
Good day,
Tim
” it doesn’t take a PHD in church history to see where your arguments are flawed, contrary to what you believe.” But until an argument is made in context of scripture or keeping the church father’s quotes in context it’s going to be flawed. Context is everything. The reason it matters is Vocabulary Malone got it dead wrong and yet Timothy P bought it. And therein lies the lie of Roman Catholicism, a history of a church that has gotten scripture and historical context wrong while leading many like yourselves astray. Historical revisionism and contextual revisionism is what I’ve taken away in my studies of the false Religion that is Catholicism. Studying scripture and the early church in context is a conduit to the truth. Jesus said there will be many coming in his name saying I am the Christ. He said don’t believe them. Iow, unless I am convinced by scripture, context, sound reason, I don’t accept it. K
Timothy P, Catholics just won’t let Christ get off the cross will they? They want to keep him there as an eternal victim. But Christ has risen and obtained eternal redemption according to Hebrews and Ephesians 1:7. We are called to believe in a finished act, one that has accomplished our salvation. The mass is continual and unfinished. It is a fundamental rejection of the gospel which is news about something that already happened and was already accomplished. Read Romans 1:4 ” who was declared Son of God with power, by the resurrection of from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord” He is no longer a victim, no longer on the cross,but a Victor and a risen King. When he was raised so was every true believer. The supper is a commemoration and a celebration of the one sacrifice that already payed for sins. Scripture does not teach salvation on the installment plan. It is finished. The bread is a symbol of that finished act that secured and guaranteed our place with him. K
Timothy, as I work through being precise, it is important to communicate with precision the why the whole concept of the mass is antichrist and anti gospel. Because your religion teaches you that your justification is merited in increases at the mass by the WORK worked. Scripture says we are justified by believing the gospel. Iow, justification before God is always past tense for the believer, not something that is merited in increases. Secondly, it is idolatry to worship the elements of the Lord’s supper. Law and idolatry aren’t the way to be saved. Romans 4:16. Ignatius is of no help to you here.
Timothy K wrote
“Timothy P, thank you for providing a definition of “antitype” from Vocab Malone, “a Phoenix-based Christian hip hop artist and slam poet.” Surely authoritative in any theological discussion. How did you get to this point that you would defer to a hip-hop blogger who attempts to define “antitype” without even citing the two verses in the Scriptures where the term is used?”
Timothy K, I would consider the “hip-hop blogger” as having as much theological authority as you have and as I pointed out the definition is in line with the that provided in the Encyclopedia of the Bible which you claimed was absurd. Let me repost that definition.
“Encyclopedia of The Bible – Antitype
Resources » Encyclopedia of The Bible » A » Antitype
Antitype
ANTITYPE, ἀντιτύπον (Heb 9:24; 1 Pet 2:21) signifies a counterpart, and refers to the fulfillment of a type (τύπος, G5596, which occurs sixteen times in the NT). Persons, events, and things, in Scripture, and esp. in the OT, are often types of what later appear in the NT. The pascal lamb, e.g., was a type, and Christ is the Antitype. In all types and antitypes there is some sort of likeness. The earlier type is a rough draught, or sketch, of the later antitype. Adam was a “type of the one who was to come” (Rom 5:14), and so were Melchizedek, Abraham, Aaron, Joseph, Jonah, and others. The various kinds of types prepared the way for the antitypes—and the Antitype of antitypes is Christ.”
In fact I would invite everyone who is reading this post to simple post “definition of antitype” and it would appear that the only people who say that antitype means symbol are Timothy K and Kevin. And unless you tell me otherwise Timothy K I suspect you inserted [symbols] next to antitypes in Irenaeus’s fragment 37.
Now as we both acknowledge every word can and frequently do have multiple meanings, so showing the an example does not meet every aspect of the definition hardly means that the definition is absurd as you have suggested. Especially when that definition is found in all the English dictionaries. I’ll be glad to look at how the Church Fathers used the word antitype, but I would like to look at the entire passages which frequently does not fit your exegesis of the passages. I’m afraid when you see the word antitype symbol immediately pops into your head due to your protestant bias.
Timothy P, what’s amazing to me is that you can be given a plethora of examples from scripture and the father’s that antitype= symbol, yet you do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious. My observation is that you are so wedded to your Roman Catholicism that it blinds you from obvious truth. For instance Galatians was written to those who are trying to gain heaven through their own efforts which lead them to sin, in the same way Abe got together with Hagar to help God along. It’s clear. But being told the Roman church has the truth has been so ingrained in you, you cannot see the plain truth.
Kevin, The “obvious” in the English language is the definition of “anti-type”. Timothy P. is right. According to “The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (Encyclopedic Edition)” it is defined as: “the REALITY represented by a type or symbol” (emphasis mine). God bless you.
Phil, ok, let’s use your definition of Antitype on Hebrews 9:24.
Would you agree that the temple made with hands is the reality and the one in heaven that God made Himself is the type or symbol, but not the REALITY? Hebrews contrasts “antitype” with what is True, which means, using your definition, REALITY is not TRUE. Is that what you believe? That Realty is not True?
Let’s use your definition of Antitype on John of Damascus. He said,
Since the antitype is the reality, he must have meant,
Would you agree that John of Damascus therefore was denying (materially) transubstantiation because he thought you should only call the bread and wine the REALITY of the body and blood UNTIL THE CONSECRATION?? Shouldn’t he have said they were antitypes AFTER the consecration and not before?
Your own Catechism [1377] says “The Eucharistic presence of Christ BEGINS at the moment of the consecration”. John of Damascus must have meant that the Eucharistic presence of Christ ENDS at the moment of consecration because the bread and wine are antitypes of Christ’s body and blood up until that point.
Take your definition and apply it to the text. Does the text still make sense? Is the heavenly temple made by God only a SYMBOL of the REALITY of the one made by hands? Is Christ’s body and blood merely a SYMBOL of the REALITY of the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine prior to consecration?
Don’t sit in your ivory tower throwing dictionaries down to me when I have repeatedly shown that the definitions are absurd in the context of the Scriptures and the ECFs. Apply the definitions to the text and see if the definition fits. It doesn’t. So come up with something better than Websters. It’s not helping you.
Best,
Tim
Tim K, Read just a few paragraphs earlier where John of Damascus wrote:
“The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body’; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body’ but ‘my body,’ and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood’ but ‘my blood'”
Do you REALLY think JD believed that the Eucharist was just a symbol?
Mark, you have entirely missed the point. No, I do not believe John of Damascus believed that the consecrated Eucharist was just a symbol. There is absolutely nothing in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith that would lead anyone to suspect any such thing. He really believed that it was most certainly NOT a symbol after the words of consecration.
But Phil thinks “antitype” must mean the real thing and not just a figure or a symbol, and John of Damascus’ statement makes absolutely no sense using Phil’s preferred definition. That’s my point.
John of Damascus says, “the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, chapter 13). According to John of Damascus, that is precsely the point at which they cease to be antitypes. Using Websters, Phil says that is precsely the point at which they actually become antitypes.
Phil is absolutely convinced that Websters must prevail in our analysis of a 7th century document. Ok, try it out. Does Phil’s definition fit John of Damascus’ use of the term?
You have inadvertently concluded that it absolutely does not.
Well done.
Tim
As I pointed out in the follow up post, John of Damascus was arguing that the change takes place, as you correctly pointed out, at the invocation of the Holy Spirit (the epiclesis) which comes before the words of institution, (the consecration). He said the antitype, the reality, comes before the consecration at the epiclesis. The Western Churches teach it is at the words of institution and the Eastern Churches say it is completed at the epiclesis.
So, Phil’s definition, which is the correct, is perfectly consistent with John of Damascus.
Mark, you are wrong again. John of Damascus said,
But the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit, according to John of Damascus, does not actually change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ until Christ commands it at the completion of the words of institution. When Jesus says “Then having broken bread He gave it to them saying, Take, eat, this is My body broken for you … For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the death of the Son of man and confess His resurrection until He come,” only then does the Holy Spirit allegedly do perform His work of transubstantiation.
That’s why John of Damascus says the words of invocation are the rain to the tillage at the moment Jesus utters the words, “until He come.”:
Those words, according to John of Damascus, have the same power at that moment as “Let there be light,” or “let there be a firmament,” or “let the earth bring forth grass,” because of the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
That moment is what you have called “the consecration,” as does your catechism: “by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.” [1333] And John says that at the invocation and the words of Christ the bread and wine change. In other words, at the consecration, just as your catechism says: “Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist” (1377). This is not an “east-west” thing. It’s simply about the real presence of Christ.
John plainly believed that the bread and wine were antitypes until the command, “until He come,” Jesus’ final words of institution, the moment at which the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit brings about the change. Prior to “until He come,” they are mere antitypes, not the reality.
Now let Phil answer for his proposed definition.
Phil, do you really think John of Damascus believed that the bread and wine were only REALLY truly Christ’s body and blood prior to the consecration? Do you really think the earthly temple made by men is the REAL temple, but the one made by God is only a type, a symbol?
Thanks,
Tim
Mark, I’m trying to understand what you mean. You said,
But the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia says that in “all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also)” the epiclesis came after the words of institution:
Not sure what you meant, and I’ll appreciate any clarification.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., I appreciate your tenacity but your definition of antitype just doesn’t hold up.
You said, “This is not an “east-west” thing. It’s simply about the real presence of Christ.”
Yet you’ve already agreed “No, I do not believe John of Damascus believed that the consecrated Eucharist was just a symbol. There is absolutely nothing in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith that would lead anyone to suspect any such thing. He really believed that it was most certainly NOT a symbol after the words of consecration.”
I am flummoxed as to how you can at one time say he believed in the real presence then say “It’s simply about the real presence of Christ” which implies that he didn’t believe in it because of his use of the word antitype. Maybe I don’t understand your statement, “It’s simply about the real presence of Christ.” Do you think JD believed it was just symbolic or not?
In researching this, some commentators believe he didn’t understand what antitype means. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, https://goo.gl/5kyB7q and John H. McKenna https://goo.gl/t4uGsE) However, Orthodox theologians believe what I said- he was explaining that the epiclesis was the time consecration occurred and that the words of institution were just liturgical.
So, you have three choices. A) JD taught definitively that antitype means a symbol. B) JD didn’t understand what type and antitype actually means. C) JD believed that the epiclesis was when the consecration took place and that the words of institution were just liturgical.
If you believe that A is the correct choice, why then do you believe that he taught the real presence?
Mark, you asked,
No, I do not believe that John of Damascus thought the consecrated bread and wine were just symbolic. I don’t think his use of the word antitype at all suggests that he thought the consecrated bread and wine were just symbolic.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Can you succinctly explain what you think JD meant by antitype when he said “But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration, so calling the offering itself.”
Maybe you said it somewhere and I missed it. I apologize in advance for not knowing everything you’ve written.
Thanks,
Mark
Sure, no problem,
John of Damascus believed that, prior to transubstantiation, the bread and wine were just antitypes.
Thanks,
Tim
That’s right, Tim K.,
I explained there was a difference between the East and the West and you dismissed it.
Not sure I understand, Mark. Are you saying that the difference between east and west is that in the east the elements are antitypes before transubstantiation and in the west they are antitypes after transubstantiation?
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Phil, I’m not to concerned about what Websters dictionary says. As you can see in the examples Tim provided Timothy P in Cyprian it means symbol. Jesus is never called an antitype in scripture. The ” Webster” definition is counterpart or equal. Christ has no counterpart or equal. Yes he is the last Adam – Corinthians 15, but He didn’t return us to the garden, He transferred me from the domain of darkness to the glorious kingdom of light. That has already transpired according to scripture. If I understand Ignatius in context he wasn’t making an argument to the gnostics about real presence in the Eucharist but an argument that Christ had a body and his flesh was nailed to the cross for us. In fact the words real or presence are never used. He simply points to the thanksgiving as that of a real body who really was crucified both in body and Spirit.
Tim, really interesting. That example with John Damascus is highly instructive.
Tim, reading the history of John of Damascus it seems he wrote a treatise against those who revile holy icons. Do i understand it right that he propagated venerating icons? So he believed in transubstantiation and the veneration of icons. In your opinion could he be put in a category of idolators as Francis of Assisi?
Yes indeed.
Tim
Tim K.,
I am glad you acknowledge that JD believed in transubstantiation even though that word wasn’t used until hundreds of years after JD. Since you agree that he believed it, is Ignatius of Antioch also an idolater because he believed in transubstantiation?
Thanks,
Mark
Ignatius of Antioch did not believe in Transubstantiation.
Thanks,
Tim
How do you know JD believed in Transubstantiation? Did he ever talk about accidents and the substance? It seems you being anachronistic by saying that JD believed in Transubstantiation.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark, I suggest you take that question up with the Eastern Orthodox:
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Kevin,
You said: ” As you can see in the examples Tim provided Timothy P in Cyprian it means symbol. Jesus is never called an antitype in scripture. The ” Webster” definition is counterpart or equal. Christ has no counterpart or equal.” Then, can you explain to me how “counterpart or equal” means “symbol”? Thank you and God bless you.
Hi Timothy F.,
Thank you for your comment. I like to deal with only one point at a time. You said: “Phil, ok, let’s use your definition of Antitype on Hebrews 9:24. Would you agree that the temple made with hands is the reality and the one in heaven that God made Himself is the type or symbol, but not the REALITY? Hebrews contrasts “antitype” with what is True, which means, using your definition, REALITY is not TRUE. Is that what you believe? That Realty is not True?” No; that may be what you believe but that is not what I said. I said that that the antitype is a reality, true, but so is the type. I believe that the Jerusalem Temple (type) was real and that the Heavenly Temple (antitype) is real, too, and not a symbol. Now, what is your belief? God bless you.
It gets confusing because of the different nuances of the definition but from looking at multiple explanations the main point between type and antitype appears to be not whether one is symbolic and the other is reality but whether the type foreshadows the antitype. And subsequently the type must have preexisted before the antitype. When one is considered a symbol it is generally the type that is considered a symbol not the antitype. By the same measure there is I suspect no absolute rule that an antitype cannot be a symbol, as long as there is a type that foreshadowed it. But the key is that antitype does not mean symbol and it appears to me the Timothy K and Kevin simply chose to ignore that fact based on there obsession to deny the real presence. When Kevin writes
“Hi Phil, I’m not to concerned about what Websters dictionary says.”
one realizes the challenge we face
Timothy P,
I have provided plenty of uses of antitype in the early Church to show how they used the term. Oil is an antitype of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism is an antitype of Christ’s sufferings (Cyril), for example. You have held to a definition that says the type is the pattern and the antitype is the fulfilment, and yet your own translation of the Scriptures translates “antitype” as pattern. I am happy to use a definition of a term as long as the definition makes sense. None of your definitions make sense because they don’t take into account how the term is actually used in the texts we are evaluating.
Now here is a Roman Catholic writer explaining how John of Damascus used ‘antitype’, and they way he used it was to mean “symbol.”:
You can go on and on as you like about how “antitype” doesn’t mean symbol, but when evaluating the text we must use the term the way the writers used it. And to them, it meant symbol, and not the reality or the fulfillment.
Thanks,
Tim
Phil,
Thank you for your response. That is what I wanted to know. In your answer, you identified the earthly temple as the type and the Heavenly temple as the antitiype. Was that intentional? My question to you was about Hebrews 9:24 which identifies the earthy temple as the antitype. I will appreciate any clarification you can provide.
Thank you.
Tim
Phil, I didn’t say that counterpart or equal means symbol. That’s Webster definition of antitype, not symbol. Thx
Hi Kevin,
No, you did say that “antitype” means symbol. If you don’t like Webster definition then give us yours (of course, there is no guarantee that we will agree with it) and we will have a clearer understanding of your thinking. God bless you
Phil, it’s not rocket science. Cyril said baptism is the antitype ( symbol) of the burial of Christ. How hard can that be. Here is the Webster defenition ” that of which the type is the patern or representation, that which is represented by the type or symbol. Now make the comparison for yourself.
Type and antitype mean the same thing? Wow. That isn’t ” reality.
” one realizes the challenge we face” and you can imagine the challenge with those who use sola webster.
Sola Webster Kevin? Seriously. I invited everyone to look up the definition of antitype and I have not been able to find any source that supports your and Timothy K ‘s belief that the word means symbol. I will address Timothy K’s flawed logic when I have more time and as I mentioned I want to read the entire passages, but I see problems with his interpretation already. This whole discussion of course was brought about because Timothy K questioned the definition of antitype I provided from the Encyclopedia of the Bible and in reviewing his previous quote from Irenaeus fragment 37 I realized that he had after the word antitypes apparently put in the clarification [symbols]. I apologize to him if he did not make that insertion and that’s why I asked where he got that quote.
Unfortunately for you Timothy P that it has nothing to do with our belief, it is the way it is used in context in the those church father’s Tim has provided here. But that really means nothing to you. You would do mental gymnastics to side with any meaning outside the one on this site. But of course you can’t believe anything else, because you are steeped in a dead and evil religion. Only God can change that. What should be instructive for all readers here is that their are meanings of words and doctrines that woefully wrong, and it seems they can be found in the Roman Catholic Church and Websters dictionary.
Hi Timothy F.
I gave you my answer. What do you mean by “was it intentional?”
It was YOUR statement and I gave you my opinion. I do not believe that “the one in Heaven that God made Himself” is a symbol. May be you do since those were your words. Can you give me your belief as I requested? And, please, state the Bible translation you are using. I don’t care which one is as long as it is a reputable one. God bless you.
Phil,
Yes, you gave me your answer, but there was a part of your answer that confused me. Like you, I like to deal with one thing at a time. Your words were as follows:
In my response, I asked,
You may notice that in this particular question to you, I was simply asking you which one was the antitype and which one was the type. I was not asking you which one was the symbol.
The reason your response is startling to me is that you identified the earthly temple as the type and the Heavenly temple as the antitype. But the original Greek calls the earthly temple the antitype. I’m not using a bible translation. I’m referring to the original text, which you can see here: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/9-24.htm
Keep in mind, I’m not asking you what antitype means. I’m asking which one is the antitype. The original greek identifies the earthly temple as the antitype of the true heavenly one. But you have identified the Heavenly temple as the antitype of the earthly one. That, as I said, is startling to me, and I wanted to make sure if your assertion was intentional.
If the greek is not sufficiently authoritative for you, I’m not sure there is much more to discuss.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Commentators explain that in Hebrews 9:24, type and antitype are synonymous. On the Mount Moses received the model (type) of the tabernacle he was to build (the antitype). However, this antitype is a copy of the true one in heaven. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/9-24.htm
Thanks,
Mark
Thank you Mark. At the moment I am most concerned about why Phil thinks the Heavenly temple is the antitype when the Scriptures plainly and explicitly say that the earthly temple is the antitype. We’ll come back to your assessment of synonymity later.
But regarding the actual meaning of antitype in this passage, I note the following:
SO there you have it: antitype means Figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness. All of these are contrasted with what is true, what is real.
That’s not at all what I expected based on Phil’s invocation of Webster’s which tells me that the antitype is the “REALITY.”
In view of this it is hard to believe that Timothy P has never heard “antitype” defined as “symbol.” Of course I inserted the english equivalent in brackets in my citation of fragment 37. Because inserting [Figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness] would have been cumbersome.
So, do you think I should go with Websters here, or by what the term ACTUALLY MEANS IN THIS PASSAGE?
Tim
Tim K.,
As Barnes Notes explains, “Literally, “the antitypes” – ἀντίτυπα antitupa. The word properly means what is formed after a model, pattern, or type; and then what corresponds to something or answers to it. The idea here is, that the “type” or “fashion” – the “true” figure or form – was shown to Moses in the Mount, and then the tabernacle was made after that model, or corresponded to it. The “true original” figure is heaven itself; the tabernacle was an antitype of that – or was so formed as in some sense to correspond to it.
The model or pattern (type) of the tabernacle was given to Moses by God on the mount (Heb 8:5). Moses then built the tabernacle (the antitype of the type). The reality is in heaven because the tabernacle pattern was based on the true archetype in heaven.
Thanks,
David
David, or Mark, or whoever you are today,
Barnes said, “the “true original” figure is heaven itself; the tabernacle was an antitype of that“.
That’s right. The temple in heaven is “the true tabernacle” (Hebrews 8:2, 9:24). The one on earth is “the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5), “a figure for the time then present” (Hebrews 9:9), and the one in heaven is the “greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Hebrews 9:11). As is evident from the Scriptures, ‘antitype’ does not mean “the REALITY,” as you and Phil think it does, and it does not mean “the foreshadowing in its more full state,” and Timothy P says it means.
I don’t think the author of Hebrews got it wrong, but you apparently do. Do you think that he got it so wrong because he did not have access to Webster’s dictionary like you do?
I have shown you that in the commentaries, antitype is understood to mean figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness. What the commentaries aren’t saying is that the antitype is THE REALITY.
So in rebuttal all you and Phil and Timothy P can argue is “the common understanding in English today” and “the current definitions of the word in all the dictionaries” and “the standard use of the word antitype as it is used today,” something first year seminary students are taught NOT TO DO.
In your confusion, you have now argued that the antitype means “the reality” and the archetype means “the reality,” and antitype and type are synonymous, so that antitype, type and archetype all end up meaning the same thing, which is nonsense.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
“Barnes said, “the “true original” figure is heaven itself; the tabernacle was an antitype of that“.
It is the antitype of that because the pattern that Moses was given by God on the Mount was a heavenly pattern! I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Additionally, Jesus is the antitype of Noah and David. Is Jesus just a mere copy or symbol of Noah and David? I don’t think you would go that far.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark, or David, or whichever one of you wrote this comment, Let me just repeat what I just said because you obviously didn’t read it:
David, or Mark, or whoever you are today,
Barnes said, “the “true original” figure is heaven itself; the tabernacle was an antitype of that“.
That’s right. The temple in heaven is “the true tabernacle” (Hebrews 8:2, 9:24). The one on earth is “the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5), “a figure for the time then present” (Hebrews 9:9), and the one in heaven is the “greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Hebrews 9:11). As is evident from the Scriptures, ‘antitype’ does not mean “the REALITY,” as you and Phil think it does, and it does not mean “the foreshadowing in its more full state,” and Timothy P says it means.
I don’t think the author of Hebrews got it wrong, but you apparently do. Do you think that he got it so wrong because he did not have access to Webster’s dictionary like you do?
Tim
Tim K. or Tim Kauffman,
You said, “I don’t think the author of Hebrews got it wrong, but you apparently do. Do you think that he got it so wrong because he did not have access to Webster’s dictionary like you do?”
I don’t think the author got it wrong either, because the tabernacle is indeed an antitype.
I will repeat it one more time. It is an antitype because the type was the pattern that God gave Moses on the mount. Are you with me so far? The writer of Hebrews mentions the pattern in Heb 8:5.
Do you agree with this? If you don’t then you don’t understand type-antitype as it is understood by most scholars. Let’s stop there so I can understand if you agree.
If you don’t agree, please define what you think is the relationship between type and antitype.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark, or David, or Bill, of whichever one of you submitted this comment: of course the earthly temple is an antitype. We know that because the Scriptures say so. We also know that the earthly temple is but an “example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5).
We also know that you attempted to use Barnes to show that he thought the earthly temple was the antitype of the type received by Moses on the mountain, which itself was the type of the archetype or reality which is in Heaven. You wrote,
Barnes says absolutely nothing like this. He said the true original figure IS HEAVEN and the earthly temple is the antitype OF HEAVEN. He mentions nothing of archetypes at all.
You have now called the antitype the reality, the archetype the reality, the type synonymous with antitype, which is confusion and nonsense. The fact is, when Barnes explains the significance of all of this he says that the antitype in Hebrews 9:24, is symbolical of what happens in heaven: “the mercy-seat and the shekinah were symbols of the presence of God, and of the fact that he shows mercy in heaven”.
You asked, about “type-antitype as it is understood by most scholars.” We are not talking about what “type-antitype” means by most scholars. We are talking about what it means in the way it was used in the Scriptures and in the early greek writers. Hebrews 9:24 is an example of why your constant appeal to what scholars say it means in TODAY’s language offers us nothing in regards to how it was used back then. You have said that the antitype is the reality, Phil says the antitype is the reality, and Timothy P says that the antitype is “the foreshadowing in its more full state”. Well, none of those definitions work in Hebrews 9:24, because the author of Hebrews says the earthly temple is the antitype which but a shadow and figure and pattern of the things above which are better, and more excellent and true in heaven.
In other words, your attempt to use “antitype” to mean THE REALITY doesn’t work. Scripture simply will not support that meaning. Which is why in Hebrews 9:24, the commentaries conclude that the earthly temple is but a figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness OF THE REALITY.
Thanks,
Tim
T. Kauffman,
OK, so you don’t want to discuss what type-antitype means. I think we are at an impasse and we are done here.
Thanks,
maRk
Of course I do, Mark (or David). But you think antitype is the type come to its fullness, the reality. That is not how antitype is used in Hebrews 9:24. You attempted to rope Barnes into supporting your position that the antitype is the reality, but Barnes said that Hebrews 9:24 means that the ministrations of the earthly temple are symbolic of what happens in the true tabernacle in heaven. You have misrepresented Barnes, and he does not agree with you.
The commentaries that you provided, all conclude that antitype here means a figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness OF THE REALITY in heaven, but is not THE REALITY. You said antitype is “THE REALITY.” Hebrews 9:24 disagrees with you.
You cannot grasp that, so you are right—we are at an impasse.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Timothy F.
Thank you for the Greek text. It, indeed, uses the word antitype for the earthly Temple. You said: “Keep in mind, I’m not asking you what antitype means.” No you did not, but that is the whole point. My original comment was addressed to Kevin, with whom I have dealt in another blog, and you got into it. He has clearly stated that “antitype means symbol” and that is not the common understanding in English today. Do you agree with him? I asked you to give your belief on that. God bless you.
Thank you, Phil. Yes, you asked me my belief. But as I said, I like to deal with one thing at a time. In Hebrews 9:24, “antitype” refers to the earthly temple. On that we now agree. In your response to Kevin, you defined antitype as “the REALITY represented by a type or symbol”. In Hebrews 9:24, the earthly temple is contrasted with the Heavenly temple, antitype contrasted with what is “true.” In the broader context of Hebrews 9:24 we find a repeated theme: the things on earth are but shadows and figures and patterns of the things above which are better, and more excellent and true. I.e.,
That is the context in which “antitype” is used in Hebrews 9:24. The heavenly temple is true, better, greater, more perfect than the antitype, and the antitype is where the lesser sacrifices were offered, and it is “not the very image of the things” in the heavens — it is a pattern, a shadow of what is above.
Is it your belief that “the REALITY represented by a type or symbol” is how antitype is used of the earthly temple in Hebrews 9:24?
Thank you,
Tim
Hi Timothy F.
Thank you for your comment re. Heb 9:24. To avoid further confusion before I answer your question, I do not believe that “type” and “symbol” are synonyms and that, while the concept of “type” and “antitype” are clearly expressed in the Bible, they are not consistently used in the same way (e.g. in Rom 5:15 Adam is called “type” {tupos, not antitupos} ” of Him who was to come”). Having said that, I can tell you that I agree with you that the REALITY represented by the Jerusalem Temple in Heb 9:24 was not as great as the REALITY of the Heavenly Temple; but, at the same time, it was not a mere symbol without any truth to it (Jesus Himself called it “My Father’s house” John 2:16). I hope that we can agree on that.
Phil, nobody has denied that the earthly temple was REAL, or that the heavenly temple is REAL. At the time of the writing of Hebrews, they were both equally REAL. I agree that they were. Further, nobody has defined “symbol” as something without any truth to it. The fact that a symbol is actually a symbol of something is itself a quantum of truth. But Hebrews 9:24 contrasts the antitype with what is TRUE. Therefore while the earthly temple was equally REAL with the heavenly temple, it was not equally TRUE with the heavenly temple.
The fact is, Jesus is never identified in the Scriptures as the “antitype,” and when antitype is used in Hebrews 9:24 it means something that is less “true” than the counterpart it was intended to represent. Thus, as I have noted before, your definition that antitype is “the REALITY represented by a type or symbol” still has the earthly temple as the “REALITY” “represented” by the Heavenly one, which is the exact opposite of the meaning of Hebrews 9:24.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K’s reaction to my definition of antitype I thought was unusual especially since it seemed so in line with the current definitions of the word in all the dictionaries I can find on line. And of course I am not surprised by the following comment from Timothy K.
“In view of this it is hard to believe that Timothy P has never heard “antitype” defined as “symbol.” Of course I inserted the english equivalent in brackets in my citation of fragment 37. Because inserting [Figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness] would have been cumbersome.”
Really Timothy K, you were just trying not to be cumbersome? You ignore the standard use of the word antitype as it is used today and provided multiple biblical commentaries on the use of antitype on a specific verse of the bible only one of which mentions the word symbol “tabernacle as but an illustration, figure, parable, symbol, an image or a simile of the true.” and based on that evidence you conclude that the word antitype means symbol. And so if by your definition antitype in the Bible means symbol then does Type in the Bible mean that which is true and real?
Phil, no, I said in the context of the church father’s that Tim has provided examples of antitype as symbol. What it means in ” the normal English understanding” is inconsequential. But to you and Timothy P it is. Tim just listed about 20 commentary. Figure, symbol etc. But for you to accept this CLEAR meaning is consequential to your theology. But as I have said before, Roman Catholicism is antichrist, which in my studies reverses the doctrines of scripture and the writings of the early father’s. For instance scripture says a man is saved by nothing he does or will do, Catholicism says your works are partially responsible. Of course I could go on and on. You can imagine the consequence of misunderstanding the elements of the supper. Because Romanism reverses what Jesus said, they worship bread which is idolatry. That’s why having the correct nderstanding of antitype
Is important. Thanks
” you ignore the standard use of the word antitype as it is used today and provided multiple biblical commentaries” ya, what’s wrong with this Kauffman guy using the bible and biblically commentaries when he could be sola webster. Lol. Don’t let the bible get in the way. Who cares how it is used in Hebrews 9: 24!, Sola ecclesia! Rome and sola webster!
Kevin, will be glad to deal with your comments later but I wanted to print out Cyril of Jerusalem’s comments on Baptism which I believe Timothy K misrepresented and then show how you took his explanation hook , line and sinker without apparently reading the passages. Maybe you can read the passage yourself and point out the misrepresentation. Is that fair?
(On the Mysteries. II.)
Of Baptism.
Romans 6:3-14
Do you not know, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? etc…..for you are not under the Law, but under grace.
1. These daily introductions into the Mysteries , and new instructions, which are the announcements of new truths, are profitable to us; and most of all to you, who have been renewed from an old state to a new. Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday’s Lecture, that you may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber , were symbolic.
2. As soon, then, as you entered, you put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds. Colossians 3:9 Having stripped yourselves, you were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree. For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, you may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxes corrupt in the lusts of deceit. Ephesians 4:22 May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on Song of Songs 5:3? O wondrous thing! You were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed ; for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.
3. Then, when you were stripped, you were anointed with exorcised oil , from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For you were cut off from the wild olive-tree , and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree. The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence. For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4. After these things, you were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism, as Christ was carried from the Cross to the Sepulchre which is before our eyes. And each of you was asked, whether he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and you made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol at the three days burial of Christ. For as our Saviour passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, so you also in your first ascent out of the water, represented the first day of Christ in the earth, and by your descent, the night; for as he who is in the night, no longer sees, but he who is in the day, remains in the light, so in the descent, as in the night, you saw nothing, but in ascending again you were as in the day. And at the self-same moment you were both dying and being born; and that Water of salvation was at once your grave and your mother. And what Solomon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, in that case, There is a time to bear and a time to die Ecclesiastes 3:2; but to you, in the reverse order, there was a time to die and a time to be born; and one and the same time effected both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.
5. O strange and inconceivable thing! We did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but our imitation was in a figure, and our salvation in reality. Christ was actually crucified, and actually buried, and truly rose again; and all these things He has freely bestowed upon us, that we, sharing His sufferings by imitation, might gain salvation in reality. O surpassing loving-kindness! Christ received nails in His undefiled hands and feet, and suffered anguish; while on me without pain or toil by the fellowship of His suffering He freely bestows salvation.
6. Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John’s was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ. For this cause Paul just now cried aloud and said, Or are you ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into His death. These words he spoke to some who were disposed to think that Baptism ministers to us the remission of sins, and adoption, but has not further the fellowship also, by representation, of Christ’s true sufferings.
Timothy P quoted Cyril on Romans 6:13 ” for you are not under law but under grace” the irony. Where does that put Roman Catholics who say it’s by grace plus works? ” if it’s by grace it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace is no longer grace. Outside the kingdom of God?
Come on Kevin, Catholic’s are not under the Mosaic Law and that is obviously the law that Cyril and Paul were taking about. Lest you forget, the Bible teaches that Faith without works is a dead Faith, so can you be saved with a Dead Faith? James 2:25.. “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”. So Kevin, can you be saved with a dead faith?
Tell that to the those in Galatians who were undermining the doctrine of justification by faith. Listen to Galatians ” you have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace” Do you see any law distinctions there? No you don’t. All those seeking to be justified by works in some way are not with Christ and are not in grace according to Paul. The whole book of Galatians is an antithesis of hearing by faith and works in justification before God, Galatians 3:1-4. Paul says law is not faith. Being wrong about the gospel and the Lord’s supper is consequential to living eternally with God, Galatians 2:5.
Titus 3:5″ He saved us, not on the basis of holy deeds, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Now who washes me and renews me? Is it water? No. Is it a priest? No. It’s the Holy Spirit? Bingo. Incidentally, do you see where Paul says it is no by any holy deed. Iow, being born from above is from God, not the physical waters of baptism. And just like I had nothing to do with my physical birth, I had nothing to do with my spiritual birth. Cyril could not have meant what you believe of his writings.
Cyril states in that passage those who believe and confess descend 3 times into the water. How hard is that to understand. Notice the order. The Spirit regenerates us, we repent and believe THEN go down in the water. The water doesn’t regenerate me. It is a sign and seal of grace.
Nice try Kevin , but Cyril didn’t say
“The Spirit regenerates us, we repent and believe THEN go down in the water. The water doesn’t regenerate me. It is a sign and seal of grace.”
Now let’s just quote exactly what Cyril said, and I won’t try to put words in his mouth
“6. Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John’s was a baptism conferring only remission of sins: whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ”
Hmmmm. what purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost? Cyril says Baptism.
What I love about the Church Fathers is that attempts Protestant apologist have to make in order to try and tell us what the Church Father actually meant instead of focusing on what they actually said. The Church Fathers are kind of like the tar baby and Briar Rabbit for the Protestant apologist. Kevin you know you would never say Baptism purges our sins.
” Kevin you would never say Baptism purges our sins.” Ya, Peter would never say that either. 1 Peter 3:21 ” and this symbolizes the baptism that now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body , but as an appeal to God for a good conscience , through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Like in the OT a jew could be circumcised with all the earthly promises and on his way to hell because his heart wasn’t circumcised.
Phil, many posts earlier Tim asked you which one is the antitype in Hebrews 9:24, and your answer is they both are real. The earthly a little less real than the heavenly. You refuse to acknowledge the Greek calls the earthly the antitype. Shadow, paterns, image. In Hebrews 9:-24, he us contrasting the earthly with the heavenly. Incidentally, the writer of Hebrews is basically telling them that to believe in an earthly sacrifice, altar, and priesthood was shrinking back from faith, that Jesus altar, priesthood, and sacrifice are in heaven. This warning to be given to Roman Catholicism which is the recapitulation of Judaism.
Hi Kevin,
I have no problem with the author of Hebrews 9:24 “contrasting the earthly with the heavenly” and calling “the earthly the antitype.” I was surprised because of the translations that I have but I acknowledged it to Tim. I definitely agree with the concept, although there is no consistency on the use of the terms “tupos” and “antitupos” in the Bible. In Romans 5:14 Adam is called the “tupos” although he is the earthly and in 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism (not the earthly part) is called “antitupos”. God bless you.
Timothy P, Ephesians 2:8 clearly says that it is by grace one is save through faith. This corresponds with 1 Peter 3:21, that faith produces a call to God, self expression. And baptism is symbolic of that call. Cyril isn’t teaching baptismal regeneration. As I have shown in Titus 3:5 that the washing of regeneration and renewing is through the Spirit, not the physical water.
Timothy P, incidentally, in the passage from Cyril you provided , he literally says the things you did in the inner chamber were symbolic . Then he goes on to explain what it means, then says you believed, confessed, then descended into the water 3 times. Seems pretty clear. Thanks
Hi Timothy F,
You said: “The fact is, Jesus is never identified in the Scriptures as the “antitype,” and when antitype is used in Hebrews 9:24 it means something that is less “true” than the counterpart it was intended to represent. Thus, as I have noted before, your definition that antitype is “the REALITY represented by a type or symbol” still has the earthly temple as the “REALITY” “represented” by the Heavenly one, which is the exact opposite of the meaning of Hebrews 9:24.” I agree with you on the use of “antitupos” on Hebrews 9:24, but that cannot be applied to other passages because the Bible is not consistent in its use of “tupos” and “antitupos”. As I indicated to you in Rom 5:14 Adam, the “earthly reality” is called the “tupos”and in 1Peter 3:21 “baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is called “antitupos”. How do you square that with Hebrews 9:24? That’s why today most people agree with Webster’s definition of type and antitype in order to understand each other. That was not “my definition” (do you have a better one?) but the definition “I quoted you”.
God bless you.
Exactly Phil, but since you mentioned Webster’s and Kevin has claimed we are Sola Webster let’s provide another definition from the Collins English dictionary
antitype in British
(ˈæntɪˌtaɪp )
noun
1.
a person or thing that is foreshadowed or represented by a type or symbol, esp a character or event in the New Testament prefigured in the Old Testament
2.
an opposite type
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Timothy K has tried to suggest that type and antitype is a commentary on rather something is True or not True, A Symbol vs the Reality, Heavenly vs Earthly but in it’s essence which is seen in all of it’s uses an antitype is a person or thing which is forshadowed by a type. It could be a symbol, a reality, a copy, heavenly, earthly etc. But the word antitype does not mean symbol and obviously when Timothy K inserted the word “symbols” into Irenaeus’s Fragment 37 which he admits he did it was obviously due to his Protestant bias.
Timothy P, you wrote,
I have suggested no such thing. I have simply recognized its actual use and meaning in Hebrews 9:24. I have also offered Hebrews to you in order for you to test your definition and see if it fits. You have said that “in all of it’s uses an antitype is a person or thing which is forshadowed by a type.”
Ok, let’s try it out. When referring to the earthly temple, the author of Hebrews says it is “the example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5), and again, summarizing his discussion on the tabernacle, the temple and its ministrations, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things” (Hebrews 10:1). Now here very clearly in the text the temple is but a shadow of heavenly things, and a shadow of good things to come, not the reality of the thing. It is in this context that the priests going “always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God,” is a foreshadowing Christ entering into the True Temple and offering Himself (Hebrews 9:24). The antitype serves as the foreshadowing of reality, but is not the reality itself. That’s why Jesus did not enter that temple to offer sacrifices.
For this reason the commentaries are unanimous that antitype here means a figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness OF THE REALITY in heaven, but is not THE REALITY. For some reason, you think it is silly to suggest such a thing, and yet all these commentaries concur.
So there is one obvious use in which antitype simply does not and cannot mean “a person or thing which is forshadowed by a type”, for in Hebrews the antitype foreshadows the type itself. And thus your statement that in all of its uses an antitype is a person or thing which is forshadowed by a type is simply false.
Additionally, that was not the original definition you proposed. Your original definition was that antitype “signifies a counterpart, and refers to the fulfillment of a type” and “The earlier type is a rough draught, or sketch, of the later antitype”. That would make the earthly temple the fulfillment of the heavenly temple the rough draft, which makes no sense at all.
Next you offered a definition by Vocab Malone, in which he said “An antitype is the foreshadowing in its more full state.” That would make the earthly temple the “more full state” than the reality of the temple in heaven, which makes the temple made with human hands a “more full state” than the one the Scriptures call “true.”
Now you have offered a definition that says that “in all of it’s uses an antitype is a person or thing which is forshadowed by a type,” and yet Hebrews uses the term exactly opposite as you explain.
None of your modern dictionaries can help you, Timothy P.
Tim
Timothy K, you wrote
“Now you have offered a definition that says that “in all of it’s uses an antitype is a person or thing which is foreshadowed by a type,” and yet Hebrews uses the term exactly opposite as you explain.”
At the same time you indicate that the word antitype can be translated in this verse as copy. Now to have a copy that which is copied has to be already in existence. And in this case the heavenly Jerusalem foreshadows the building of the earthly sanctuary, would you not agree. Or can you make a copy of something which has not yet come into existence?”
Timothy K , you also wrote
“Next you offered a definition by Vocab Malone, in which he said “An antitype is the foreshadowing in its more full state.” That would make the earthly temple the “more full state” than the reality of the temple in heaven, which makes the temple made with human hands a “more full state” than the one the Scriptures call “true.”
I would agree with you Timothy K that Hebrew’s 9:24 does not fulfill the explanation of antitype as the more full state of the type, but I think it is pretty obvious that when attempting to give a definition one is trying to convey how the words are most frequently used. No definition is likely to cover every usage of a word and I think calling the antitype in Hebrew’s 9:24 a parable is silly. The difficulty of language is one of the many reasons Sola Scriptura is untenable. We can’t even agree on the meaning on a single word and you expect Christians to agree on the interpretation of a whole book. Amazing
Timothy P, you said,
But that is not what you have done. You have tried to convey how the words are most frequently used TODAY by citing modern dictionary after modern dictionary, ignoring my repeated insistence that you must consider the term in its antique context, not in the context of modern english. You continued,
Goodness gracious, Timothy P, a “parable” is exactly what the earthly temple was. A parabolic analysis simply refers to placing something side by side for comparison. That’s what the author of Hebrews did in chapter 9, and in fact that is how the term “parable” is used to describe the antitype. The author of Hebrews actually calls the earthly temple, the antitype, a parable. The earthly tabernacle was a “a figure (παραβολή, parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience”. You may think calling the antitype a parable is silly, but Scripture actually does that very thing.
Tim
Sola British now. What’s next an Ethiopian defenition.
Tim–
If I may comment on the debate here with type-antitype:
A good way to understand a word usage, especially in ancient writings, is to look at the word etymology. The Greek origin of type and anti-type actually refers to printing–the type being the actual letter that is read and the anti-type being the mirror image stamp used to make the type. Another way of looking at this is in minting coins. The coin is the type that is made for circulation–the end objective for use. The die is the anti-type used to make the type. The Latin word “anti” means “that which precedes”. Examples of this such as antipasto meaning food before the meal or appetizer and antechamber meaning the entrance room before entering the house. In biblical usage, man (type) is created in God’s image–made through the ultimate antitype Jesus Christ.
The usage of type-antitype is quite like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In reality, the antitype precedes the type–the antitype must be manufactured first so that it can create the type. However, in the abstract, the type is the initial design for which the antitype is constructed–the type being the “end” and the antitype being the “means”.
What, then, does it mean when something is a type of something else? In modern English usage, the earthly temple in Jerusalem is a type of heavenly temple. That suggests that the heavenly temple is an antitype in which image the earthly temple is made. But the passage in Hebrews says the earthly temple is an antitype, not a type. What does that mean?
It most likely means that the usage in the passage in Hebrews is taken in the abstract–the earthly temple being the means to the end; the end being the heavenly temple.
Maybe this will help understand the differing usages of type-antitype in the scriptures.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, I am afraid you have made the subject even more confusing. If to understand the meaning of the words we have to decide if the author is speaking in the abstract you have just added another variable to the uncertainty concerning the most precise meaning of these words. I am also not sure of the validity of asserting that the meaning of the Latin prefix anti holds when analyzing a Greek word. But I like your comment about the chicken and the egg. I would be interested in your and Timothy K’s comment on this commentary on Hebrew’s 9:24.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 24. – For not into holy places made with hands did Christ enter, which are figures (ἀντίτυπα, antitypes) of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of (literally, before the face of) God for us. This verse confirms the view that “the heavenly things” of ver. 23 denoted the heavenly regions into which Christ is entered. Ἅγια at the beginning of the verse may be better translated “holy place” (as at vers. 12 and 25) rather than “places,” since here the heavenly counterpart of the holy of holies, as distinguished from the” first tabernacle,” appears to be in view, viz. “heaven itself,” the heaven of heavens, the immediate presence or “face” of God, the “throne of the Majesty on high,” to which Christ passed through the intermediate heavens. There he now (the perpetual now of the new era of accomplished redemption), in his humanity, in behalf of and representing all humanity, beholds for ever the very face of the eternal God, which Moses could not see and live, and of which the typical high priest saw from year to year but the emblem, in transitory glimpses, through intervening clouds of incense. The word ἀντίπυπα, like ὑποδείγματα in ver. 23, expresses the idea of the earthly sanctuary being a visible representation answering to a heavenly reality. The original τύπος (type) was shown to Moses in the mount (Hebrews 8:5); what was constructed by him on the earth below was the antitype to it. The words τύπος and ἀντίτυπος are elsewhere used to express respectively a prophetic figure of a fulfillment to come and the fulfillment itself (as in Romans 5:14 and 1 Peter 3:21, baptism in the latter text being regarded as the ἀντίτυπον of the Deluge), but still with the same idea of the type being prior to the antitype, the latter answering to the former
The challenge with so many of these discussions on antitype is that there are no explicit contrasts between type and antitype in the Scriptures. Hebrews 8:5-9:24 is the closest there is, and in that context it expresses the opposite of what the modern usage would have expected. Also, as Timothy P explained to Layne, ante is actually the latin prefix for before or pre-. It is not the greek prefix, so antebellum and antipasto, based on latin, do not apply here and antitype is not about something happening before something else. In Greek, “ἀντί” or “anti” means “against” not “before.” As in Antichrist. Antichrist does not precede Christ, but rather is against Him.
Since the Roman Catholic contributors here have desired to make “antitype” mean the fulfillment of the rough draught, or sketch, or the full state of the earlier foreshadowing, the heavenly temple should have been the antitype in Hebrews 9:24, and the earthly temple the type or “sketch” or rough draft. But that is not how it is used. The erroneous Roman Catholic presumption on the meaning of antitype has led at least one person to assume that antitype in Hebrews 9:34 must have referred to the heavenly temple, which it certainly does not. The gradual realization of even the Roman Catholic readers here that antitype in Hebrews 9:24 cannot and does not mean what antitype does in the modern dictionaries has also led to a string of re-definitions and reformulations of antitype, which definitions began with antitype being the real deal, the reality, the fulfillment, and are now converging on something more like how it is used in scripture—i.e., counterpart or symbol, figure, representation, or copy.
Antitype in Greek simply means the counterpart or opposite. Opposite when two are paired against each other as a coin to its opposite image on the stamp, or counterpart when two share similar attributes but not equivalency, as in 2nd Clement chapter 14 (It was originally attributed to Clement of Rome, which has since been disproven, but it is considered authentically from that era). The pseudoClement writes, “No one then who corrupts the copy (ἀντίτυπον, antitype), shall partake of the original (αυθεντικον, authentikon)”. What is profoundly hilarious about this particular citation is that when scholars read the early greek sources they are constantly confronted with the uncomfortable truth that the word antitype back then was not used the way we use it today; so there are constantly footnotes and caveats explaining that the early sources used it in a way that is different than how we would define it today. So what to do about the pseudo Clement who said the antitype is the copy and not the original? Easy! Just reverse them so that it makes sense to today’s readers! One translation of 2 Clement simply inserts the wrong words to make it make sense (I’m inserting the greek here so you can see just how profoundly misleading the attempted english rendering is): “no one, therefore, having corrupted the type (ἀντίτυπον, antitype), will receive afterwards the antitype (αυθεντικον, authentikon).” Well, that’s not how scholars are supposed to handle things but that is exactly what they did. In the original, the pseudo-Clement used “antitype” to refer to the “copy,” contrasting it with the true original, the authentikon. Cyril of Jerusalem used antitype in a similar way when he calls the Unction “the antitype of the Holy Ghost.” Oil and the Holy Spirit are not against each other in Cyril’s lecture—they share attributes but not equivalency. Cyril did not mean that the oil is the fulfillment or reality of the rough draft of the Holy Spirit. He did not mean that the unction is the reality represented by the symbol of the Holy Ghost. In sum, he did not use the term the way modern english dictionaries—Websters, British, Vocab Malone—attempt to define it.
Well, anyway, back to the Scriptures: the other expression of antitype in Scripture does not come with an explicit contrast with a type. The commentary Timothy P provided says, “The words τύπος and ἀντίτυπος are elsewhere used to express respectively a prophetic figure, but the commentary then proceeds to give Romans 5:14 and 1 Peter 3:21—two Scriptures, one in which type has no identified antitype, and one in which antitype has no identified type. The problem is that in Romans 5:14, Paul does not couple antitype with type, so we do not have Christ called the “antitype” here. He just says Adam is a type of Him who is to come. What is more, in the Scriptures, the meaning of “antitype” cannot legitimately be inferred simply from the use of the term “type.” For example, 1 Corinthians 10:6 says that the destruction of the rebels in the wilderness serve as “our examples (types), to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” We cannot take this passage to mean that we are antitypes of the rebels, as in “rebels come to fullness.” Perhaps their opposites, but not an any sense that “antitype” would apply or even be appropriate. We are not described as “antitypes” to those rebels, and need not look to 1 Cor 10:6 to try to define “antitype” simply by its use of type. Likewise in 1 Peter 3:21 we have the term antitype used without an explicit reference to a type. So neither Romans 5:14 nor 1 Peter 3:21 nor 1 Corinthians 10:6 provide the type-antitype relation that would impose a rule, and yet the commentary reports on those verses as if they had. All we really have is Hebrews which, when describing the earthly temple as an antitype, describes it as an example, a shadow of the reality in heaven which is True.
Now as regards 1 Peter 3:21, the pulpit commentary has “baptism in the latter text [1 Peter 3:21] being regarded as the ἀντίτυπον of the Deluge”, but that is not quite true. 1 Peter 3:21 did not actually say that Baptism is the antitype of the Flood or that the Flood prefigured baptism. Instead, after describing the water by which the eight were saved, he describes the similar figure of Baptism; in so far as the flood is a figure for salvation, baptism too is a figure for salvation. Baptism is not described as the antitype of the “type” of the Flood. Both the flood and Baptism are antitypes of the reality of salvation, the very point of the passage: “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. Thus, Baptism is simply a like figure with the flood in so far as both involve water and both in some way, figure salvation, sharing an attribute—cleansing—but not equivalency.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thank you for your answer to my quotes. You said: “The problem is that in Romans 5:14, Paul does not couple antitype with type, so we do not have Christ called the “antitype” here. He just says Adam is a type of Him who is to come. What is more, in the Scriptures, the meaning of “antitype” cannot legitimately be inferred simply from the use of the term “type.”” Yes, you can. and that is the problem. Both you and Kevin said: “Jesus is never called antitype in the Bible” therefore he cannot be. Big deal! Jesus is never called an itinerant preacher either, but that does not mean that He is not described as one.
You also said: “For example, 1 Corinthians 10:6 says that the destruction of the rebels in the wilderness serve as “our examples (types), to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” We cannot take this passage to mean that we are antitypes of the rebels, as in “rebels come to fullness.” Perhaps their opposites, but not an any sense that “antitype” would apply or even be appropriate. We are not described as “antitypes” to those rebels, and need not look to 1 Cor 10:6 to try to define “antitype” simply by its use of type.” Wrong again.
The Corinthians are warned against lust and told that if they do God will chastise them in a similar way. As a matter of fact Jesus sounded stricter than Paul in Matthew 5:28.
You also said: ” Likewise in 1 Peter 3:21 we have the term antitype used without an explicit reference to a type.” I have already answered that and the reference does not have to be explicit. Layne agrees that in 1 Peter 3:21 the “type” is the Flood 1 Peter 3:20 and even Kevin calls Jesus “the Last Adam” in Romans 5:14.
The Type-Antitype contrast has old Jewish roots and the problem with your interpretation of Hebrews 9:24 is due to a misunderstanding of the context of the passage.
You said: “All we really have is Hebrews which, when describing the earthly temple as an antitype, describes it as an example, a shadow of the reality in heaven which is True.” The earthly temple described as “antitype” (his readers were very familiar with the concept) was still standing and as you admitted to me a “true” reality. This is in the old Covenant (with the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies and purifying the people with the blood of goats). In the new Covenant it is Jesus (who enters the real Heavenly Temple with His own blood) and that reality is “tru-er” which is another way of saying that the Heavenly Temple is now a better antitype (dictionaries can help our communication skills). There were Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem at that time who prayed at the temple but celebrated the Eucharist (breaking of the bread) at home Acts 2:46. God bless you.
Phil if you are still appealing to modern dictionaries (i.e., “dictionaries can help our communication skills”) there is simply no reason to continue a discussion. They didn’t use antitype back then the way we do today. On Cyril’s use of antitypes, Schaff adds this note: “the copy or figure representing the original pattern” and in 2 Clement’s use of antitype, “Our use of “antitype” is different.” Antitype is contrasted with what is authentic or real or true. In Cyril, oil is the antitype of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the antitype of Christ’s sufferings. Bread and wine are antitpyes of Christ’s body and blood. Your original comment on this thread was that it is “obvious” to you from Websters that “antitype” means the REALITY. That’s not how they used it back then.
That actually matters in a discussion on the use of “antitype” in ancient texts. You can appeal to your modern dictionaries as you like, but it simply is no aid to our communication to confound the discussion on the ancient use of antitype with the modern definitions of antitypes.
Best,
Tim
Timothy K wrote
“Antitype in Greek simply means the counterpart or opposite. Opposite when two are paired against each other as a coin to its opposite image on the stamp, or counterpart when two share similar attributes but not equivalency ”
The problem of course which started this whole debate is in the fragment from Irenaeus Timothy K after the word antitypes placed (symbols) which from his own definition is not what the word antitype means. In fact since we have been having this discussion on Hebrew’s 9:24 I have looked up the verse in different bibles and no one translates the word as symbol. Now I would not have been opposed to the insertion of symbol if Timothy K had inserted (counterparts) after antitypes but I believe the insertion of (symbols) was obviously misleading.
A lot of the confusion surrounding these terms is that a counterpart may or may not be a symbol, it does not have to be a symbol. A figure may or may not be a symbol, it does not have to be a symbol. An antitype may or may not be a symbol, it does not have to be symbol. But a symbol has to be symbol. So when you see the words figure or antitype in the writings of the early Fathers you have to look at the context to decide if the Father meant symbol.
Timothy K also wrote
“The commentary Timothy P provided says, “The words τύπος and ἀντίτυπος are elsewhere used to express respectively a prophetic figure, but the commentary then proceeds to give Romans 5:14 and 1 Peter 3:21—two Scriptures, one in which type has no identified antitype, and one in which antitype has no identified type.”
Obviously Romans 5:14 does have an antitype identified in the very verse where Adam is described as a type. “Adam is a type of Him who was to come”. I am just amazed that no one seems to have a problem in Hebrew’s 9:24 identifying the heavenly temple as a type to the antitype “holy place made with hands” , but when Adam is called a type of Him who was to come, this silly argument “well they didn’t actually call Christ the antitype” is made.
Thee whole point of the book of Hebrews is Christ sacrifice was final, never to be repeated of continued. 10:14. he entered heaven declared Son of God with power Romans 1:4. His sacrifice saves to the uttermost Hebrews 9. The writer of Hebrews was saying that to believe in an earthly priesthood, altar, and sacrifice is a lack of faith. The old sacrifices could save no one, just like the recapitulation of this in the mass can save no one. The gospel and good news is about believing in a finished act that redeemed believers Ephesians 1:7 says we HAVE redemption. Catholics don’t possess redemption because their works are in some way determinative in their salvation. Thats a false message to their people. In Rome Catholics co propitiate their sins. christ shows up in his youth each day in the church and Catholics cooperate with Him to redemption. But news is about something that has happened, and its good because what Christ has accomplished has been freely bestowed on all who simply believe. Not because of anything we have done, do or will do, but simply because of God’s goodness. Aquinas missed this, saying that a man is predestined to glory by his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. Rome has fatally confused the in us with the for us. Hebrews 9:24 is great example of how Catholics reverse heaven and earth. It should be instructive. K
Kevin I suggest you listen to Dr Scott Hahn’s discussion of the book of Hebrews for a better understanding but right now we are trying to discuss the issues of antitype and it’s meaning. I printed up Cyril of Jerusalem’s comments and as I mentioned and observed you were obviously uncomfortable with some of Cyril’s comments. Timothy K had referenced this comment from John of Damascus and you should try comparing John’s comments with Cyril of Jerusalem last catechetical lectures as they both mention or use the word antitype in their discussions. See of you see any similarities between the beliefs of John and Cyril concerning the Eucharist and their reasoning as to why such a belief is plausible. It would appear to me that as I mentioned before antitype is not a word we generally use in everyday speech so that the concepts can be quite confusing. Timothy K says this word in Hebrew’s 24 is interpreted as “antitype here means a figure, image, representation, copy, token, resemblance, illustration, parable, symbol, simile, image, pattern, mere imitation, mere likeness “. But how can one word have so many different meanings?
Now seeing that this Adam is spiritual, it was meet that both the birth and likewise the food should be spiritual too, but since we are of a double and compound nature, it is meet that both the birth should be double and likewise the food compound. We were therefore given a birth by water and Spirit: I mean, by the holy baptism2397: and the food is the very bread of life, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came down from heaven2398. For when He was about to take on Himself a voluntary death for our sakes, on the night on which He gave Himself up, He laid a new covenant on His holy disciples and apostles, and through them on all who believe on Him. In the upper chamber, then, of holy and illustrious Sion, after He had eaten the ancient Passover with His disciples and had fulfilled the ancient covenant, He washed His disciples’ feet2399 in token of the holy baptism. Then having broken bread He gave it to them saying, Take, eat, this is My body broken for you for the remission of sins2400. Likewise also He took the cup of wine and water and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is My blood, the blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the death of the Son of man and confess His resurrection until He come2401.
If then the Word of God is quick and energising2402, and the Lord did all that He willed2403; if He said, Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and there was a firmament2404; if the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth2405; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire and air and the whole glory of these, and, in sooth, this most noble creature, man, were perfected by the Word of the Lord; if God the Word of His own will became man and the pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-virginal One made His flesh without the aid of seed2406, can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, Let the earth bring forth grass2407, and even until this present day, when the rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine command. God said, This is My body, and This is My blood, and this do ye in remembrance of Me. And so it is at His omnipotent command until He come: for it was in this sense that He said until He come: and the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes through the invocation the rain to this new tillage2408. For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the
83b
Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone. How shall this be, said the holy Virgin, seeing I know not a man? And the archangel Gabriel answered her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee2409. And now you ask, how the bread became Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood. And I say unto thee, “The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason and thought.”
Further, bread and wine2410 are employed: for God knoweth man’s infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine2411, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.
The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood2412. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out2413. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not2414 become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table2415 and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one2416 and the same.
Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.
The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live24172418.
Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross2419 let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal2420. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion2421 is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body2422 which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.
With bread and wine Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God, received Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the Gentiles2423. That table pre-imaged this mystical table, just as that priest was a type and image of Christ, the true high-priest2424. For thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek2425. Of this
84b
bread the show-bread was an image2426. This surely is that pure and bloodless sacrifice which the Lord through the prophet said is offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun2427.
The body and blood of Christ are making for the support of our soul and body, without being consumed or suffering corruption, not making for the draught (God forbid!) but for our being and preservation, a protection against all kinds of injury, a purging from all uncleanness: should one receive base gold, they purify it by the critical burning lest in the future we be condemned with this world. They purify from diseases and all kinds of calamities; according to the words of the divine Apostle2428, For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. This too is what he says, So that he that partaketh of the body and blood of Christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself2429. Being purified by this, we are united to the body of Christ and to His Spirit and become the body of Christ.
This bread is the first-fruits2430 of the future bread which is ἐπιούσιος, i.e. necessary for existence. For the word ἐπιούσιον signifies either the future, that is Him Who is for a future age, or else Him of Whom we partake for the preservation of our essence. Whether then it is in this sense or that, it is fitting to speak so of the Lord’s body. For the Lord’s flesh is life-giving spirit because it was conceived of the life-giving Spirit. For what is born of the Spirit is spirit. But I do not say this to take away the nature of the body, but I wish to make clear its life-giving and divine power2431.
But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes2432 of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration, so calling the offering itself.
Participation is spoken of; for through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. Communion, too, is spoken of, and it is an actual communion, because through it we have communion with Christ and share in His flesh and His divinity: yea, we have communion and are united with one another through it. For since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood, and members one of another, being of one body with Christ.
With all our strength, therefore, let us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine2433, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation. For if union is in truth with Christ and with one another, we are assuredly voluntarily united also with all those who partake with us. For this union is effected voluntarily and not against our inclination. For we are all one body because we partake of the one bread, as the divine Apostle says2434.
Further, antitypes of future things are spoken of, not as though they were not in reality Christ’s body and blood, but that now through them we partake of Christ’s divinity, while then we shall partake mentally2435 through the vision alone.
——————————————————————————–
” Kevin, I think you should listen to Dr Hahn’s discussion of the book of Hebrews” Why would I listen to a theologian from a liberal Protestant background , someone tossed around by every wind of doctrine. Scripture warns me against false teachers like Hahn. Someone who teaches the sacrifice for our sins was Thursday at the supper instead of Friday on the cross is lost in a false religion.
Timothy P–
You said:
“Layne, I am afraid you have made the subject even more confusing. If to understand the meaning of the words we have to decide if the author is speaking in the abstract you have just added another variable to the uncertainty concerning the most precise meaning of these words.”
Yes, interpreting the bible is pretty tricky sometimes, especially when there is symbolism, idiom, and metaphor. That is why learning the history of the language as it was spoken at the time it was written is so important. A lot of the times, just knowing the etymology of a word, including the original root words, can illuminate the meaning.
Tim P–“I am also not sure of the validity of asserting that the meaning of the Latin prefix anti holds when analyzing a Greek word. But I like your comment about the chicken and the egg.”
That is why you should check the original root meanings. Greek and Latin are a lot alike in some respects. The point being in the case of type-antitype, in ancient language, antitype was not a symbol but an opposing or mirror image used to make something else. A type represents the antitype and an antitype represents the type. In other words, they are counterparts. That certainly doesn’t imply that one is reality and the other is not. Both are real.
And depending on your interpretative objective, the heavenly realm can be the type or it can be the antitype–antitype being the stamp or the originator(Creator or His heavenly realm)and the type being the object of Creation (Man and the earthly realm) or just the opposite where the antitype is a means (earthly Jerusalem temple) to the type (the ultimate end of the heavenly temple). If the objective of the particular scripture is heaven, then most likely the type is heavenly. If the object of the scripture is man, then the type is most likely earthly.
In the case of the “antitype-type” of the Jerusalem temple vs the heavenly temple, the Jerusalem temple prefigures the heavenly one, thus being the antitype even though the Jerusalem temple was fashioned in the design of the heavenly one. The Jerusalem temple(antitype) is practice or prep-school for the ultimate destination of Heaven(type).
Tim P–“I would be interested in your and Timothy K’s comment on this commentary on Hebrew’s 9:24. Pulpit Commentary Verse 24. – For not into holy places made with hands did Christ enter, which are figures (ἀντίτυπα, antitypes) of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of (literally, before the face of) God for us…
AND SO ON AND SOFORTH…
The words τύπος and ἀντίτυπος are elsewhere used to express respectively a prophetic figure of a fulfillment to come and the fulfillment itself (as in Romans 5:14 and 1 Peter 3:21, baptism in the latter text being regarded as the ἀντίτυπον of the Deluge), but still with the same idea of the type being prior to the antitype, the latter answering to the former…”
I obviously agree with this.
All of this being said, now apply it to the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ(antitype–prefigurement or the means to an end) as the counter part to all sins forgiven, salvation and final Glorification (type–beatification and the ultimate end, Heaven). How does it fit?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, your question seems extremely complicated and I would not begin to try and answer it as I find it very abstract. Having a simple mind my question is was it appropriate for Timothy K to slip in [symbols] after the word antitypes in Irenaeus’s fragment 37. The question of course is did Irenaeus believe in the real presence and I think I can show that he did not from his writings with a little help from his fellow Church Fathers
Timothy P–
You said, “Layne, your question seems extremely complicated and I would not begin to try and answer it as I find it very abstract. Having a simple mind my question is was it appropriate for Timothy K to slip in [symbols] after the word antitypes in Irenaeus’s fragment 37.”
It is appropriate for him to “slip” in symbols after the word antitypes because it is his belief that is the way it should be interpreted. In light of what I have said about the ancient usage of type-antitype, I believe that Irenaeus’ usage of the word antitype is more than just a symbol. Remember that the antitype is a counterpart used to manufacture the type in ancient Greek. In ancient Latin, the antitype can indicate the means to a type. Both usages, Greek and Latin, mean that the antitype is involved in the processing of the type, not just a mere symbol.
You also said, “The question of course is did Irenaeus believe in the real presence and I think I can show that he did not from his writings with a little help from his fellow Church Fathers.”
Yes, Irenaeus believed in the “real” presence in the way Jesus intended it–spiritually and not carnally–just as Jesus is present with us always till the end of the age. It takes faith to discern Him, which is in the abstract. Your physical senses will not detect Him. And so Irenaeus’ usage of type-antitype is also spiritual, so the abstract mode of thought needs to be used here.
I would like to see your proof of these things in Irenaeus’ writings. I’ll bet you can do it. But proving transubstantiation will be a challenge.
–Layne
” mean the antitype is involved in processing the type, not just a mere symbol.” Really?! How would that work when Cyril said that Oil was the antitype of the Holy Spirit? You said ” I believe that Iranaeus usage of the word antitype is more than just a symbol” Really, could you prove that please?
Kevin–
You said, ” mean the antitype is involved in processing the type, not just a mere symbol.” Really?! How would that work when Cyril said that Oil was the antitype of the Holy Spirit?”
Oil has always been a part of the process of ordination. Ordinarily, oil is used for fuel, lubrication, or perfume. Those are its physical attributes. But oil takes on a completely different use in ordination as a part of the process of impartation of the Holy Spirit. It is similar to water. Water has many uses associated with its physical attributes, but it takes on a completely different use as part of the process of baptism.
Kevin also asked:
“You said ” I believe that Iranaeus usage of the word antitype is more than just a symbol” Really, could you prove that please?”
Iranaeus most likely used the ancient usage of antitype, since he was from the ancient times. That makes sense to me. I’ve mentioned all of this to Tim P.
What other kind of proof do you need?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne said ” but oil takes on a completely different use in ordination as a part of the process of the impartation of the Holy Spirit.” That’s not what Cyril says. He says it’s a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Oil doesn’t impart the Holy Spirit to anyone. Jesus said to Nicodemus that the Spirit blows like the wind, when and where HE wills. Sorry Layne you have faulty theology. You continued ” That makes sense to me. I mentioned all of this to Timothy P. ” but that’s not what you said. You said Iranaeus use of the word symbol was more than just a symbol. Is it a symbol or more. And if it’s more, what do you mean? Some real presence?
Kevin–
You said “Cyril says it’s a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Oil doesn’t impart the Holy Spirit to anyone.
You are absolutely right. The oil cannot do it by itself.
The Holy Spirit imparts itself through men who use oil in the process. Have you ever noticed that whenever the Spirit moves, it is through men? The Spirit speaks through prophets. The Word is spoken through men by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit through men. And men use oil, water, bread and wine in the process.
And you continued “You said Iranaeus use of the word symbol was more than just a symbol. Is it a symbol or more. And if it’s more, what do you mean? Some real presence?”
Kevin, when you came to believe, did you hear the Word through men, or did the Holy Spirit speak to you directly? Was His presence real or just a symbol?
Thanks–
–Layne
Hi Tim, is the significance of this topic as profound as it seems to me that a lack of a proper understanding of antitype contributed to the ” reality” of an earthly sacrificial system and priesthood in the phony evil mass of Roman Catholicism?
It is the irony that is so profound. Timothy P for months cut and pasted Stone’s admonition “that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING,” only to discover that Clement of Alexandria used “symbol” EXACTLY the way we do today (The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the symbol (συμβολον) of the Lord’s passion and teaching” (Clement of Alexandria, The Pædagogus, chapter 6), and Tertullian used “figure” EXACTLY the way we do today (“Now, if this were the case, the figures themselves could not possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch as the verities (veritates) would not have been declared, out of which the figurative language is stretched.” (On the resurrection of the Flesh ,chapter 20)). In fact, where Stone thought Tertullian used ‘figure’ to refer to reality or truth of Christ’s words—”the (FIGURA) of His voice”—Tertullian had actually referred to Jesus’ “figuram vocis” which means “figure of speech,” using “figuram” exactly as one would expect. Not to mention that Tertullian elsewhere calls Mary a “figure of the synagogue”: “in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 7), According to Timothy P, Tertullian must have actually meant that Mary was literally—substantially and essentially—the synagogue. The truth is, Tertullian knew exactly what figure of speech meant, and knew that the figures are distinct from the verities they represent. So much for Stone and Timothy P’s warning that it is GRAVELY MISLEADING to supposed that symbol and figure mean the same today as they did back then.
Fast forward now to our present conversation on antitype, and I have repeatedly insisted—based on actual, verifiable evidence—that we simply cannot go by the modern dictionaries when we read “antitype” in the ancient texts, and the Roman Catholic readers insist that we must go by the modern dictionaries!
Well, here we have a bona fide semantics issue in which it is really, actually the case that to suppose that antitype in the ancients must mean the same as in modern speech would be GRAVELY MISLEADING, and what does Timothy P demand? Modern definitions of antitype! Modern definitions of antitype!
Well if anyone ought to know just how gravely misleading that is, it is Timothy P. And yet, here we are.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Timothy F,
No, my remark was only an off-the-cuff remark about communication skills. And listening (or reading carefully) is at the very top. You need to do that, my friend.
You said: “That actually matters in a discussion on the use of “antitype” in ancient texts. You can appeal to your modern dictionaries as you like, but it simply is no aid to our communication to confound the discussion on the ancient use of antitype with the modern definitions of antitypes.” I doubt very much that you read my comment in full because I did not appeal to any dictionary, I answer all your previous questions and comments and all my quotes are from the New Testament (is that ancient enough?). You are the one confounding the discussion by assuming that anything that disagrees with you is just a modern invention. Just show me a single statement (other than the one you mentioned) made in my lengthy comment that was not Biblically based, I dare you.
God bless you.
You’ve lost me, Phil.
You wrote,
But you did. The comment to which I responded included this statement from you:
That parenthetical statement came immediately after you used “antitype” in exactly the same sense as you originally proposed on your first comment on this thread—namely, that it was “obvious” to you that an antitype is THE REALITY. You are still maintaining that same definition, and appealing to a dictionary to do it. That dictionary is a modern dictionary, and using a modern dictionary to analyze an ancient text is not only confusing but deceptive—especially now that you know the word was used differently then than it is now.
In any case, your attempt now to make an antitype the antitype of the antitype is pure nonsense. Hebrews 9:24 calls the earthly temple the antitype in order to contrast it with the TRUE temple above. In that context, the earthly temple is not the REALITY represented by a symbol, which your “dictionaries” insist. No, the earthly temple is the symbol itself. The copy. The figure. The parable. The shadow. As you correctly observed, there were Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem at that time who prayed at the actual physical temple in Jerusalem, and to those early Christians the author of Hebrews explained that Jesus didn’t even bother sacrificing Himself in it. In fact the earthly temple “decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”. Thus the early christians worshiping in the temple would not have read Hebrews and concluded, “Wow this temple is so true and so real and therefore the temple above must be even truer and realer!” No, they would have concluded, “Wow if something this magnificent cannot impress Christ (Mark 13:2), and Hebrews says it is but a parable in comparison to the temple above, and decayeth and waxeth old and is ready to vanish away, and the ministrations therein are but shadows of the things above, but not the very image of the things (Hebrews 10:1), well then, the one on earth must be merely an … an … what’s the word? … an ANTITYPE!!” That’s right. That’s how the word was used back then.
You also stated,
Is that something you can prove? Or is it simply your opinion? I argued that symbol and figure mean the same today as they did in the anteNicæan era by going to the original sources to see how the words were used. It turns out they are used the same today as they were then. I have argued that antitype does not mean the same today as it did back then by going to the original sources to see how the word was used. It turns out it is used the opposite today as it was used back then. That hardly justifies your charge that I assume “that anything that disagrees with you is just a modern invention.” You and Timothy P apparently find it disturbing that I go to the original sources to examine them in context. You, on the other hand insist over and over on using a modern definition of antitype in order to understand its ancient usage. That is a mistake and any objective scholar could tell you so.
You also accused me of saying, “Jesus is never called antitype in the Bible” therefore he cannot be”. That is a falsehood. Here is what I said:
In that context, the last thing in the world that I could conclude was that Jesus is the antitype of Adam. Doesn’t make sense. My comments were very narrow in focus, and my comment about Christ was that you cannot argue that Jesus is ostensibly the antitype to Adam based solely on the fact that Adam is a type of Christ in order to prove what antitype means in the Scriptures. That is assuming the definition in order to prove it. You’d actually need a verse that includes the term. What is missing in Scripture is an explicit type-antitype comparison between Christ and Adam. (If I have missed, it show me). There is, however, an explicit type-antitype argumentation in Hebrews 8-9, and it is opposite of what you personally expected. When we are trying to figure out the meaning of a word in Scripture, we cannot simply imagine what the Scripture would have meant if it had used the word the way we think it should have been used, and then conclude from that the Scriptural meaning of the word. That is circular reasoning. In any case, there was a time, not very long ago, when your assessment of my position on Hebrews 9:24 was, “I agree with you on the use of “antitupos” on Hebrews 9:24.” My how times have changed. Now what Hebrews 9:24 apparently means is that the antitype is the antitype of the antitype. Sure it is. 😉 Anyway, your example of “Jesus is never called an itinerant preacher either, but that does not mean that He is not described as one” is entirely irrelevant. Everyone agrees that Jesus moved around and preached and everyone agrees on what itinerant means and preacher means. But itinerant and preacher are both of latin origin, and the meaning of their latin roots has not changed in the last 2000 years. But the meaning of antitype has, and its roots are greek, the language of the New Testament.
You also said,
Well, that’s just silly, Phil. Nobody is accusing you of writing posts that don’t include bible verses. My accusation—easily substantiated—is that you are using scripture verses that do not use the term “antitype” in order to establish the scriptural meaning of antitype. It can’t be done, which is why you are left assuming what the Sripture would have meant if it had used the term in that verse. The two times antitype is used in Scripture it refers to a shadow or a parable of the real thing, or a like figure, as in baptism by water being a like figure with the flood insofar as both are antitypical of salvation. That’s how your Jerome rendered it—that baptism was “similis formae” with the flood. A like figure. That’s how he translated “antitype”. Similis formae. The Douay-Rheims renders it in English “… eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism, being of the like form …”. A similar form as the flood. Both were antitypical of salvation—that is shadows, figures and symbols of a reality. That’s how antitype is used in Scripture. If antitype here meant the eschatological fullness of the type come to reality, there were much better words for Jerome to use. Well, a broken clock is right twice a day, and I agree with Jerome: “The like figure ” (1 Peter 3:21, KJV). Antitype. A figure. A symbol. A parable. A shadow of something else. But not the thing it represents.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Timothy F,
You said: “You wrote,
“I doubt very much that you read my comment in full because I did not appeal to any dictionary”
But you did. The comment to which I responded included this statement from you:
“dictionaries can help our communication skills”
I told you that it was just a remark about communication. I apologize if it stirred up your sensitivities but the fact that you continue to make a big deal out of it is just a confirmation that we have a communication problem since all of my arguments were based on the Bible. We can ignore the D and I will deal now with Hebrews 9:24. I will use your own words and say that “my comments were very narrow in focus” and that’s the way I want them, too, and I will expand on it only when necessary. The error comes when we don’t make an effort to understand. The author of Hebrews is not defining something that was understood, he is just using it to make his point that the Heavenly Temple is a “truer” reality than the Jerusalem Temple. I thought that we had already agreed on that and I am not saying anything different now.
God bless you.
Go
Phil, the earthly temple was parabolic. It is “real” and “true” only in the sense that a mustard seed is really and truly a mustard seed. But the mustard seed is not actually the kingdom of God, and the earthly temple is not really the temple. It is a parable of the true temple. That’s why Hebrews says the earthly temple is a parable. Because it is not the real thing. It is a copy. An antitype. But a shadow of the true temple above.
Was the earthly temple “real” and “true”? Yes, but only in a sense that is irrelevant to the message of Hebrews 9:24. The old testament sacrifices were “real” sacrifices, goats and bulls were “truly” sacrificed. And the mustard seed is really truly a mustard seed. But when compared to the Kingdom of God it is but a parable. And when compared to the real sacrifice Christ made in the real temple in heaven, the earthly ones in the earthly temple were just a foreshadowing of the effectual sacrifice made in the actual true temple above.
In any case you said the “reality” of the heavenly temple above “is ‘tru-er’ which is another way of saying that the Heavenly Temple is now a better antitype”.
Nonsense. Your statement is unscriptural. 1) The scriptures do not use “antitype” to refer to something that is the fulfillment of a type, and 2) it is your attempt to import the modern definition of antitype into the text, trying to force Hebrews to make “antitype” THE REALITY, which it is not.
Not much more to say on this, Phil. In the context of Hebrews, the heavenly temple is not the antitype at all, as much as you would very much like it to be. In Scripture, the parable is illustrative and figurative but is not the thing itself. In Hebrews antitype = parable, and in your reasoning, you are basically making the heavenly temple an even better parable, which clouds and misrepresents the plain teaching of Scripture.
Have a good week,
Tim
How funny. I was just getting ready to make the same point but at your expense Timothy K. When you where talking about finding the experts hilarious I was going to remind you that it was you who insisted that the word “figure, symbol et all” had not changed over time despite the opinion of the Patristic scholars and your unwillingness to identify a single scholar that supported your position. And now you insist that antitype means just the opposite of what it originally meant, an issue that I would argue clearly has not been settled. So I agree with you the irony is profound but it obviously works both ways. And I feel confident with maybe the help of Layne we can clarify the question. Now Layne’s said he agreed with the Pulpit commentary of Hebrew’s 9:24, do you agree with him?
Timothy P, you lost the argument about 50 posts ago, and it ain’t close. I notice your mode of operation over the time you’ve been here. Each time you have been exposed and proven really wrong you go back and twist what Tim said to you in the hopes that he will now have to reengage. What a projector and deflector and your not really that good at it. K
Kevin, what did you think of this quote for John Damascus
“The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live24172418.”
Timothy P, Tim explicitly showed you were JOD used antitype as symbol. He cited a RC writer as proving that. You and Phil are left with Sola Webster. Irrelevant, since the term didn’t mean what modern definitions say it means. Jesus was the builder of the House, not a symbol. Bread and wine and water are symbols in scripture. They arent the realities. This puts a real hole in the hot iron burns view of sacraments in Rome. Priests aren’t Christ, they don’t regenerate people, and they don’t turn bread into God. God doesn’t obey Priests. Priests aren’t his regent. Jesus said the Spirit blows where and when HE wills. When I or any other Christian tells someone who has confessed Christ they are forgiven of their sins, it’s a statement about something already TRUE in heaven, the declaration doesn’t make it true. The Roman Catholic Church can’t take the place of the Spirit, nor can it substitute itself for Christ’s historical and natural body. The church IS NOT the same as Jesus in the World. Churches don’t connect us to God, nor do they own God. He comes to us in the gospel by his choosing. Churches can only pass on the message, carry out his mission, and obey him. They cannot substitute itself for the uniquely finished work as the agency of Redemption. It is finished!
Kevin, you wrote
“Timothy P, Tim explicitly showed you were JOD used antitype as symbol. He cited a RC writer as proving that.”
Actually Kevin I am sure it is going to surprise you but I agree with Timothy K and the RC writer that in this instance a Church Father is accepting the word antitype to refer to a symbol. Just as in the following statement I asked you to comment on John is equating the word “figure” with symbol.
“The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. ”
Now Kevin this is the Catholic position, correct? Kevin, wouldn’t you have written “The bread and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood of Christ and not the deified body of the Lord itself”. Are we in agreement Kevin?
Pope Gelasius says the nature of by he bread and wine DO NOT CEASE. Should I believe this Catholic, or the ROMAN Catholic JOD? ” Kevin, wouldn’t you have written the bread and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood of Christ and are not the defied body of the Lord itself” Let me let Paul answer your question. 1 Corinthians 11: 26 ” as often as you eat this BREAD” and 1 Corinthians 1:27 ” To whom God was pleased to make know to you what is the riches of his glory of this mystery among the gentiles, which is CHRIST IN YOU THE HOPE OF GLORY.” Does Paul say Christ in bread the hope of glory? No he does not. Christ in me. He dwells in my heart through His Spirit. Of course Rome has no doctrine of the Spirit of God. Their only hope is to worship a crust of bread in the hopes of earning their salvation. But Christ in bread there is no hope, only Christ in you. Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone
I asked Kevin if John of Damascus held the Catholic position on the Eucharist to which he responded
“Should I believe this Catholic, or the ROMAN Catholic JOD?”
so I would assume Kevin agrees that JOD hold the Catholic position. Now when Timothy K quoted John of Damascus he did not provide the entire quote which I posted . Part of that quote was
“If then the Word of God is quick and energising2402, and the Lord did all that He willed2403; if He said, Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and there was a firmament2404; if the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth2405; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire and air and the whole glory of these, and, in sooth, this most noble creature, man, were perfected by the Word of the Lord; if God the Word of His own will became man and the pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-virginal One made His flesh without the aid of seed2406, can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, Let the earth bring forth grass2407, and even until this present day, when the rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine command. God said, This is My body, and This is My blood, and this do ye in remembrance of Me. And so it is at His omnipotent command until He come: for it was in this sense that He said until He come: and the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes through the invocation the rain to this new tillage2408. For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the
83b
Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone. How shall this be, said the holy Virgin, seeing I know not a man? And the archangel Gabriel answered her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee2409. And now you ask, how the bread became Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood. And I say unto thee, “The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason and thought.” ”
John of Damascus answers those who answer the question how the bread can become Christ’s body and the wine His blood by pointing out the power of the creator of the Universe and previous miracles that have been performed. Sounds consistent with one who believes in the real presence, what do you think Kevin?
Ya, it is obvious that JOD was a full fledged idolator much like yourself. We have words for what he is purporting in the 7th century, it’s called Hocus Pocus. And interestingly enough the words come from the Catholic mass Hoc ‘ est corpus meum . You’ll get no argument from me this guy was a full fledged idolator .
Layne, you wrote
Yes, Irenaeus believed in the “real” presence in the way Jesus intended it–spiritually and not carnally–just as Jesus is present with us always till the end of the age. It takes faith to discern Him, which is in the abstract. Your physical senses will not detect Him. And so Irenaeus’ usage of type-antitype is also spiritual, so the abstract mode of thought needs to be used here.
Now Layne, would you agree with Kevin that John of Damascus is presenting the Catholic position of the real presence, especially with his answer as I had explained to
” the question how the bread can become Christ’s body and the wine His blood by pointing out the power of the creator of the Universe and previous miracles that have been performed”
Remember, John of Damascus had written
“The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live24172418.”
That sounds pretty carnal to me, would you agree?
Timothy P, I don’t remember saying that JOD was presenting the Roman Catholic position. I said he sounds like an idolators and that paragraph sounds allot like the Hocus Pocus when Rome’s priests make bread turn into god in order to worship the bread. I don’t think those who worship the elements are bound for heaven, just as I don’t think those who lift up Mary in worship are bound for heaven, nor those who mistake the law for gospel. And Roman Catholics are guilty of all three.
We are discussing the Eucharist, the real presence and antitypes and after posting a long passage from John of Damascus on the Eucharist Kevin writes
“Should I believe this Catholic, or the ROMAN Catholic JOD”
then Kevin writes
“I don’t remember saying that JOD was presenting the Roman Catholic position”
Oh well, what can I say?
Layne I had posted two comments to you and Kevin and I got sidetracked but I would be interested in your responses.
Timothy P–
You quoted John of Damascus as saying “The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, “This is My body,” not, this is a figure of My body: and “My blood,” not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me…” And then you commented “That sounds pretty carnal to me, would you agree?”
Oh most definitely does it sound carnal. It sounds bloody and messy and icky and, so much so, that it is an abomination before God to eat human flesh like that or at all. No wonder his disciples were murmuring amongst themselves saying “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” And then Christ explained to them “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
The word “flesh” here is something to be studied. Let’s look at Strong’s:
sarx– feminine noun
The KJV translates Strong’s G4561 in the following manner: flesh (147x), carnal (2x), carnally minded (with G5427) (1x), fleshly (1x).
1.the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
σάρξ sárx, sarx; probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):—carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).
And Paul says in Romans 8:6 “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” That is why I said yes, Irenaeus believed in the “real” presence in the way Jesus intended it–spiritually and not carnally–just as Jesus is present with us always till the end of the age. It takes faith to discern Him.
And then you asked: “Now Layne, would you agree with Kevin that John of Damascus is presenting the Catholic position of the real presence, especially with his answer as I had explained to ‘the question how the bread can become Christ’s body and the wine His blood by pointing out the power of the creator of the Universe and previous miracles that have been performed’?”
Yes, I agree.
Layne, I had shared these quotes from Irenaeus and in fact had asked Kevin to share the quotes with friends for an unbiased opinion which apparently he has never been willing to do, or at least he has not admitted to me if he has. Irenaeus comment that the Eucharist was an antitype obviously has to be judged by his other quotes on the Eucharist. Timothy K keeps saying I am taking the quotes out of context but has made no attempt at least in my opinion on how taken in context the meaning of the quotes are changed.
1. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
2) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
4. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
5. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Timothy P–
You said: “Layne, I had shared these quotes from Irenaeus…Timothy K keeps saying I am taking the quotes out of context but has made no attempt at least in my opinion on how taken in context the meaning of the quotes are changed.”
I cannot tell how the context has changed the meaning either. Number six of your quotes sums it up quite nicely:
“6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly;…”
Very interesting thing said here FOR WE OFFER TO HIM HIS OWN,…THE UNION OF THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT.(the word spirit here is capitalized meaning the Holy Spirit of God) Who is the union of the flesh and the Spirit who is being offered to Himself? God made flesh–Jesus Christ of course!
And then he says “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly…” The common bread, when it receives the consecration is actually defined as the Eucharist because it has an earthly reality and a heavenly one. We know exactly what the earthly reality is (bread, which is produced from the earth), but what or who is the heavenly reality? I’ll wager a guess but I am pretty sure it’s not the bread which has been raised to a heavenly reality. That would make Irenaeus a bread worshipper. No, because of that heavenly reality, Irenaeus says, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” Who is the resurrection and the life? The bible says it is Jesus Christ. So, one may conclude the Eucharist is the earthly reality of bread and the heavenly reality of Christ.
Transubstantiation? I don’t know if Irenaeus was even aware of the concept or the term. But he definitely describes the Eucharist as more than a symbol. Antitype? Does a coining die, when fed a silver planchet, make a valuable coin? Does a linotype printing press, when fed ink and paper, make a readable document? It is so much more than a symbol, dontcha think?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
The ostensible capitalization of “Spirit” is found only in the English translation, but is not in the original Greek or the Latin translation of it. For flesh and spirit, the Greek has “σαρκος και πνευματος” and the Latin has “carnis et spiritus.” To justify your conviction that Irenæus meant “the Holy Spirit of God,” with all of its attendant implications on the real presence, it should have said, “σαρκος και Πνευματος” or “carnis et Spiritus,” which it does not. In Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 3, by the way, when referring to the Holy Spirit, the Greek has Spirit capitalized.
Context, of course, is why “spirit” is not capitalized here, a context that Timothy P does not care to explore. Does it change your interpretation knowing that Irenæus did not capitalize spirit here? Context, too, will show you why “offer to Him His own” does not refer to His own Son, but again, it is context that makes that plain.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman —
You said: “Context, of course, is why “spirit” is not capitalized here…. Does it change your interpretation knowing that Irenæus did not capitalize spirit here? Context, too, will show you why “offer to Him His own” does not refer to His own Son, but again, it is context that makes that plain.”
Let’s say that is true. The object of the paragraph is the Eucharist, as the author states his opinion is based (“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion”). He specifically defines the Eucharist as no longer common bread but consisting of two realities–earthly and heavenly. If the “spirit” is not capitalized, does he mean the reality of the heavenly spirit of the bread? How does that give us the hope of resurrection and life?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, let’s not say that is true. Let’s agree that it is true. And that your statement was actually based on a falsehood:
Irrespective of the implications of the error on your part, it is an objective fact that you based your assessment on something that is not true, and arrived at your conclusion based on a falsehood, and in fact, based your conclusion on a belief that was independent of context.
Agreed?
Thanks,
Tim
Layne, have you started RCIA classes yet?
Timothy K wrote
“In Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 3, by the way, when referring to the Holy Spirit, the Greek has Spirit capitalized.
Context, of course, is why “spirit” is not capitalized here, a context that Timothy P does not care to explore. Does it change your interpretation knowing that Irenæus did not capitalize spirit here?”
Then remarked
“Irrespective of the implications of the error on your part, it is an objective fact that you based your assessment on something that is not true, and arrived at your conclusion based on a falsehood, and in fact, based your conclusion on a belief that was independent of context. ”
Now actually the falsehood that has been created is the comment Irenaeus did not capitalize spirit here. From what I can understand besides running all the words together Irenaeus in ancient Greek would have been using all capital letters. The Greek text therefore would have been a translation of the ancient Greek where the translator decided to capitalize or not to capitalize.
Well, fair enough, Timothy P. I was referring to Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, vol 7 which shows spirit in the lower case both in Greek and in the Latin translation.
In any case, the context of the original letter was a rebuttal to the gnostics. Irenæus insists that “man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh,” but the heretics “blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God’s workmanship, which the flesh truly is” (Irenæus, Book IV, introduction). The citation you provided, from which Layne made his arguments, was not about the real presence, or even a discourse on the Lord’s Supper, but was about the salvation of the flesh—in his response to the heretics—and his reference to “flesh and spirit” simply does not have the meaning assigned to it by Layne in the capitalization of “Spirit.”
Thanks,
Tim
Kevin–
You said: “Layne, have you started RCIA classes yet?”
I was baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic in 1988. You aren’t going to start an ad hominem are you? I don’t want to play. I’ll get kicked off this blog.
Timothy Kauffman–
You said: “Layne, let’s not say that is true. Let’s agree that it is true. And that your statement was actually based on a falsehood. Irrespective of the implications of the error on your part, it is an objective fact that you based your assessment on something that is not true, and arrived at your conclusion based on a falsehood, and in fact, based your conclusion on a belief that was independent of context. Agreed?”
I can’t agree with that because the New Testament Greek manuscripts do not capitalize spirit when referring to the Holy Spirit:
Mat 3:16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί καὶ εἶδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν
And here is the King James version “translated from the original tongues”:
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him…
The context here is obviously meaning the Holy Spirit. Notice “spirit” is not capitalized in the Greek. It is clear what the meaning of spirit is in the Greek so the English translators capitalized “Spirit”. The reason Irenaeus capitalizes Spirit in Against Heresies is that he is using it as a proper name for the third person of the Trinity. He doesn’t do that in the subject at hand.
Also, taking into account what Tim P had to say about ancient Greek being written in all caps, you accusing me of error on that account is baseless.
That being said, you did not answer my question. Let me reiterate:
The object of the paragraph is the Eucharist, as the author states his opinion is based (“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion”). He specifically defines the Eucharist as no longer common bread but consisting of two realities–earthly and heavenly. If the “spirit” is not capitalized, does he mean the reality of the heavenly spirit of the bread? How does that give us the hope of resurrection and life?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, you wrote, “I can’t agree with that because the New Testament Greek manuscripts do not capitalize spirit when referring to the Holy Spirit: … Also, taking into account what Tim P had to say about ancient Greek being written in all caps, you accusing me of error on that account is baseless.”
Fair enough. I was wrong to do it, and I apologize for it.
That said, you observed,
No need to reiterate. I understood the question the first time. It just serves no purpose to answer it if you do not understand the context in which Irenæus wrote, or what he meant by “we offer to Him His own” and “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit” and why the offering of created things to God prior to consecration, and offering the body and blood to men after the consecration, announces “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit.” You simply have not addressed the heresy to which he was responding, and so you are stuck analyzing a flesh and blood sacrifice to God, a sacrifice of which Irenæus says nothing at all.
Thanks for your comments.
Tim
Layne,
You wrote, “I cannot tell how the context has changed the meaning either,” and then you referred to paragraph 6 of Timothy P’s citations from Irenæus, and continued,
Thus, your belief that, in context, Irenæus is describing the offering to God His own Son in the Eucharist. But again, context is exactly what is missing from Irenæus’ quotes as provided by Timothy P. When referring to “offering to Him His own,” Irenæus is referring to the unconsecrated food of the collection for the needy—the first fruits of His creation. This is why context matters so much, and it is why I have repeatedly insisted that Timothy P provide the actual sources and tell us the actual context in which Irenæus was writing. He does not believe it is his obligation to do so.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 as provided by Timothy P are from Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraphs 4-5. The sentences immediately preceding that in the text are where Irenæus explains what he means by “His own.”
The context of Irenæus’ discussion is that while “man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh,” the heretics deny the salvation of the flesh, since the soul comes from the Father, and the flesh from the Creator, and Jesus, being of the Father and not of the Creator, only came to save the spirit, not the flesh. Thus, they denied that the flesh would be resurrected at all. Nevertheless, the heretics were participating in the sacrificial setting aside of the products of their labor, giving thanks to the Father for it, which to Irenæus, made no sense at all. Since heretics held “that the Father is different from the Creator”, Irenæus thought they are inconsistent to give thanks to the Father for food provided by the Creator, because it makes the Father “covetous of another’s property,” desirous of that which is not even His. Irenæus, however, like Epaphroditus and the Philippians, was entirely consistent because he understand that the Father is the Creator, and therefore that Jesus came to save both body and soul and therefore when we offer to him the fruits of His own creation as a sweet smelling sacrifice, setting aside the work of our hands for the needs of our fellow men, we are offering to God the products of His own creation, and not something given to us by someone else.
Thus, Irenæus’ conclusion: the heretics should change their opinions and be consistent like he is:
Thus, “we offer to Him His own” is not a reference to offering to Him His own Son, but rather offering to Him the fruits of His own Creation.
That nuance of Irenæus’ argument against the heretics is lost if you simply take Timothy P’s decontextualized citations as if they were Irenæus’ comments “on the Real Presence,” as he has been marketing them. And for your part, you arrived at your conclusion that you “cannot tell how the context has changed the meaning either” without actual knowledge of the context, which is the point I have been making since Timothy P began his cut and paste campaign on Irenæus more than a year ago.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman —
You said: “Thus, ‘we offer to Him His own’ is not a reference to offering to Him His own Son, but rather offering to Him the fruits of His own Creation.”
And Christ is the first fruits:
1Co 15:20ff But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. ”
This is in reference to the resurrection of the body, which is in the context of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies.
And so as Irenaeus writes in the previous paragraph that you quoted: “And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God.”
Wow! The Jews killed and did not receive the Word of God through whom a pure oblation is offered to God. The Church alone offers, with thanksgiving, those things taken, the first fruits of His creation.
I feel I am addressing the correct context here. You seem to see it differently, obviously.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
In response to my observation, “Thus, ‘we offer to Him His own’ is not a reference to offering to Him His own Son, but rather offering to Him the fruits of His own Creation,” you responded,
Well, that Christ is the first fruits of those that are asleep, no one is disagreeing. But to use that as the basis for understanding this paragraph of Irenæus is to depart from the context and import your own. The context of Irenæus’ reference to “His own creation” was Philippians 4:18, not 1 Corinthians 15:20. His statement that we offer to God the first fruits of His created things was a reference to providing food to the needy, not sacrificing consecrated bread and wine to God.
You continued,
The reference to the resurrection of the dead is in the context of what people eat, not in the context of what is offered to God. When Irenæus refers to offering to God that which is “His own,” he is talking about offering to Him the first fruits of created things—unconsecrated bread and wine, as in the situation with the Philippians providing for Paul’s needs. When he speaks of the resurrection of the dead, he refers to “our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist,” not God when He receives the sacrifice from us. Unconsecrated fruits of creation are offered to God as a sacrifice of praise, and consecrated bread and wine, the antitypical body and blood of Christ, is offered to men. So no, the resurrection from the dead is not the context in which “WE OFFER TO HIM HIS OWN,” which was originally, and apparently still is, your claim. Context does not support that.
You continued,
That’s true, the Church does offer this pure oblation to God, but it not Christ’s body and blood that we offer.
In the context of Irenæus, what is offered is prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit. What is offered by the people is “their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property.” Irenæus is not talking about offering Christ’s flesh and blood to the Father.
Yes, as Irenæus said, we give freely our best possessions, the first fruits, “being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude.”
This clearly is not a reference to offering Jesus’ body and blood to the Lord, but to the harvest, as yet unconsecrated.
The statement is not a reference to offering Jesus to God, but a reference to the fact that the Jews do not offer a sacrifice with a pure conscience, for as Irenæus said, “it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure.” And so of the Jews, he goes on:
And that is why they do not offer thus. Their consciences are not pure. Ours are. So we do. With a pure conscience we offer to Him, in accordance with Philippians 4;18, that which He created for our use.
And since it is Christ who cleanses our conscience, they are unable to offer Him with gratitude and a clean conscience the first fruits of His creation, “that the evildoer, being judged by the actions he has performed, may be rejected.”
All of our spiritual sacrifices are offered to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5). To all this from Irenæus you responded:
Yep. The context does not at all support a sacrificial priesthood offering Jesus’ body and blood to the Father. The context is offering a sacrifice of Praise to God by Jesus Christ (Phil 4:18), and offering to men the bread and wine which is, after the invocation, the antitypical body and blood of Christ.
Thanks is offered to God, the antitypical body and blood of Christ is offered to men. That is what the early church did, and it is what Protestants do today. The Church of Christ has never offered Jesus’ body and blood to the Father, or even pretended to do so.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim Kauffman–
You said: “And for your part, you arrived at your conclusion that you “cannot tell how the context has changed the meaning either” without actual knowledge of the context, which is the point I have been making since Timothy P began his cut and paste campaign on Irenæus more than a year ago.”
You assume that I have not read Irenaeus. I am very familiar with his writings, so I feel your accusations are unfounded. You just come to different conclusions than I do based on a different perspective.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
You may have read Irenæus. I have not assumed you haven’t read Ireæus. His writings are voluminous. Reading him and being knowledgeable of the Ebionite heresy against which he was writing are two different things. You have maintained even now that when Irenæus says “we offer to Him His own” it a reference to offering to Him “His own Son.” The context of Irenæus does not allow for that reading, and at no point does Irenæus say it is Jesus who is offered to the Father. When he refers to us offering to Him “His own,” as he does repeatedly in this passage, it is in reference to setting aside our personal possessions for others, not a reference to offering Jesus to God. That you maintain that even now, after being shown in Irenæus’ own words what “His own” means in this context, and that offering “through Jesus” is the same as offering Jesus, indicates to me that you may have read Irenæus, but you are nonetheless ignorant of the context in which he wrote this chapter, or even of Book IV.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K wrote when he was trying to suggest that I was taking Irenaeus out of context over the question of capital letters
“Well, fair enough, Timothy P. I was referring to Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, vol 7 which shows spirit in the lower case both in Greek and in the Latin translation.
In any case, the context of the original letter was a rebuttal to the gnostics””
The opinion that somehow since Irenaeus was writing a rebuttal against the gnostics that somehow negates his statements on the Eucharist is pure poppycock. It was the same strategy that Timothy K used to try to argue that Ignatius’s statements on ecclesiastical authority should not be accepted because he was writing against the heretics of his day.. It’s why he has to go into these long twisted explanations as to why the Fathers did not mean what they obviously meant. And it’s the same type of mental block that led him to try to make a big deal over capital letters. Read Irenaeus’s statements with an open mind and then read Timothy K’s explanations and see if they actually negate the point Irenaeus is making.
Timothy P,
Jacques Paul Migne was a French priest who invested his personal fortune in making the content of the original patristics texts available as a “universal library for the Catholic priesthood.” Migne did not capitalize spirit in Irenæus when he said “the flesh and spirit.” He clearly did not think “spirit” referred to the Holy Spirit. He was a Roman Catholic patristic scholar, and did not see “Spirit” in Irenæus’ statement “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit.” I made a “big deal” over the capital letters because the capital letter S was the central point Layne made in his declaration that “Offering to Him His own” must refer to an offering of the flesh of Jesus Christ Himself. Obviously, a capital S in spirit does not undergird Layne’s argument like he thought it did. I think we all agree on that.
As to your other points, I have never at any point anywhere in this blog ever even so much as hinted, much less argued, that Irenæus’ rebuttal against the heretics “negates his statements on the Eucharist.” Since you clearly believe that I have, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever suggested or maintained such nonsense. You will be unable to provide any such evidence.
On the other hand, I believe that Irenæus was rebutting the heretics, and that context negates your assumptions about what you personally think he meant about the Eucharist. That is a lot different from your misrepresentation.
The fact is, you personally think Irenæus was writing about the “real presence,” and he doesn’t even mention “real presence” in the quotes you provided. Layne thought the object of the paragraph in question was the Eucharist, when Irenæus plainly explains that the focus of the paragraph is the inconsistency of the heretics on the union of flesh and spirit. An understanding of context could help you both immeasurably, and yet when I insist that the context of his letter (a rebuttal of the heretics who denied the union of the flesh and spirit) should be considered when Irenæus refers to his consistency regarding the flesh and the spirit, you are both either shocked or dismissive, as if context could not possibly aid the reader and you are baffled that I would suggest such a thing.
The result is that you think your personal interpretation of Irenæus is what Irenæus meant, leading you to make the ridiculous allegation that I believe context negates what Irenæus plainly meant, or that context negates the point Irenæus was making. In reality all I have ever said is that the context in which Irenæus wrote negates what you think he meant, which is obviously not the same thing. You have yet to prove that “what he meant” and “the point he was making” is what you personally think it was.
Until you can consider the context in which Irenæus wrote Books IV and V of Against Heresies, you are grossly ill equipped for the task of considering “the point he was making.”
What was the inconsistency of the heretics, Timothy P? Don’t you think that matters? After all, it was the focus of the paragraph.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy P, ” and in fact had asked Kevin to share the quotes with friends for unbiased opinions” If JOD meant that the bread becomes the physical body of Christ in order to worship it , none of my friends would agree with that. Remember Timothy P Roman Catholicism rose up late 4th century in all its evil splendor. JOD lived in the 7th century. There was no shortage of idolators by then, just like there are now. I’ve been doing apologetics with Roman Catholics for about 5 years. One thing hasn’t changed. They become their idol. John MacArthur says if you want to know what a man struggles with listen to what he talks about all the time. That death wafer means as much to you as it did to Francis of Assisi and possibly JOD. Things haven’t changed under the sun. Is it any wonder that RC’S would come here and switch the meaning of antitype. They can do nothing else. Is it any wonder that they misunderstand Hebrews 9:24 clear teaching. But they can do nothing else. They are dead in their sins separated from the truth. K
Kevin, the quotes that I gave you to share were from Irenaeus, not John of Damascus and I think Layne will understand why you did not share it with your friends after he reads the quotes
And thank you Kevin for aligning me with St. Francis of Assisi who gave away all that he owned to follow Christ, take care of the poor and has been such an inspiration to the world to take care of animals.
” and thank you Kevin for aligning me with Francis Assisi” would that include lusting after the Roman Eucharist and trying to earn salvation attempting to die as a Martyr like he did ?
Lusting after the Roman Eucharist? We read in scripture John 6
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
Interesting passage. Six times Christ says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Irenaeus in the six passages displays his belief in the real presence six times. Protestant apologists try to undermine Christ’s words by saying the word Spirit in Scripture means symbol, even though no where in Scripture is Spirit translated symbol. And they try to undermine Irenaeus with the word antitype although no where in Scripture is antitype translated symbol.
Attempting to die as a martyr? Kevin you never did answer my question if one can be saved with a dead Faith. Yes or No?
” Protestant scholars try to undermine Christ’s words by saying the Spirit in scripture means symbol” this statement is ignorant. No Protestant says the Spirit is a symbol. Jesus said his words were Spirit and those who worship Him do so in Spirit. It is Jesus that said the flesh profits nothing. And yet you want us to believe the ” real presence” of his body in the Eucharist is what saves people when you fill your belly. But scripture says we are saved by grace through faith. Not faith in the ” real presence” , but faith in the gospel. 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. You can go to that adoration chapel and worship the bread all you want, and you can fill your belly with your priest’s bread god, it won’t keep you from judgment .
In the first chapter of John we read
“14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ”
and Kevin you believe the “flesh profits nothing” refers to Christ’s flesh?
Now in the verses preceding John 6:63 when Christ refers to his flesh He says MY flesh or the Flesh of the Son of Man. but in John 6:63 Christ says The flesh as He distinguishes between the Spirit that gives life and THE flesh which profits nothing. It is a contrast made a number of times in the New Testament where the flesh and the spirit are contrasted with or opposed to each other . (Romans 8, 1 Peter 4:6, Matt 26:41, Roman 7:5,6 , 25, 2 Cor, 7:1, Gal 3:3, 4:8. 1 Pet 3:18 . By the flesh is understood the natural dispositions and corrupted thoughts of human nature and by the spirit the opposite effect of grace upon man.
Christ says his words are Spirit and they are life but no where in Scripture does the word Spirit translate Symbolic, and Kevin you can’t worship Christ in Spirit without following His commands.
And you never answered my question can one be saved with a dead faith? Yes or No?
Timothy P, conveniently you leave verse 40, 47, 35, 36, 29. out of your John 6. You think those verses are important since they are the parallel verses telling us what eating his flesh and drinking his blood mean, to come and believe? In fact verse 47 Jesus literally say those who believe have eternal life and will be raised up on the last day. Seems like a strange thing to say to people who must attend masses their whole life and continue to eat his physical body in the Roman Eucharist to live. No, Jesus says believe and you live and are raised up. In fact that one verse tells us this passage isn’t about the Lord’s supper. The book of John doesn’t mention the Lord’s supper. In fact it’s so important that there are only 4 verses on it in all of the Epistles. J.C Ryle said beware of a religion that make everything out of worshiping sacraments. John 6 is clear, it isn’t to be read like a metaphysical essay. Jesus says he is the bread come from heaven, that those who eats him and drink his blood, meaning come and believe will live. It’s that simple. His WORDS are Spirit.
Phil said ” The author of Hebrews is not describing something that was understood, he is using it to make his point that the heavenly temple is a truer reality than the earthly temple” Phil, no, He is CONTRASTING the one that is a shadow or symbol with the TRUE temple. The earthly was becoming obsolete. The heavenly was the true one. Just like oil is the symbol of the Spirit, the earthly temple was a symbol and shadow of the heavenly Temple. Now that the true has come, the other has become obsolete with all its sacrifices that couldn’t save anyone. Hebrews 8:13. The book is a whole contrast between the old Covenant and New Covenant. That’s why he was warning the Jewish believers to not shrink back into the old. Your church is an attempt to recapitulate the Old. The altar has been done away with, but Rome hasn’t gotten the message. One finished sacrifice never to be repeated or continued has allowed those who repent and believe to enter His rest. It’s not the difference between true and truer, it’s the difference between true and false. Jesus built the house, Moses was a member of the House.
Hi Kevin,
You said: “Phil said ” The author of Hebrews is not describing something that was understood, he is using it to make his point that the heavenly temple is a truer reality than the earthly temple” Phil, no, He is CONTRASTING the one that is a shadow or symbol with the TRUE temple. The earthly was becoming obsolete. The heavenly was the true one. Just like oil is the symbol of the Spirit, the earthly temple was a symbol and shadow of the heavenly Temple. Now that the true has come, the other has become obsolete with all its sacrifices that couldn’t save anyone. Hebrews 8:13. The book is a whole contrast between the old Covenant and New Covenant. That’s why he was warning the Jewish believers to not shrink back into the old.” I believe that it is a “contrast between the old Covenant and New Covenant” and that the old was becoming “obsolete”. They understood that, but not everything had the same attraction to believers, and that’s why the author of Hebrews chose the old realities of the High Priest office and the temple (actually only the Holiest of All) to show them how they were had become obsolete by the “truer” new realities.
God bless you.
Phil, when you say truer new realities? What do you mean. The book is telling Jewish the finality and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice versus the shadow, multiple sacrifices of the Old that could never save. The whole book is telling them that Jesus altar, sacrifice, and priesthood was in heaven and that was the end of an earthly altar. God doesn’t dwell in buildings or on altars anymore, but in the hearts of his people through the Spirit. Paul says ” Christ in YOU the hope of glory. Hebrews is about the endless sufficiency of a sacrifice that is never to be repeated or continued. It says He OBTAINED eternal redemption and sat down. It says His sacrifice saves to the uttermost Hebrews 9. And it says Hebrews 10:14 it was once and it perfected those for whom He died . The word is epiphax meaning final. It says we have entered his rest. Ephesians 1:7 supports this saying we HAVE redemption, not will have. Again God doesn’t dwell on altars and in buildings anymore. Knowing this truth, think about the Catholic Church which says that it is the historical and natural body of Christ with an earthly altar. The first thing the Reformers did was replace an altar with a pulpit. Why? Because we are saved by hearing the Word. The Lord’s supper is a supper at a table not a sacrifice on an altar. It is a memorial and commemoration of a redemption we already have won for us at the cross. Even though we confess our sins at the supper 1 John 1:9, those sins are already forgiven. That’s the good news of the gospel. It’s news about something that already happened that is a blanket across history. God bless you. K
Layne, ” you aren’t going to start ad hominemn are you” absolutely not. I was reading your arguments on antitype and Iranaeus and they sound leaning RC position.
Layne ” and Christ is the first fruits” This verse and section is talking about Christ’s resurrection Romans 4:25. He was delivered over for our transgressions and raised for our justification. He is the first fruits and we are the rest of the crop to follow. Romans 1:4 said He was resurrected and declared Son of God. Iow, when HE was raised so were true believers. In fact many other scriptures intimate that we are sealed in the Spirit, seated with Christ in the heavenlies, and have an inheritance that cannot fade away. So in the already/ not yet the believer currently possess resurrection in Christ having passed out of judgment by simply repenting and believing John 5:24, Romans 5:10 which says we will be saved by his life, not ours. Frankly Layne, Roman Catholicism doesn’t believe this. They won’t let him off the cross even though scripture says He is risen. In fact a Catholic spends his whole life meriting the increases in grace and justice at his mass with only maybe the hope of purgatory where if he has been a good Catholic he goes to work things out. So the verse you quoted has nothing to do with the re offering of Christ in the supper, but is talking about His resurrection and ours. K
Kevin–
You said: “They won’t let him off the cross even though scripture says He is risen. In fact a Catholic spends his whole life meriting the increases in grace and justice at his mass with only maybe the hope of purgatory where if he has been a good Catholic he goes to work things out.
Who has taught you those horrible things about us?
They won’t let him off the cross? Do you actually believe that the Church has that much power over Jesus our Lord, who is God, that we can keep Him on the cross? That’s laughable.
Jesus’ once for all sacrifice 2000 years ago is perpetual. That means it is just as valid and applicable today as it was then. And beyond that, it applied to people all the way back to Adam and will apply to the last person born in history.
I have known Jesus’ yoke to be easy and His burden light. Jesus’ merits are absolutely endless. All we have to do is ask and we shall receive. And Purgatory is a state of God’s purifying us, it’s not a place to work things out. The Mass is focused completely on Christ. Everything we do is because of Him.
–Layne
” who taught you those horrible thing about us” every Protestant scholar I’ve ever studied. ” ” Jesus once and for all sacrifice is perpetual” What an ignorant statement. If it’s once and for all and finished, how can it be perpetual. The doctrines of Trent annathamatize all who deny that each mass is a true and proper sacrifice. Sacrificium. Ask your Priest. If you tells you it’s a representation, give Him my permission to look up his church doctrine. ” The mass is focused completely on Christ” The mass is idolatry and place where Catholics merit the merit of Christ. It is antichrist and anti gospel. It is a sacrifice on an altar not a supper at a table. Layne, you don’t seem to know much about the church you defend. I hope you take the time here at Out of his mouth to learn about your church. Start with Tim’s article ” The Rise of Roman Catholicism” God bless. K
Kevin–
Somehow I knew you would degrade this to an ad hominem. And I fell for it!
Thanks, but no thanks!
–Layne
Tim Kauffman–
You said– “No need to reiterate. I understood the question the first time. It just serves no purpose to answer it if you do not understand the context in which Irenæus wrote, or what he meant by “we offer to Him His own” and “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit” and why the offering of created things to God prior to consecration, and offering the body and blood to men after the consecration, announces “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit.” You simply have not addressed the heresy to which he was responding, and so you are stuck analyzing a flesh and blood sacrifice to God, a sacrifice of which Irenæus says nothing at all.”
Yes, that is quite a mouthful. I’ll concede that you are correct and that I am dead wrong.
Now answer the question: The object of the paragraph is the Eucharist, as the author states his opinion is based (“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion”). He specifically defines the Eucharist as no longer common bread (unconsecrated)but consisting of two realities–earthly and heavenly(consecrated). Does he mean the reality of the heavenly spirit of the bread? How does that give us the hope of resurrection and life?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
It’s not just that you are dead wrong. (On that I agree 100%, although I know you are only stipulating that in order to move on to the next issue.) It’s that you don’t even understand what is written plainly by Irenæus. You have said repeatedly, “The object of the paragraph is the Eucharist.” That is not true, and the author does not say it. He says his opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and his opinion is that the gnostics have an inherent inconsistency in their theology.
The object of the paragraph—and Irenæus actually does express this—is the inconsistency of the gnostic position, and by way of contrast, the consistency of the Christian position.
Thus, even your question is posed in ignorance. The object of the paragraph is not the Eucharist but the inconsistency of the gnostics. Do you know what their inconsistency was? Unless you can identify it, the paragraph will make no sense to you.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman says:
“It’s not just that you are dead wrong. (On that I agree 100%, although I know you are only stipulating that in order to move on to the next issue.) It’s that you don’t even understand what is written plainly by Irenæus… Thus, even your question is posed in ignorance. The object of the paragraph is not the Eucharist but the inconsistency of the gnostics. Do you know what their inconsistency was? Unless you can identify it, the paragraph will make no sense to you.”
Ok, ok. I’m ignorant! I thought the subject of the paragraph was about the nourishment of the flesh with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the object was the Eucharist. My mistake. Ok, so the subject is the Eucharist:
“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit.”
(Notice I decapitalized the word “spirit” on your behalf so that it does not indicate the Holy Spirit of God. I’m sorry, but I thought the whole reason for Against Heresies was to explain to them who Jesus really is instead of who they thought He was. Just bear with me.)
“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
You asked “Do you know what their inconsistency was? Unless you can identify it, the paragraph will make no sense to you.”
Ok, I’ll take an ignorant stab at it. The gnostics inconsistency was that the flesh made from the Creator God is evil and the spirit begat from the Father God is good. And never the twain shall meet.
Now Tim, please explain to me what their true inconsistency was so that I may truly understand your answer to the question:
If the common bread is no longer common bread after the consecration but instead has two realities, earthly and heavenly; how can the heavenly reality of bread when our bodies receive it, make us no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection and life eternal?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, you wrote,
Well, the histrionics are completely unnecessary, Layne. The preceding paragraph ended with “But how can they be consistent with themselves…?” and this paragraph began with, “Then, again, how can they say…?” And then he goes on about how they need to alter “their opinion,” and adopt one more like “our opinion” because ours is more consistent. The fact that you are indignant at having that out pointed out to you is surprising. The inconsistency of the heretics is the main point of the paragraph, and remarkably, Roman Catholics are positively apoplectic at my audacity in pointing that out, because Roman Catholics so deeply desire this paragraph to be about the “real presence.”
You wrote,
Have you read Irenæus’ own words about the purpose of Against Heresies? The purpose was primarily to instruct his pupil in the doctrines of the heretics, and thereby to equip him to deconstruct and refute their errors. The primary point was to teach to his pupil the minutest constructs and exhaustive details of the errors and teachings of the heretics, because the failings of his predecessors was not due to an incomplete knowledge of Christ, but an incomplete knowledge of the heretics’ system of doctrine. If you thought “the whole reason” was to explain who Jesus is, you have completely missed the point of his books:
Irenæus’ predecessors tried “to explain to them who Jesus really is instead of who they thought He was,” and were utterly unsuccessful because the did not understand what they were up against. Thus, your summary of “the whole reason for Against Heresies” is quite erroneous.
Anyway, you summarized the heretics’ “inconsistency” as follows:
Actually, Layne, that was their doctrine. In Book IV, chapter 18, paragraphs 4-5, Irenæus was addressing their inconsistency. I didn’t ask you what their doctrine was. I asked you what Irenæus thought their inconsistency was.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., why don’t you use the Gnostics as an example of the “true church”?
They are similar to your “proto-Protestant” Paulicians who believed something similar. “The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. ” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm
How do you distinguish the two heresies and thus decide that the Paulicians were the true church?
Mark,
How do you distinguish between which papal statements are ex cathedra, and which are not? Why don’t you just consider them all as “from the chair”?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., you are just diverting. You haven’t answered this extremely important question which gets to the heart of how you choose which groups are “true christians” and which aren’t. I’ve asked it several times now and you don’t answer, divert, or moderate the question.
Mark, you are just diverting. You have never answered my extremely important question which gets to the heart of how you choose which papal teachings are “ex cathedra” and which are not. How do you know? I’ve asked it several times and you simply divert or redirect, even though you know that some papal statements are not true, and the true church cannot teach error.
You may not like this response but my purpose is to show that there is a much larger matter at play than just whether or not the Paulicians were the true church, whether a papal statement is “ex cathedra.” That larger matter is the eschatological question. In the end you can’t possibly determine which papal statements are “ex cathedra” or not, because there is no one who can tell you infallibly. Your fallback position is that Roman Catholicism is the true church, and you reason accordingly. In other words, the fallback argument is fundamentally eschatological.
My fallback position is that the Scriptures are God-breathed, and God’s breath to us warned us of your apostate antiChrist religion in advance, and further that there would be a remnant in the wilderness that did not succumb to the serpent’s flood as you and your forebears have. Given the choice, I either side with harlot Rome and all who fled to her during the flood of error, or with the Woman Rome oppressed for rejecting the flood of error. Having identified the flood, I’ve made my decision. Operating under a delusion, you’ve made yours. It is a fundamentally eschatological matter.
Besides, the accusations against the Paulicians all come from antichrist. Why should antichrist’s testimony be accepted in a court of law?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Okay, so you will not answer the question. However, you did say some things that I find interesting.
You said:
“there is a much larger matter at play than just whether or not the Paulicians were the true church…”
“I either side with harlot Rome and all who fled to her during the flood of error, or with the Woman Rome oppressed for rejecting the flood of error.”
“Besides, the accusations against the Paulicians all come from antichrist.”
In your last post, you commented “And yet, Nina Garsoïan {whom you quoted}, who actually believed the Paulicians were ‘heretics,'”. (COME HELL OR HIGH WATER, PART 7, Timothy F. Kauffman, JUNE 15, 2017 AT 11:13 AM)
Since you said she believed the Paulicians were “heretics” and you also said, “the accusations against the Paulicians all come from antichrist”, do you then believe that Garsoïan is from the antichrist? If so, why do you quote the antichrist to support your views?
The bigger question is, how much heresy are you willing to accept? In other words, what’s your tolerance level of heresy in these groups you are trying to establish as the “true church”?
Thanks,
Mark
David,
You wrote,
Oh, please David. Garsoïan’s belief that they were heretics was based solely on the charges by the Roman antichrist. She believed they were heretics on the authority of Rome alone. I cited Garsoïan because even though she accepted the Romanist charge of heresy, she also acknowledged that she could find no evidence of Manichæism or that they rejected the Gospels.
I do not believe they were heretics. Roman Catholicism, however, is heretical, and therefore I cannot accept it as the “true church.”
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy P, ” read Iranaeus with an open mind” just like Timothy P has. Idolators and works righteousness supporters don’t like the articles here. Here is what Spurgeon said “peace with Rome, no war, to the knife with her” understanding these things in context Timothy P is so important. It’s about the truth.
Timothy Kauffman–
You said: “I made a “big deal” over the capital letters because the capital letter S was the central point Layne made in his declaration that “Offering to Him His own” must refer to an offering of the flesh of Jesus Christ Himself. Obviously, a capital S in spirit does not undergird Layne’s argument like he thought it did. I think we all agree on that.”
Do you suppose that Migne did not capitalize it because it was not a proper name like the other Greek text? I would suppose that if the ancient Greek was in all caps, then capitalization would follow some rule of interpretation. Otherwise, it would be up to someone’s own personal discernment; in other words, arbitrary.
If the word “spirit” is truly supposed to be capitalized here, how would it change your opinion?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
No, I do not. Neither Son (Υιός) nor Logos (Λογος) nor Father (Πατέρας) nor Scripture (Γραφη) are proper names, but Migne capitalizes them, Son and Father being notable because they are not proper names, but in their respective contexts refer to persons in the Trinity.
You asked,
Since, as Timothy P correctly noted, everything would have been in capitals, your question therefore reduces to “if the word “spirit” is truly a reference to the Holy Spirit…,” and that can only be determined by context. Thus, the need to understand the purpose of Irenæus’ work, and specifically the error he was refuting, and within that context to understand what he thought was inconsistent about their doctrine.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said– “Layne, you wrote,’So are you really going to make me repeat myself again???’I asked you to identify their inconsistency, and instead you identified their doctrine.To answer correctly, you do not need to repeat yourself. So no, I am not asking you to repeat yourself. What was their inconsistency?”
And I bade you to tell me what their inconsistency was so that I may better understand. You refuse to even do THAT as well. OK! I’ll try again:
Because their doctrine is that God the Father gave them spirit which is good, and God the Creator gave them flesh which is evil, the flesh and the spirit are incompatible. So how can Jesus, whom they claim to be only spirit and only appearing as flesh, give his body and blood in their communion rite if he has no body or blood to give? It makes no sense.
Now, Tim, please answer the question:
If the common bread is no longer common bread after the consecration but instead has two realities, earthly and heavenly; how can the heavenly reality of the bread, when our bodies receive it, make us no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection and life eternal?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, that is not the inconsistency Irenæus identified.
Tim
So what is it, then, Tim, please? I am asking you nicely.
–Layne
I know how you hate cut a paste, but is it this one?
“But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.”
Thanks–
–Layne
Well?
Layne, which responses are you talking about? Can you give me a phrase or a 1-sentence summary? I’ve searched the trash and spam folders and I’m not finding anything from you that was deleted.
Layne,
Do you understand that when Irenæus refers to “His own,” that he is referring to “His own creation,” and when he says “we offer to Him His own,” he is speaking of the fruits of the harvest of the field for the needy? And that this “pure oblation” being offered is simply the collection of the first fruits of the harvest for the poor? (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18) He uses three different Bible verses to make that point:
Do you understand that Epaphroditus did not bring “the flesh and blood of Christ” to Paul to eat? That we do not take the bread and wine of communion and drop it off at the homeless shelter for the poor to eat, and that the sheep of Matthew 25 did not feed “the flesh and blood of Christ” to the needy?
The heretics believed that all of the physical world, the created world, and therefore the first fruits of the harvest, were from the creator god and were therefore the result of apostasy, ignorance, and passion. When he criticizes the offering of the heretics, he criticizes them for offering to the father who did not create the world the fruits of creation that originated from the god that did create the world. And thus that their attempt to set aside the first fruits of the harvest as thanks to the father, is actually to take the fruit of apostasy, ignorance, and passion of the creator god, and offer it to the father god who did not create it, and therefore to insult him rather than to thank him:
Do you understand that in all that I have quoted from Irenæus above, he is not talking about setting aside Christ’s flesh and blood for the poor?
The reason I ask is that in your attempt to show their inconsistency, you proposed that the inconsistency of the heretics is that they offer Christ’s body and blood to the father who ostensibly did not create Christ’s body and blood. And yet at no point in Chapter 18 does Irenæus ever identify Christ’s body and blood as what we, or the heretics, offer.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne said ” how can the heavenly reality of the bread, when our bodies receive it , makes us no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection and life eternal?” Here is a quote from my favorite theologian Kevin Failoni lol☺” Let’s be frank, the whole idea behind ” real presence” , transubstantiation, is the oral eating of Christ’s flesh. But we know that those who eat with the mouth continue to get hungry and need to continually eat to survive. They work for their food. But those who eat by faith the WORDS of Jesus and promise of eternal life will never hunger and thirst. Stark difference between true Christianity and those of Catholicism. Layne, it is no longer common bread because as bread sustains our body the faith that believes in his words sustains our souls. It is faith in the gospel words that is permanent salvation, never to hunger. Faith in the real presence or transubstantiation can’t save you, only faith in the gospel. Hearing by faith, not any law. The mass negates the finality of his sacrifice, it denies the permanence of faith, and makes and idolatry of the bread, instead of a commemoration of the cross. Sad. It won’t save one Roman Catholic. That’s why it’s so important to understand the context of these father’s. And I’m yet to study anyone who has captured the context through hard study that Tim K. It doesn’t mean he is right. It does mean we have a clearer view of what Ignatius and Iranaeus really meant. It confirms the Protestant position and condemns Rome’s to me. Thanks K
KEVIN–
You said–“It doesn’t mean he is right. It does mean we have a clearer view of what Ignatius and Iranaeus really meant. ”
That’s why I want him to answer, not you.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, and he just gave an incredible summation of how Iranaeus was addressing the Heretic error. Isn’t how amazing when we learn that he was addressing them offering what they thought HE didn’t create, they were guilty of sin. And even more amazing is to learn that Jesus flesh and blood being offered is NEVER the consideration. What does this do to every theologian who has assisted antichrist in a wrong interpretation! They have reinforced the worship of the Jesus wafer which very likely is leading men to hell in droves. Consider yourself blessed God brought you to this discussion. K
Kevin, you do realize that Layne was pointing out what Irenaeus believed when
“Layne said ” how can the heavenly reality of the bread, when our bodies receive it , makes us no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection and life eternal?” ”
Your answer Kevin just simply points out the stark difference between what you with your Protestant bias believe and what Irenaeus believed and taught. So Kevin what is the “pure oblation of the Church” in your church?
Timothy P ” Your answer Kevin simply points out the stark difference between you with your Protestant bias believe and what Iranaeus believed and thought.” No my answer points out that the thing Iranaeus says makes our bodies incorruptible when we receive the bread is ” having the hope of eternal life” which comes by FAITH alone in Christ alone. Read Tim’s current explanation to Layne on the context of the letters and then sit back and say to yourself how did i ever believe my antichrist church for teaching me that he was talking about real presence. It wasn’t even a consideration when one unravels the true context. Your leaders could have said he was talking about football and they would have been as wrong pushing transubstantiation. You and Layne are flat wrong about what Iranaeus was saying in his addressing the heretic error. Flat wrong. K
” So Kevin what is the pure oblation of the church”. Bingo that’s the question. Read Tim’s series the Praise was their sacrifice. The conclusion was the early father’s were meticulous in their categories. Bread was given to men only, never sacrificed to God, and praise and thanksgiving was the sacrifice to God. The interesting thing Timothy P is that Rome gets it reversed and fatally wrong. Now who would want to make it opposite so that you, Layne and every other Roman Catholic would worship the bread and rely on the ” work of the people” to get them in heaven? Who would want to deceive you. Antichrist. Roman Catholicism is the seat of antichrist, as sure as Iranaeus never mentions real presence. Repent of your goodness and believe the gospel Mark 1:15.
Kevin writes
“Bread was given to men only, never sacrificed to God, and praise and thanksgiving was the sacrifice to God”.
But Irenaues writes
“And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God. Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogæ) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another’s property, and desirous of what is not His own. Those, again, who maintain that the things around us originated from apostasy, ignorance, and passion, do, while offering unto Him the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, sin against their Father, rather subjecting Him to insult than giving Him thanks.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 4)
Now for the Catholic we offer the bread and wine, we offer the body and blood of Christ and we offer our praise and thanksgiving. The problem you have Kevin is Irenaeus speaks of the pure oblation “from his creation”, that “what belongs to this creation of ours”, and “the things around us”. So praise and thanksgiving is referred to as a thing?
By the way, are you ever going to answer the question can you be saved with a dead Faith?
“- The problem you have Kevin is Iranaeus speaks of the pure oblation from his creation …..” actually that isn’t a problem for me at all. I know what he means. However you do not know what he means because you do not understand how these father’s used words like oblation, sacrifice in this context. But if you really want to know then read Tim’s series on the The Praise was their sacrifice. Then you will understand the serious misunderstanding of Rome in these contexts. Again I repeat what I learned from that series that the fathers here didn’t confuse their categories, bread was never offered to God, only to men, and praise and thanksgiving were the acceptable sacrifices to God. I believe Gregory of Nyssa was the first to introduce the heresy of Jesus re sacrificed in the Supper. The question is Timothy P will you or Layne read that series. If you do, then I will further discuss it with you. If not there is nothing further to discuss. You and Layne are flat wrong on Antitype and as wrong on the offering up of Jesus again in the supper for sins. He offered himself once for sins, and on that the scripture couldn’t be clearer. The Lord’s supper isn’t an altar where Christ is really offered and where you offer yourself for sins. ” It’s is finished” Don’t just swallow Rome hook line and sinker, this site is a treasure trove of unmasking Rome’s lies. It’s all here for you to see, and the eschatological argument hits one in the face like a brick, unless you are under the delusion of 2 Thess. 2:11, which you are. But I pray God removes your Roman glasses so you can see. Thanks for the talk.
Kevin, I will look at Tim’s articles and maybe in the meantime you could share Irenaeus’s quotes with some of your friends. I noted your comment
” Read Tim’s current explanation to Layne on the context of the letters and then sit back and say to yourself how did i ever believe my antichrist church for teaching me that he was talking about real presence. It wasn’t even a consideration when one unravels the true context”
Why it wasn’t even a consideration that Irenaeus was talking about the real presence? I have been reading Timothy K’s responses and he does an admirable job trying to defend a losing position but I haven’t found a single point he has made that negates or contradicts Irenaeus position that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Ignore the obvious and try to focus on a verse which could lend itself to multiple interpretations, put a Protestant spin on it and this is all you have?
Now Kevin, maybe you or Timothy can explain to me how the true context unravels this quote from Irenaeus. I really don’t know how Irenaeus could not have been more clear just as when Christ said “This IS my body”.
“And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,”
After you analyze the passage Kevin and tell me what Irenaeus was actually trying to say we can go over each line.
” and he does an admirable job trying to defend a losing position” It’s only a losing position if you can defeat it with facts. You can’t. Don’t buy the condescension your leaders sell. It can’t save you. It’s only about the truth of the Word of God.
Timothy P, my take on that Iranaeus quote is we are members of His body ( being incorporated into his body thru the Spirit, NOT, the flesh) and we are man like he is man ( Paul said He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh). Our bodies are nourished by the fruit of the vine and the bread which is His body and blood. This is right that the wine and bread when we take it in the way it nourishes our body so God has given us life eternal, resurection, and incorruptibility. Notice the role the Spirit of God and the Word of God plays. He compares it to cut vine fructifying in season and a grain of of wheat that falls into the ground and decomposes rises with manifold increase by the SPIRIT of God. And this serves through the wisdom of God to be useful to men because the Word of God is added and we understand that as the bread and wine nourishes us so also does the Word of God ( again remember His words are Spirit) John 6:63. Nourish our faith. Romans 4:20 says Abraham grew strong in his faith. Finally he says as our bodies are nourished by the bread and wine, we go down to decompose but the Word of God has granted us resurection and immortality. The Spirit of God will give us new bodies. We don’t become what He is, but all that He became to us in righteousness and holiness. Paul says the outer man is decaying each day as the inner man is being renewed each day. So you see eating Christ’s body and blood would do us no good because our bodies are dying , but the Spirit renews our faith in the Lord’s supper. That’s my best crack at this quote without a broader context. But I see no transubstantiation or real presence in this quote. Thx.
Timothy P, Layne. Look at the statement by Iranaeus. What makes us incorruptible and have the hope of resurrection according to Iranaeus? The heavenly reality of the bread. What is the heavenly reality of the bread? WHAT IT REPRESENTS. In our eating our faith is nourished with the reminder of the cross and Jesus death for our sins and our resurrection. Jesus in believers hearts, through the SPIRIT, brings to mind what Christ did for us, that it is eternal. It is this reminder at the Lord’s table that reminds us ALL of our sins are already paid for, we are already raised and seated with Christ able to enter His throne room with confidence. Frankly Catholicism is a hard sell without purgatory where ” good” Catholics go to sort things out, if they’ve been a good Catholic. Sad.
TIMOTHY KAUFFMAN–
Why have my responses been deleted?
You asked me to provide you with a response, I gave it to you and then you deleted it and never answered my question which I asked you repeatedly. And you rail against those responders who don’t answer your questions. How hypocritical is that?
Your other responders are debating that very question that you refuse answer. And now you have left me with no recourse.
Thanks a lot–
–Layne
Layne, I am not aware of any of your responses being deleted. I’ll be happy to look into it for you.
Tim
Please do.
–Layne
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You asked “Layne, which responses are you talking about? Can you give me a phrase or a 1-sentence summary? I’ve searched the trash and spam folders and I’m not finding anything from you that was deleted.”
The ones you just responded to. They weren’t there this morning. I posted yesterday afternoon.
Thanks.
I think you are talking about this one: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/#comment-33784
Or this one? http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/#comment-33810
Or this one? http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/#comment-33799
They’re all still there.
Tim
Tim Kauffman–
You asked “Do you understand that in all that I have quoted from Irenæus above, he is not talking about setting aside Christ’s flesh and blood for the poor?”
Yes.
You also said “The reason I ask is that in your attempt to show their inconsistency, you proposed that the inconsistency of the heretics is that they offer Christ’s body and blood to the father who ostensibly did not create Christ’s body and blood. And yet at no point in Chapter 18 does Irenæus ever identify Christ’s body and blood as what we, or the heretics, offer.”
Ok yes, and you have given me a revelation on how wrong I have been for 29 years. But before I get to that I need you to answer the question I have been asking:
If the common bread is no longer common bread after the consecration but instead has two REALITIES, earthly and heavenly; how can the heavenly REALITY of the bread, when our bodies receive it, make us no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection and life eternal?
I figure since you have studied Against Heresies so intently, that you can answer this without even thinking about it.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, one of the things which I find so fascinating about this debate is the listing of quotes from the Church Fathers and their belief in the real presence on Catholic websites. They really just touch the surface as there as so many. Now when I was debating this with Brian Culliton he insisted that they were all taken out of context as Timothy K tries to argue. So I asked him to provide a list of quotes from the Church Fathers taken in context that deny the real presence .I think it was about that time he banned me from his website. Layne have you ever seen a list of quotes from the Church Father’s on any Protestant apologetic website denying the real presence? Hmmmm
Layne, In addition to the fact that the heretics denied the union of the flesh and spirit—based on their belief that there were two gods, a father who sent the son, and a creator who created the physical world around us as a product of ignorance, passion, and apostasy—thus denying that Jesus had really taken on flesh, insisting that he had remained spirit only—they also believed that the god they worshiped was not the creator of heaven and earth at all, thinking one was the cause of the heavenly realm and the other the cause of the earthly.
Thus, in his rebuttal to the heretics, he used a two-pronged approach, focusing on the union of the flesh and spirit, and the fact that one God had created both the heavens and the earth. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth. And he used the Eucharist to press the matter on both fronts. I will return to that shortly.
You have asked, “If the common bread is no longer common bread after the consecration but instead has two REALITIES, earthly and heavenly; how can the heavenly REALITY of the bread, when our bodies receive it, make us no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection and life eternal?”
Regarding the recipients of the bread being “no longer corruptible,” I will let you sort that out with Timothy P, who says that Irenæus taught exactly the opposite: “so also our bodies, being nourished by it [the Eucharist], and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there…”. I’m sure you two can sort it out. When you do figure it out, you can answer for me: if the bread really consists of two realities, earthly and heavenly, how is that after receiving “the heavenly REALITY of the bread” our bodies still suffer decomposition in the earth as Irenæus said? And why would Irenæus teach something so inconsistent with what you personally believe to be true?
The fact is that Irenæus in this chapter is making a completely different point than you think he is.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the “earthly reality” of the bread, as you render it, is the bread prior to consecration, and the “heavenly reality” of the bread is after the invocation of God, the consecration, for you have said,
As I said, you can be forgiven for that, and it is not your fault for being led to this conclusion, but the facts are quite different. The problem arises with the latin rendering of this portion of Against Heresies, for which we actually do have Irenæus’ greek, and here is where we find just how “barbaric” (as some scholars have called it) the latin translation is.
The latin rendering says
which is translated into english as
I have highlighted in bold the parts that you think refer to the consecration, “the invocation of God.”
The problem is, the greek makes no mention of the “invocation of God,” the very thing you need in order for the earthly bread to be changed into your “heavenly reality” that consists of Christ’s flesh.
The greek says,
The key phrase here is
“Ος γαρ απο γης αρτος” means bread of the earth. No controversy there. προσλαμβανο, proslambano, the root of the bolded term, means “to take or set aside” and “προσλαμβανομενος την εκκλησιν του Θεου” simply means “set aside in the church of God.” In other words, Irenæus is still talking about the setting aside of the harvest for the poor, with no mention of the “invocation of God.” This is what incorrectly ended up in Latin as “Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei,” and then into english as “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God.” But the greek says nothing like that, and importantly, makes no mention of the words of consecration upon which your whole argument is based. It simply says, the bread taken from the earth and set aside by the Church of God. That “setting aside” of the food for the poor is what Irenæus was talking about in this whole section, which is why it was so important to establish with you the fact that in all that I have quoted from Irenæus above, he is not talking about setting aside Christ’s flesh and blood for the poor.
The reason that common bread is no longer common bread, but is both earthly and heavenly, is not because of some words of consecration, but because that collection for the poor—offered to God in accordance with Philippians 4:18, “I am full, having received … the things that were sent,” Proverbs 19:17, “He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord,” and Matthew 25:35, “For I was an hungered, and you gave Me to eat”—has been offered in heaven, “for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed” (Irenæues, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 6)
Irenæus is still talking about the collection for the poor, a sacrifice of praise offered not on an altar on earth, but an altar in heaven. It is no longer common bread, but earthly and heavenly because it, being of earth, is offered in heaven. Irenæus has it “earthly” because it is of earth, and “heavenly” simply by being set aside by the church, in the context of feeding the poor. Still no flesh and blood.
So to get back to your question, “If the common bread is no longer common bread after the consecration but instead has two REALITIES, earthly and heavenly…” your question begins with a fundamental flaw, and assumes that there was even a consecration in the text. Irenæus makes no mention of one, and so your entire argument is based upon something that Irenæus didn’t even say.
I’m sure the latin translator wanted (and needed) that invocation there, and the english translation in Schaff and at newadvent.org follows the latin. That’s the flaw in your position. The greek in which Irenæus wrote says something entirely different, and the bread is both earthly and heavenly prior to the consecration.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You finally answered my question saying: ” So to get back to your question, ‘If the common bread is no longer common bread after the consecration but instead has two REALITIES, earthly and heavenly…’ your question begins with a fundamental flaw, and assumes that there was even a consecration in the text. Irenæus makes no mention of one, and so your entire argument is based upon something that Irenæus didn’t even say.
I’m sure the latin translator wanted (and needed) that invocation there, and the english translation in Schaff and at newadvent.org follows the latin. That’s the flaw in your position. The greek in which Irenæus wrote says something entirely different, and the bread is both earthly and heavenly prior to the consecration.”
But that is not what Irenaeus said. He said before the bread is “set aside by the church” it was common bread. But afterwards it has two realities both earthly and heavenly. This suggests two things–1.) there is a change in the bread, and 2.) the common bread before the “setting aside” does not have two realities. So your conclusion that the bread is both earthly and heavenly before the “consecration” is in error.
He also stated that his opinion is based upon the Eucharist, not just almsgiving for the poor. And if you will look at all the times when the Fathers speak about the Eucharist, it always references the Lord’s Supper as a part of the rite, meaning the “consuming” of the Body and Blood of Christ. And in the Lord’s Supper, you claim the bread is a symbol of the Body and Blood. And I suppose in your congregation, common bread is not recognized as a symbol of the Body and Blood or else it wouldn’t be common bread anymore. That is why you pray “Gracious God, pour out your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
that the bread we break and the cup we bless
may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.”(Liturgy for Presbytery Celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, Book of Common Worship.)
And this bread is consumed by your congregation, not set aside as alms for the poor, unless you take it to Meals on Wheels or something. That would be more consistent with what you are saying.
However even the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 29 says of the Lord’s Supper “5: The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.” The Confession says that the bread in the case of the Lord’s Supper is “duly set apart” for sacramental purposes instead of alms for the poor.
So once again, your conclusion of the “setting aside by the church” of the bread is not quite correct. Look what Cyril said: “3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. ”
With Cyril the Body and Blood of Christ is in the form of or figure of bread and wine. That is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. And no, we do not do “facials” with the elements nor do we “suck on His blood and chew on His physical flesh.” It is as we say–spiritual food. And it is this spiritual food–not alms for the poor–that give us hope for the resurrection and life eternal.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, you wrote,
Of course, he did. That’s exactly my point. Once it is set aside by the church for the collection, it is no longer common, being both earthly and heavenly. Your argument was that it became Christ’s body and blood at the consecration, because after the consecration, it’s heavenly. But Irenæus doesn’t say that at all.
Are you saying that it becomes Christ’s flesh and blood during the collection for the poor? I thought I agreed earlier that Irenæus was not talking about providing Jesus’ flesh and blood to the poor. The bread is set aside for the poor and needy. See paragraph 2: “but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things [hereafter]; as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God.” Are you saying that’s when the consecration takes place? I agree that’s when it becomes “heavenly.” It’s just that the consecration—the invocation of God—is where the ostensible transubstantiation—takes place, and Irenæus has it “heavenly” before the consecration.
What’s missing in Irenæus is the actual consecration—”the invocation of God” that was supposed to change the bread into Christ’s flesh. Turns out, he says it becomes heavenly by the setting aside, not by the invocation of God, which is to say, in the collection for the poor, not in the consecration of the elements of the supper.
What do you mean by “consecration”? The Catechism, paragraph 1351, says, “From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need”. That’s the offering, the setting aside. Paragraph 1353 then says that the transubstantiation takes place: “In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).” That’s the invocation of God when the bread and wine become Christ’s flesh. At the setting aside, it just ceases to be common. It just isn’t Christ’ body and blood at that point. Not in Roman Catholicism, and certainly not in Irenæus.
Tim
TIM KAUFFMAN–
“You said “It just serves no purpose to answer it if you do not understand the context in which Irenæus wrote, or what he meant by “we offer to Him His own” and “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit” and why the offering of created things to God prior to consecration, and offering the body and blood to men after the consecration, announces “the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit.”
You remember me saying how wrong I have been over the last 29 years? I now realize my mistake! I have the procedure of the mass wrong.
You say the offering of the common bread prior to the consecration is the offering to God his own. After the consecration, the bread is now the body and blood for men to eat in the form of bread. And that announces the fellowship and union of the flesh and the spirit.
So, in the liturgy of the Eucharist, we Catholics, in the offeratory, give our gifts of bread and wine, the fruits of our labors, and our very lives as living sacrifices. We offer them with our thanks and praises through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. The bread is just common bread at this point. This is God’s own from creation that we offer to him. The celebrant then asks God to bless this offering and for the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then the words of consecration are spoken and the bread is now changed from common bread into bread with two realities–earthly and heavenly. And then, you are right, Tim. Now the Body and Blood of Christ, in the form of bread, is given to us to eat. And now, His Flesh nourishes our flesh in hope of the resurrection and eternal life.
I’ve been saying it wrong all along. Our sacrifice is not offered WITH Christ to the Father, it is offered THROUGH Christ to the Father just like our prayers and our blessings are offered “through Christ our Lord, Amen.” And then the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood so that Christ is WITH us. And when we eat this bread and drink this cup, He abides in us and we abide IN Him. That is the Doxology–“Through Him, With Him, and In Him, in unity with the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory is yours Almighty Father, Forever and Ever.” Through–With–In! I’ve been Catholic for 29 years and I have never made that connection.
Thank you for shedding light on this. I knew there was much more to the Eucharist than just being symbolic. It is as you say a real antitype–so much more than just a symbol.
Thank you Tim!
–Layne
Thanks, Layne. Not sure you have the mass right, though. The way you described it, the sacrifice takes place when the bread is just common bread, and then when it is changed into the body and blood of Christ, it is no longer common, and is given to men to eat. But no more mention of offering the Body and Blood of Christ to God. Did you miss the step where the body and blood is offered to God after the consecration?
Tim
Layne, without faith, the Word of God, and the Spirit it’s just bread. That’s the heavenly reality of the bread. Do this in remembrance of me. It is a commemoration. ” For as often as you EAT this BREAD ( What are we eating? Bread.), and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death til he comes. There is the heavenly reality of the bread. In the quote from Iranaeus Timothy P gave me he specifically mentions the Spirit, the Word of God, through wisdom. The Spirit uses the word to bring to mind the cross. It’s spiritual. We are called to a spiritual relationship with him. K
Kevin writes
“In the quote from Iranaeus Timothy P gave me he specifically mentions the Spirit, the Word of God, through wisdom. The Spirit uses the word to bring to mind the cross. It’s spiritual. ”
That’s right Kevin,, but you have to focus on what the Spirit and the Word of God are doing. Irenaeus writes
“And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”
OK Kevin, by the power of the Spirit we get wine from the vine and bread from the grain of wheat. And then what happens? “having received the Word of God”, what do the bread and wine become? “The Eucharist”. And what is the Eucharist? “which is the body and blood of Christ”!!!!. Kevin, is this really that difficult for you to understand?
And by the way I know you are aware that it’s not uncommon for Catholics today to refer to the consecrated elements as bread and wine just as they did in the bible and Early Church. You have to look at all the evidence. Remember when I asked you what would happen in your Church if someone started preaching the doctrine of the real presence? You know as well as I do there would be a mass exodus. And yet in the early church you expect us to believe that the apostles taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol and then over a span of a couple centuries the universal Catholic church somehow convinces everyone that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ without a whimper. Seriously.
” Kevin, is this reality hard for you to understand” No, but it’s impossible for you to understand. How does it become the body and blood of Christ Timothy P? Does the priest make the bread Jesus substantial body Hocus Pocus? No. What does he say. The Spirit of God, through the Word of God brings to us remembrance and commemoration. It benefits our faith as the bread and wine nourishes our body. We aren’t sucking on his blood and eating his physical flesh. Paul says ” as often as you eat this BREAD!” 1 Corinthians 11. Timothy P, what does Paul say we are eating?! BREAD! The fact is Timothy P there is no evidence of any real presence in Iranaeus, nor was the Lord’s supper a reminder sacrifice of Jesus and ourselves for sins. It is a memorial and a commemoration of forgiveness we already have. Yes we confess our sins. But they are already payed for by one sacrifice that is a blanket across history. ” remember when I asked you what would happen in your church if someone started preaching the real presence” Roman Catholics historically were excommunicated from Reformed churches unable to participate in the Supper. WCF 24.3 says we are not to fellowship or marry any idolator or Papist. ” and yet in the early church you want us to believe that the Apistles taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol and then after the span of a couple centuries the universal Catholic Church somehow convinces everyone that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ without a whimper. Seriously” Do you even read the articles here? This whole series is an historical account of how the true church soundly rejected the Romish doctrines that raised its ugly head in the 4th century. One of the main things they rejected was the real presence. Your ignorant of history only armed with the RC propaganda you have been forced fed. Then you come to Out of His mouth and take on the Author never having read his account. If you want to defeat a position maybe you should learn it. At least Layne is. Thanks for the talk. As I said we can re engage when you read the Praise was their sacrifice, and this series. K
Kevin, thanks for displaying a perfect example of how Protestant apologist try to twist what the Church Fathers are saying. I first noted this on Brian Culliton’s blog where Brian would provide a quote, then “explain” what the Father was saying inserting his Protestant twist ,. Now the quote I gave you from Irenaeus was
“And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,”
And what does Kevin claim Irenaeus says
” No. What does he say. The Spirit of God, through the Word of God brings to us remembrance and commemoration”
Now Kevin somewhere in Irenaeus’s writings he may have made that comment as it is a true statement but he didn’t make it in the statement I gave you.
Kevin also wrote about the same quote
” That’s my best crack at this quote without a broader context. But I see no transubstantiation or real presence in this quote”
Hardly surprised Kevin because you have a problem with the word “IS”, Irenaeus writes
“that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body”
“and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ”
I just don’t know how Jesus Christ or Irenaeus could have made it more clear. I assume there is a word in ancient Greek for “represents” or “symbolizes” . Maybe Timothy K can tell us what that word is that Jesus and Irenaeus could have used to support your position.
I am in the process of reading Timothy K article so be patient.
Kevin wrote
“How does it become the body and blood of Christ Timothy P? Does the priest make the bread Jesus substantial body Hocus Pocus?”
I’m glad you brought that up Kevin because the Church Fathers attempted to answer the very same question confirming their belief in the real presence . Cyril of Jerusalem wrote
“1. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, you have become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
2. He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood , and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber Matthew 9:15, shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood ?”
Now Kevin, why would you question Christ’s ability to turn wine into blood, yet you acknowledge that he tuned water into wine. Are you trying to say that he couldn’t do it.?
And of course John Damascus makes the same point as Cyril does
“If then the Word of God is quick and energising2402, and the Lord did all that He willed2403; if He said, Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and there was a firmament2404; if the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth2405; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire and air and the whole glory of these, and, in sooth, this most noble creature, man, were perfected by the Word of the Lord; if God the Word of His own will became man and the pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-virginal One made His flesh without the aid of seed2406, can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, Let the earth bring forth grass2407, and even until this present day, when the rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine command. God said, This is My body, and This is My blood, and this do ye in remembrance of Me. And so it is at His omnipotent command until He come: for it was in this sense that He said until He come: and the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes through the invocation the rain to this new tillage2408. For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the
83b
Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone. How shall this be, said the holy Virgin, seeing I know not a man? And the archangel Gabriel answered her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee2409. And now you ask, how the bread became Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood. And I say unto thee, “The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason and thought.””
Now do you understand Kevin.?
Timothy P, Thank you for demonstrating your ability to decontextualize the early church fathers. And now Cyril in the context from which you extracted him:
You only cited 1-2, but in 3-4 he explains what he means.
If you are persuaded that Cyril was here talking about transubstantiation, then Cyril must have been talking about the ability of the pagans to transubstantiate their sacrifices into the very devil himself with their invocation, because apparently, your transubstantiation takes place exactly the same way:
All Cyril was saying was that at the invocation, the common bread gets set aside for a holy purpose “in like manner” as the meats sacrificed to Satan “become profane.”
There’s no magic there, Timothy P. Unless you take the Early Church Fathers out of context.
Thanks,
Tim
I love the catechetical lectures on the Eucharist and I would encourage everyone to read the entire two lectures pertaining to the Eucharist and the Mass. Amazing that Timothy K does not accept Cyril’s belief in the real presence and yet in Jerusalem , the birthplace of Christianity they are obviously celebrating the Mass.
Now Timothy K writes :
“If you are persuaded that Cyril was here talking about transubstantiation, then Cyril must have been talking about the ability of the pagans to transubstantiate their sacrifices into the very devil himself with their invocation”
Did Cyril say the pagans transubstantiate their sacrifices “into the very devil himself”? Lets look at the verse
“For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ , so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit”
Now the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. But the meats become “profane”. Cyril doesn’t say “it becomes the very devil himself”. Again Timothy K you are misrepresenting what the Father has said.
I think we should “cut and paste ” the entire two catechetical lectures so we can clearly see who is taking Cyril out of context, OK? And your exegesis makes absolutely no sense as to why Cyril is referring to the miracle of the wedding feast if you are correct as you stated
” There’s no magic there, Timothy P. Unless you take the Early Church Fathers out of context.” Again I would encourage everyone to read both catechetical lectures and maybe Kevin would be willing to share the lectures with friends for an unbiased opinion? I know he won’t. Layne , have you read those catechetical lectures?
Timothy P, oh, you forgot that sentence ” in the figure of the bread” no big deal. Cyril in 6 words debunks Roman snake oil your selling. But hey no big deal, Rome is only advocating bread worship. What’s a few billion headed for he’ll. Sad.
Timothy P, incidentally in the rest of the context that Tim provided from Cyril is a powerful summation of what he means that I had never realized before. He says this ” for thus we bear Christ in us because his body and blood are distributed through our members” then he explains exactly what he means ” thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter we become partakers of the divine nature. How do we become partakers of the divine natural? The word means koininia. Fellowship. Since we are incorporated into his body thru the Spirit we have fellowship with Christ. Hence Paul says Christ in you the hope of Glory. It does not mean we are tentacles of the Trinity. Scripture says He lives in unapproachable light. God through the Spirit, the Word, has fellowship with us and in that way we partake of the divine nature. Very clear admission by Cyril.
Timothy P , ” maybe Kevin would be willing to share the lectures with friends for an unbiased opinion” sure I would be willing. Then I’m going to show them Cyril saying ” in the FIGURE of the bread ” in that lecture. And after I do that I’m going to show them how you avoided that very phrase when Tim highlighted it for you. And lastly I will tell them those of the Roman Catholic false religion won’t take off their idol glasses because they are taught without the vampiric drinking of blood and carvnivoric eating of flesh and they won’t survive. Again Cyril says all this means what Peter said we become partakers the divine nature, the word being koininia meaning fellowship. What a gross perversion of the Lord’s supper your mass is. Truly. K
Kevin writes
“Timothy P , ” maybe Kevin would be willing to share the lectures with friends for an unbiased opinion” sure I would be willing. Then I’m going to show them Cyril saying ” in the FIGURE of the bread ” in that lecture, And after I do that I’m going to show them how you avoided that very phrase when Tim highlighted it for you. ”
Kevin, you obviously haven’t been paying attention. I already addressed the situation with figure and antitype. Remember when I wrote that a figure could be a symbol but does not mean symbol, a antitype could be a symbol but does not have to be a symbol. That’s where context comes in. Now please explain to me why Cyril brings up the miracle of changing water into wine while explaining how He can change wine into blood. I’m afraid you just aren’t paying attention. Why would Cyril bring up the miracle at the wedding feast if he believed the Eucharist was just a symbol?
Kevin also wrote
“What a gross perversion of the Lord’s supper your mass is. ”
OK Kevin let me “cut and paste” the entire Lecture 23 from Cyril’s instructions and please share this with your friends, especially those who have ever attended a Mass. So was Cyril’s worship service a “gross perversion of the Lord’s supper. And Kevin could you cut and paste the entire Lecture 22 so we can all decide who is taking quotes out of context?
(On the Mysteries. V.)
On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion.
1 Peter 2:1
Wherefore putting away all filthiness, and all guile, and evil speaking , etc.
1. By the loving-kindness of God you have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and Chrism, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning today to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification.
2. You have seen then the Deacon who gives to the Priest water to wash , and to the Presbyters who stand round God’s altar. He gave it not at all because of bodily defilement; it is not that; for we did not enter the Church at first with defiled bodies. But the washing of hands is a symbol that you ought to be pure from all sinful and unlawful deeds; for since the hands are a symbol of action, by washing them, it is evident, we represent the purity and blamelessness of our conduct. Did you not hear the blessed David opening this very mystery, and saying, I will wash my hands in innocency, and so will compass Your Altar, O Lord ? The washing therefore of hands is a symbol of immunity from sin.
3. Then the Deacon cries aloud, “Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another. ” Think not that this kiss is of the same character with those given in public by common friends. It is not such: but this kiss blends souls one with another, and courts entire forgiveness for them. The kiss therefore is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and banish all remembrance of wrongs. For this cause Christ said, If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there rememberest that your brother has anything against time, leave there your gift upon the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. The kiss therefore is reconciliation, and for this reason holy: as the blessed Paul somewhere cried, saying, Greet ye one another with a holy kiss 1 Corinthians 16:20; and Peter, with a kiss of charity 1 Peter 3:15 .
4. After this the Priest cries aloud, “Lift up your hearts. ” For truly ought we in that most awful hour to have our heart on high with God, and not below, thinking of earth and earthly things. In effect therefore the Priest bids all in that hour to dismiss all cares of this life, or household anxieties, and to have their heart in heaven with the merciful God. Then ye answer, “We lift them up unto the Lord:” assenting to it, by your avowal. But let no one come here, who could say with his mouth, “We lift up our hearts unto the Lord,” but in his thoughts have his mind concerned with the cares of this life. At all times, rather, God should be in our memory but if this is impossible by reason of human infirmity, in that hour above all this should be our earnest endeavour.
5. Then the Priest says, “Let us give thanks unto the Lord.” For verily we are bound to give thanks, that He called us, unworthy as we were, to so great grace; that He reconciled us when we were His foes; that He vouchsafed to us the Spirit of adoption. Then ye say, “It is meet and right:” for in giving thanks we do a meet thing and a right; but He did not right, but more than right, in doing us good, and counting us meet for such great benefits.
6. After this, we make mention of heaven, and earth, and sea ; of sun and moon; of stars and all the creation, rational and irrational, visible and invisible; of Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Thrones; of the Cherubim with many faces: in effect repeating that call of David’s Magnify the Lord with me. We make mention also of the Seraphim, whom Esaias in the Holy Spirit saw standing around the throne of God, and with two of their wings veiling their face, and with two their feet, while with two they did fly, crying Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Sabaoth. Isaiah 6:2-3 For the reason of our reciting this confession of God , delivered down to us from the Seraphim, is this, that so we may be partakers with the hosts of the world above in their Hymn of praise.
7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.
8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world ; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.
9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls , for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.
10. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins , propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.
11. Then, after these things, we say that Prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples, with a pure conscience entitling God our Father, and saying, Our Father, which art in heaven. O most surpassing loving-kindness of God! On them who revolted from Him and were in the very extreme of misery has He bestowed such a complete forgiveness of evil deeds, and so great participation of grace, as that they should even call Him Father. Our Father, which art in heaven; and they also are a heaven who bear the image of the heavenly 1 Corinthians 15:49, in whom is God, dwelling and walking in them 2 Corinthians 6:16 .
12. Hallowed be Your Name. The Name of God is in its nature holy, whether we say so or not; but since it is sometimes profaned among sinners, according to the words, Through you My Name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles , we pray that in us God’s Name may be hallowed; not that it comes to be holy from not being holy, but because it becomes holy in us, when we are made holy, and do things worthy of holiness.
13. Your kingdom come. A pure soul can say with boldness, Your kingdom come; for he who has heard Paul saying, Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body Romans 6:12, and has cleansed himself in deed, and thought, and word, will say to God, Your kingdom come.
14. Your will be done as in heaven so on earth. God’s divine and blessed Angels do the will of God, as David said in the Psalm, Bless the Lord, all you Angels of His, mighty in strength, that do His pleasure. So then in effect you mean this by your prayer, “as in the Angels Your will is done, so likewise be it done on earth in me, O Lord.”
15. Give us this day our substantial bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. For this Bread goes not into the belly and is cast out into the draught Matthew 15:17, but is distributed into your whole system for the benefit of body and soul. But by this day, he means, “each day,” as also Paul said, While it is called today Hebrews 3:15 .
16. And forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. For we have many sins. For we offend both in word and in thought, and very many things we do worthy of condemnation; and if we say that we have no sin, we lie, as John says. And we make a covenant with God, entreating Him to forgive us our sins, as we also forgive our neighbours their debts. Considering then what we receive and in return for what, let us not put off nor delay to forgive one another. The offenses committed against us are slight and trivial, and easily settled; but those which we have committed against God are great, and need such mercy as His only is. Take heed therefore, lest for the slight and trivial sins against you, you shut out for yourself forgiveness from God for your very grievous sins.
17. And lead us not into temptation, O Lord. Is this then what the Lord teaches us to pray, that we may not be tempted at all? How then is it said elsewhere, “a man untempted, is a man unproved ;” and again, My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various temptations James 1:2? But does perchance the entering into temptation mean the being overwhelmed by the temptation? For temptation is, as it were, like a winter torrent difficult to cross. Those therefore who are not overwhelmed in temptations, pass through, showing themselves excellent swimmers, and not being swept away by them at all; while those who are not such, enter into them and are overwhelmed. As for example, Judas having entered into the temptation of the love of money, swam not through it, but was overwhelmed and was strangled both in body and spirit. Peter entered into the temptation of the denial; but having entered, he was not overwhelmed by it, but manfully swam through it, and was delivered from the temptation. Listen again, in another place, to a company of unscathed saints, giving thanks for deliverance from temptation, You, O God hast proved us; You have tried us by fire like as silver is tried. You brought us into the net; You layed afflictions upon our loins. You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and water; and you brought us out into a place of rest. You see them speaking boldly in regard to their having passed through and not been pierced. But You brought us out into a place of rest; now their coming into a place of rest is their being delivered from temptation.
18. But deliver us from the evil. If Lead us not into temptation implied the not being tempted at all, He would not have said, But deliver us from the evil. Now evil is our adversary the devil, from whom we pray to be delivered. Then after completing the prayer you say Amen ; by this Amen, which means “So be it,” setting your seal to the petitions of the divinely-taught prayer.
19. After this the Priest says, “Holy things to holy men.” Holy are the gifts presented, having received the visitation of the Holy Ghost; holy are you also, having been deemed worthy of the Holy Ghost; the holy things therefore correspond to the holy persons. Then ye say, “One is Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ. ” For One is truly holy, by nature holy; we too are holy, but not by nature, only by participation, and discipline, and prayer.
20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.
23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offense. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. And the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thessalonians 5:23:— To whom be glory and honour and might, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
About this page
Source. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
Yes, Timothy P, share the lecture with your friends and ask them if they, like Cyril, rubbed Jesus’ body, blood soul and divinity, all over their faces prior to eating Him, way up their nostrils in order to get a good whiff:
May I assume that since you have cited Cyril authoritatively that you, like he, still take the bread in your hand, rub it on your face, and then take the wine, while it is still on your lips, rub it between your fingers, and rub it on your eyebrows, and nostrils and ears and eyes. Right? Because that’s how you treat the “real presence” of Christ? By giving Him a good rub all over your face? Right? Because the Holy Roman Catholic Church would never dare to abandon an ancient practice like this one?
Tell me, Timothy P, what would happen at your church if someone came in teaching that when you receive communion, you should take the bread and wine in your hands and give yourself a good facial with them. What would happen? Would everyone line up an congratulation him for restoring the ancient traditions of the church? Or would they run for the doors screaming Sacrilege!
Have you asked your friends yet? If not, why not?
Tim
Timothy K writes
“Yes, Timothy P, share the lecture with your friends and ask them if they, like Cyril, rubbed Jesus’ body, blood soul and divinity, all over their faces prior to eating Him, way up their nostrils in order to get a good whiff:”
Then he also writes
“Tell me, Timothy P, what would happen at your church if someone came in teaching that when you receive communion, you should take the bread and wine in your hands and give yourself a good facial with them. What would happen? Would everyone line up an congratulation him for restoring the ancient traditions of the church? Or would they run for the doors screaming Sacrilege!”
Now what is funny Timothy K is that I have shared this lecture with relatives , friends and those I have debated and you are the first person to remark that what Cyril is describing could be described as a “Sacrilege”. A sacrilege of course would be to show disrespect for the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ. So is Cyril showing disrespect or extreme reverence? Let’s look at the entire passage
“20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries. ”
Well I guess after reading the entire passage no one has ever claimed that Cyril et al were disrespecting the Eucharist until now. And there is that word antitypical. By your definition Cyril believes that symbolic bread and wine are “more precious then gold or precious stones”. Sacrilege or extreme reverence?
Timothy P, you write,
I am the first? You have not studied this much, have you.
Besides, I didn’t ask you what your friends thought about Cyril’s Catechetical lecture. I asked you what would happen at your church if someone came in teaching that when you receive communion, you should take the bread and wine in your hands and give yourself a good facial with them.
What what they do at your Church, Timothy P? Would they rejoice at the reintroduction of an ancient, apostolic rite?
Tim
I stand corrected. With a billion Catholics why should I be surprised that you would find some one else who focuses on a molehill and ignores the mountain. Actually when I was writing my response I remember how some ultraconservative Catholics felt it was sacrilegious to accept the Eucharist in the hand after so many years on the tongue.
And of course none of my friends expressed any shock at the reverence that was practiced by the handling of the Eucharist. And I really don’t think those in the church I attend would have any problem given the obvious reverence that the lecture shows Cyril’s flock held for the Eucharist. More precious the Gold, There has been an effort to try and get back to some of the most ancient prayers and practices so maybe we will be imitating Cyril et al in the future.
Now of course the difference between I and Kevin and you is that I felt quite free to direct my friends to read the entire lectures 22 and 23 without having to explain to them why Cyril didn’t really mean what it sounds like he meant. Have either of you shared these lectures with your wives without a disclaimer. I may be wrong but I don’t think so. Kevin asked
“How does it become the body and blood of Christ Timothy P? Does the priest make the bread Jesus substantial body Hocus Pocus?”
Cyril points to the miracle of Christ changing water into wine. Strange if Cyril thought the bread and wine were only symbols.
” I’ve already have addressed figure and antitype” exactly. You couldn’t have been more wrong on antitype. Sola Webster didn’t cut it Timothy P just like cutting and pasting isn’t contextual study. But you sound fairly authoritative.
Tim, I was interested to know if you thought Cyril contributed or was part of the apostasy Roman Catholicism? Do you have and opinion on him? I know he died in like 386 and was a bishop in 356 or so. He sold sacramental ornaments history says to feed the poor. It is fascinating to see in just 386 years after the church was established the error that entered in.
Yes, I believe he was part of the apostasy. My point in citing him is to show that even at that point, the idea of the bread and wine turning into Jesus’ body and blood by way of some transubstantial process, was still foreign to him. It was he, after all, who attempted to foist veneration of the cross upon the church, a veneration the true church rejected. I’ve mentioned this in several places in the current series. The Paulicians, among others, refused to bow to a piece of wood, just like the Henricians and Petrobrussians refused to bow to a piece of bread later on.
Thanks,
Tim
Kevin asks of Timothy K
“Tim, I was interested to know if you thought Cyril contributed or was part of the apostasy Roman Catholicism?”
Now of course Kevin is hesitant to attack Cyril because Timothy K is suggesting that Cyril believed that the Eucharist was symbolic but of course Cyril held to the Catholic Faith. Kevin did you even read the lecture I posted?
“9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls , for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.
10. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins , propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.”
Kevin, Cyril is talking about praying for the dead and asking the Saints to pray for us. Cyril , the bishop of Jerusalem , the birthplace of Christianity. Cyril reeks of Catholicism. And Cyril states these traditions were handed down . By the way, I asked Layne if he knew of any Protestant websites that contained a list of quotes from the Church Fathers taken “in context” that deny the real presence. I wanted to compare them to the list of quotes on the Catholic websites that you guys claim are all taken out of context.
Sure, “Cyril states these traditions were handed down.” Cyril also said “Hold fast these traditions undefiled” after saying you should rub Jesus’ body and blood all over your face.
So I’ll ask you again: what would happen in your church if someone came in and started teaching that you should take the bread in your hand, rub it on your face, and then take the wine, while it is still on your lips, rub it between your fingers, and rub it on your eyebrows, and nostrils and ears and eyes? What would happen? Do you think everyone would say, Yes, we need to hold fast these traditions undefiled!?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K writes
“So I’ll ask you again: what would happen in your church if someone came in and started teaching that you should take the bread in your hand, rub it on your face, and then take the wine, while it is still on your lips, rub it between your fingers, and rub it on your eyebrows, and nostrils and ears and eyes? What would happen? Do you think everyone would say, Yes, we need to hold fast these traditions undefiled!?”
Unfortunately when I start mentioning your sharing the writings of the Church Fathers to your friends and relatives without a Protestant commentary attached I think you and Kevin find such an action so upsetting that you stop reading my responses. I’ll post it again
“And of course none of my friends expressed any shock at the reverence that was practiced by the handling of the Eucharist. And I really don’t think those in the church I attend would have any problem given the obvious reverence that the lecture shows Cyril’s flock held for the Eucharist. More precious the Gold, There has been an effort to try and get back to some of the most ancient prayers and practices so maybe we will be imitating Cyril et al in the future.”
Actually I’m glad you brought up the point again, as I mentioned on the previous post that I was aware that some ultraconservative Catholics were upset and felt it was sacrilegious when we started taking the Eucharist in the hand. Don’t know for sure but it appears the statements you gave of those who were upset about the handling of the consecrated bread and wine by Cyril were from that group of ultraconservatives, At least the content of the articles from the titles appears to be suggestive of that.
Just an additional point is I believe the word the writer used is touch, not rub. Obviously Timothy K it would appear that you are trying to leave the impression that at Cyril’s time they were giving themselves a bodily massage with the Body and Blood of Christ. It is obvious from the passage that the whole process was carried out with extreme devotion so that not a particle would fall to the floor. And notice the fact that the writer believed that the bodily parts which were just touched by the Body and Blood were “hallowed” by the action, just one more piece of evidence of their belief that the consecrated bread and wine were indeed the Body and Blood of Christ and not some symbolic bread as you suggest.
Timothy P wrote
Are you saying that the Church does not currently do with the elements what Cyril did?
Tim
Thank you Tim. Dr Walvord once said the power and rise of the Bishop was the diminishing of the priesthood of believers. This is the great example how those who disagreed with apostasy they saw had no recourse nor power to change it, left only with fleeing as Rev 12 teaches us. But the word says if you are persecuted for doing good you are blessed. So despite the Roman Catholic antichrist defining their history, their reward is in heaven!
Timothy P , your statement about going to your friends and having them read the lectures” without having to explain to them why Cyril didn’t mean what it sounds like he meant”, reveals your RC presupposition. Iow, why would I want them to dig into the context, Greek, and broader context meaning when , hey, it sounds Roman Catholic . Protestants don’t do that. We dig into scripture to find the meaning in context. That involves working from the verse back to paragraph and so forth. It involves understanding the language and historical context etc. It isn’t he guys what does this sound like to you. You said you are working your way through the articles here Timothy. How’s it going?
” just one more piece of evidence of their belief that the consecrated bread and the wine were indeed the body of Christ and no some symbolic bread” Cyril ” in the FIGURE of the bread” keep telling yourself Timothy P.
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said: ““He said before the bread is ‘set aside by the church’ it was common bread.””
Of course, he did. That’s exactly my point. Once it is set aside by the church for the collection, it is no longer common, being both earthly and heavenly.”
But you are missing my point. Irenaeus is specifically talking about the Eucharist. And so is the Westminster Confession. The “setting aside by the Church” and the “duly set aside” is for the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not for alms giving. You are trying to associate it with alms giving when the association is not there. Irenaeus changed the subject to the Eucharist when he said “our opinion is based on the Eucharist”. Did you really not catch the transition?”
TIM K.–“Are you saying that it becomes Christ’s flesh and blood during the collection for the poor?”
No.
TIM K.– “The bread is set aside for the poor and needy.”
So, in the Lord’s Supper service in your congregation, do you actually give the bread and the wine gifts to the poor and needy instead of eating it yourselves? How does that give you hope in the resurrection and life eternal?
TIM K.–“What’s missing in Irenæus is the actual consecration—”the invocation of God” that was supposed to change the bread into Christ’s flesh. Turns out, he says it becomes heavenly by the setting aside, not by the invocation of God,”
I see how the “setting aside by the Church” for the sacramental purpose, and “the invocation of God” can mean the same thing. I guess it’s just a matter of interpretation. Shall we flip a coin to decide who is right? 😉
TIM K.–“What do you mean by ‘consecration’?
The invocation of God.
TIM K.– “That’s the invocation of God when the bread and wine become Christ’s flesh. At the setting aside, it just ceases to be common. It just isn’t Christ’ body and blood at that point. Not in Roman Catholicism, and certainly not in Irenæus.”
No, not certainly. It is debatable.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, you wrote,
Not sure I understand. In paragraph 2 of this chapter Irenæus wrote,
That’s the setting aside Irenæus is talking about, and it’s in the context of making a contribution for the poor. Are you saying that’s when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? When the bread and wine are set aside for the Lord’s purposes? That’s the “invocation of God”?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said: “”Layne, you wrote,“But you are missing my point. Irenaeus is specifically talking about the Eucharist.””
Not sure I understand. In paragraph 2 of this chapter Irenæus wrote…”
I was not talking about paragraph 2. The context had been transitioned to the rite of the Eucharist , not tithing and almsgiving. He specifically said so. You did not follow that transition.
TIM K.–“That’s the setting aside Irenæus is talking about, and it’s in the context of making a contribution for the poor.”
Really? Is the “setting aside” here translated from the Greek the same as “invocation of God”?
TIM K.– “Are you saying that’s when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? When the bread and wine are set aside for the Lord’s purposes? That’s the “invocation of God”?”
When referring to the consecration in the rite of the Eucharist, yes. I don’t know how you do it in your congregation, but in the Catholic rite, we “set aside” bread and wine specifically for the sacrament. And obviously the Westminster Confession indicates that Presbyterians do to.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
You wrote,
And then to attempt to explain your understanding of paragraph 5, you insisted,
That’s not true. First Eucharistia is used in the early church to refer to the food set aside for the poor as a thank offering, and to the elements prior to consecration, and to the elements after consecration. In paragraph 4, Irenæus refers to the errant opinion of the heretics who offer to God the fruits of creation and insult Him when they think they are thanking Him by offering to Him “what is not His own,” and then says the opinion of the Christians is much more consistent in the Eucharist (the thanksgiving) because in the Eucharist we “we offer to Him His own,” then keeps right on talking about an offering to God for the hungry and poor. The “transition” which you are insisting upon is based solely on your assumption that the Eucharist here is that which has received the invocation of God, and “the invocation of God” simply isn’t in the text, Layne. Your whole arguement is based upon something that isn’t even true. There is no “transition” in paragraph 5. He is talking about almsgiving the whole time.
You continued,
I wasn’t talking about my congregation. I as talking about Irenæus.
I wasn’t talking about the Catholic rite. I was talking about Irenæus.
“… And obviously the Westminster Confession indicates…”
I wasn’t talking about the Westminster Confession. I was talking about Irenæus.
It’s amazing to me, Layne, that you consider paragraph 2 of the chapter under discussion to be a distraction and irrelevant, but you’re perfectly fine attempting to read paragraph 5 through the lens of Roman Catholicism and the Westminster Confession.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne,
You observed,
Of course he is. Did you think I believed otherwise? You continued,
Do you believe the Westminster confession is the proper context for understanding a 2nd century document?
You continued,
Thank you for attempting to use the Westminster confession as a lens through which to interpret Irenæus. You accuse me of trying to associate the offering with almsgiving, and based on the Westminster confession you claim that the association is not there in Irenæus? That’s a pretty empty argument, Layne. The association is there because in context, Irenæus never stops talking about setting aside the fruit of our labor to take care of the poor:
paragraph 1: The oblation of the Church
paragraph 2: but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, … as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God.
paragraph 3: but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend
paragraph 4: Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus… (Phil 4:18)
paragraph 6: Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift … “He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord.” Proverbs 19:17 For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says: “… For I was an hungered, and you gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink: …” Matthew 25:34, etc.
The whole chapter is about providing for those in need, feeding the poor and giving them drink. He didn’t stop talking about it in chapter 5. The opinion the heretics need to alter, according to Irenæus, is their opinion that when they offer to him the fruits of creation they are offering “what is not His own.” Still talking about offering food in accordance with Philippians 4:18 (paragraph 4) and providing for the needy in accordance with Matthew 24:35 (paragraph 6). Context, Layne. Context.
When Irenæus states that the bread of earth is also heavenly, it is because the bread, which came from earth has been offered in heaven, which he says in the same paragraph (6) as the reference to the feeding of the poor and needy.
Your whole argument to this point has been that Irenæus refers to “the invocation of God” and it turns out in the Greek he says no such thing. “προσλαμβανομενος την εκκλησιν του Θεου” does not mean “the invocation of God,” which the latin translator inserted. You continued,
Thank you for attempting to use a 21st century church service as a lens through which to interpret a 2nd century document, Layne. That is simply ridiculous. You continued,
All based on a latin mistranslation, the Westminster Confession and a modern church service. That’s the core of your argument.
Layne, you said consecration means “The invocation of God”. The invocation of God is missing in the text and context of Chapter 18. The whole chapter is about setting aside food for the poor, from start to finish. He did not take a brief detour in paragraph 5 to discuss transubstantiation and then return to the offering for the poor in the next paragraph.
In context, there is no question. That’s the beauty of the protestant position. The statements of the early church stand by themselves without all the hermeneutical back flips Roman Catholics have to make to get the early church fathers to fit into their late 4th century paradigm. The only way for them to do it is to import modern concepts into 2nd century documents. Phil and Timothy P did it with Hebrews 9, and now you are doing it with Irenæus.
Best,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said– “Not sure you have the mass right, though. The way you described it, the sacrifice takes place when the bread is just common bread, and then when it is changed into the body and blood of Christ, it is no longer common, and is given to men to eat.”
Yes. That is the correct sequence.
You then said–“But no more mention of offering the Body and Blood of Christ to God. Did you miss the step where the body and blood is offered to God after the consecration?”
Yes, I guess I did. We present ourselves as a living sacrifice–we, the Body of Christ with Him as the Head. I figure it is better to present ourselves to God with Christ than without him, don’t you agree?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
Not sure I understand the sequence. Are you offering yourselves as living sacrifices before or after the consecration?
Thanks,
Tim
Layne, you do know that Eucharist means thanksgiving not bread?
Kevin said–
“Layne, you do know that Eucharist means thanksgiving not bread?”
Yes.
For what it’s worth Justin Martyr did not seem to have a problem understanding when the bread was no longer common bread. He wrote
“And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” – (First Apology, 66)g
And of course Irenaeus writes
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
I don’t think there is much question when the Bread is no longer common bread in the opinion of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and is just another example of focusing on mole hills and ignoring the mountain of evidence. And “when is the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ made”. Irenaeus says when the bread and wine “receives the Word of God”.
Timothy P, context and the original text are not “molehills.” Is it your opinion that Eucharist (ευχαριστία) in the early church only refers to bread that has been transubstantiated by the invocation?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy P, how many times have you posted this quote, a 100. How you doing with working through Tim’s articles The Praise was their Sacrifice and The Rise of Roman Catholicism. Are you ready to discuss them yet?
How many times have you shared that quote with your friends Kevin,. Zero!!! It’s a long article but I thought I only had to read The Praise was their Sacrifice. And you still haven’ given me those Protestant websites where I can find a list of quotes denying the real presence taken in context. If fact it seems on a lot of catholic web sites I can find lists of quotes from the Church Fathers that support a myriad of Catholic beliefs but never seem to find similar lists on Protestant websites. Very strange
” In fact it seems on allot other Catholic websites I can find a list of quotes from the church father’s that support a myriad of Catholic beliefs but never seem to find similar lists on Protestant site” how about looking around the Protestant site here. Incidentally, Mathew 7 says narrow is the gate to heaven and few find it, and broad is the road to destruction and many there go by. So according to your philosophy and the scripture your in the wrong dugout.☺.
“Lists of quotes”?
So Kevin, you interpret that scripture that if you belong to a large domination you are more likely to go to hell then if you belong to a small Church. Interesting.
Jesus said enter through the narrow gate. The word is turnstile. He says few enter by it. The gate to destruction is broad and wide and many enter by it. ” You interpret that scripture that if you belong to large denomination you are more likely to go to hell than if you belong to a small church” No, I was responding to your point that because there are more Catholic positions on the fathers that makes Rome correct. Not true. It’s about the truth of scripture, that’s all.
Tim, reading your last response to Layne it hits me like a bullet the sheer misinterpretation and wilful reading of Roman Catholicism into Iranaeus. First that the whole context is setting aside from God’s creation for the poor as the sacrifice and oblation being made into the sacrifice of Christ’s flesh and blood propitious for sins. What an amazing and misleading move by antichrist Rome. And then on top of that the insertion of the Latin ” invocation of God” which wasn’t in the text. Wow! Just like Jerome inserting do penance for repentance and wrongfully interpreting Daikaiou in Greek to count righteous to mean to make righteous. The cunning of the devil can’t be underestimated. K
Exactly, Kevin,
Timothy P has been pasting this same argument over and over again here, thinking by the sheer repetition of the words, he will win the case. From the beginning, he has insisted that Irenæus’ comments close the case based on the change that takes place at the invocation of God:
And I have asked him from the beginning to evaluate the context in which the statements were made, and he has refused to do so. He is indignant when I ask. And when you actually examine the context, and the text itself, it turns out that the words “when it receives the invocation of God” aren’t even in the original text. The whole basis of Timothy P’s argument is the “fact” of Irenæus’ “emphasis on the change that takes place after the Word of God is pronounced over the elements,” and Irenæus never actually says that.
Layne made the same mistake, thinking that Irenæus had made a reference to the “invocation of God” in the text and based (and still bases) his argument on something Irenæus didn’t even write. All Irenæus said was “set aside in the church of God.” Lacking evidence for transubstantiation, the latin translator had to interpret that as “invocation of God,” and scholars have for a long time followed the latin rendering, and both Layne and Timothy P based their entire argument on that intentional mistranslation. And yet Irenæus himself states that the first fruits are set aside in the church, offered to God in accordance with Philippians 4:18 and are heavenly (paragraph 6) based not on the invocation of God but because they are offered on an altar that is not on earth but in heaven. No transubstantiation is in Irenæus’ mind, and the “change” that takes place to make them heavenly is that they are set apart for the Lord’s use, in accordance with Proverbs, 19:17, “He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord,” before any words of invocation are ever made. By the time Irenæus refers to the invocation of God (see Fragment 37), the oblation of the church is over, and all that is left is to use the antitypical, symbolical, figurative elements of bread and wine as a figure of Christ’s body and blood that Christ’s sacrifice may thereby be exhibited to the elect. That’s it. There was never any transubstantiation in Irenæus, and no “real presence” either.
So what does Layne do in response to the original text? He cites the Westminster Confession and a modern presbyterian church service. What does Timothy P do? He cites Justin Martyr. Anything at all except the context in which Irenæus wrote.
Timothy P, show your mistake to your friends and ask them what they think about your argument now that it turns out the linchpin of your entire case turned out to be a figment of your imagination because you couldn’t be troubled to examine the original text and the context in which Irenæus was writing. Let us know what they tell you when you explain to them that you fell for the latin rendering, “percipiens invocationem Dei” (when it receives the invocation of God) as a translation of the greek “προσλαμβανομενος την εκκλησιν του Θεου” (set aside in the church of God).
And please do not continue to paste the same empty, silly argument over and over again without considering the context in which Irenæus was writing. There’s no “real presence” there. There’s not even “the Word of God is pronounced over the elements”, which is what Roman Catholics require for transubstantiation in the first place.
Best,
Tim
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
You asked–“Not sure I understand the sequence. Are you offering yourselves as living sacrifices before or after the consecration?”
I answered this yesterday. It is not listed here today. Are you censoring my responses?
–Layne
No I am not censoring your responses. All comments from you are currently, and have always been, under moderation, and I release them as I have time and as I see fit.
Thanks for your patience.
Tim
If transubstantiation falls, the fake mass sacrifice fails, works righteousness fails, Roman Catholicism fails, Catholics are without hope. Our hearts should break for them because there hope is based on Satan’s lie. Lord lift the veil on the eyes of these that they may see your true gospel and believe in it.
Layne said ” I don’t know how you do it in your congregation” Layne, John Calvin said the Lord’s supper is no a sacrifice, but rather a meal where God nourishes our faith. Christ is present in the Lord’s supper through his word and his Spirit, not his physical body. His body is in heaven. He has a body liken ours. There is no cosmic Jesus flying around on every altar in the world. Jesus said He wouldn’t eat with us until He returns. He sent us the Spirit. The Lord’s supper is not a mass. We are giving thanks and remembering a redemption we already have Ephesians 1:7. Redemption has been accomplished and it belongs to everyone who repents and believes in the gospel. You can’t earn it nor do we deserve it. Paul says we are justified FREELY by his grace simply by believing his words 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. Your church says a man is justified COOPERATING with his grace, meaning your works are partially responsible for your acceptance before God. We are living out an acceptance we already have because the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us through faith. Each mass is a sacrifice in itself according to Trent. It is propitious for sins. The Catholic earns or merits the increases of his salvation by doing it. The Catholic Church historically is called by Rome the work of the people. It is anti gospel. We don’t work for salvation, it’s a gift Romans 6:23.
TIM KAUFFMAN–
You said: “He did not take a brief detour in paragraph 5 to discuss transubstantiation and then return to the offering for the poor in the next paragraph.”
You accuse me of trying to prove transubstantiation in the context. I have done nothing of the sort. Show me and everyone else where I have done that, please.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, where did I accuse you of trying to prove transubstantiation in the context?
Timothy P says:
“Layne, one of the things which I find so fascinating about this debate is the listing of quotes from the Church Fathers and their belief in the real presence on Catholic websites… Layne have you ever seen a list of quotes from the Church Father’s on any Protestant apologetic website denying the real presence?”
No, I have not. I would imagine if there were any they would have presented them. It is interesting to note how inconsistent they are on how to tell who is the True Church. There are no writings of these groups telling of what they believed. So one has to rely on what the “Antichrist Romanist Papists” say against them as heresies to prove that they are the True Church. At least that is what Tim says in his series “Come Hell or High Water.” And then when Mark Rome talks about the heresies that are leveled against the Paulicians, Tim says you can’t trust those claims as being true because it came from the Antichrist…!
Go figger.
Thanks–
–Layne
Timothy P, Layne,
You are expecting protestants to assume that every reference to bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ in the ECFs to be a reference to the “real presence,” irrespective of context, even though not one of the citations you have provided contains the words “real presence.” But to disprove your assertions, which contain no actual explicit references to the real presence, you require protestants to come up with a list of quotes from the ECFs explicitly denying the real presence. In other words, you expect Protestants to assume the Roman Catholic position on the ECFs is true, and then wrestle with the implications of that. It’s not going to happen.
You say Justin Martyr affirmed the “real presence,” but he admits that the only thing the church offers is thanks and praise. Not Christ’s flesh.
You say Cyril of Jerusalem affirmed the real presence because he says to hallow your eyes and ears with a piece of bread and the wine (as if everything holy must of necessity be Christ’s flesh and blood!). Yet Cyril’s instructions not to spill the bread and wine are clearly instructions to first time catechumens, instructing them that this institution is significant enough to us that its best not to grab the cup with extended arms or accept the bread in your hands with your fingers splayed, resulting in a spill.
You say Cyprian of Carthage affirmed the “real presence,” but he says himself that Jesus could not have offered believers his blood to drink until after He had been trampled down and pressed, which did not happen until the day after the last supper.
You say Irenæus supports the “real presence” because at the invocation of God the bread is suddenly heavenly as well as earthly, and yet Irenæus does not actually say “the invocation of God,” and further, he explains explictly in the very chapter that it is heavenly because it is offered in heaven, in accordance with Phil 4:18. There’s no “real presence” to be found.
You say Ignatius of Antioch affirmed the “real presence” because he said the heretics don’t believe the eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Yet Ignatius also says the flesh of Christ is faith and the blood of Christ is love. Stop the presses! The early church believed in the “real presence” of faith in the Eucharist! [p’shaw]
Not one of the quotes you have ever provided actually says “real presence,” Timothy P. And the ones you do provide don’t even always say in the greek what you have purveyed in the english.
If the early church really believed in the real presence, kneeling would have been required on the Lord’s day rather than forbidden for 1,000 years!. Then suddenly in the 11th century, the church suddenly becomes aware of the “real presence” and starts kneeling at the consecration? You’ve got 1,000 year of history to explain before you can start asking Protestants to “prove” that the early church denied the real presence. They had no idea what either of you are talking about. Why don’t you start by providing a single quote that actually says “real presence” before demanding that I provide one denying it. It’s plain enough that the early church had not the first clue of what you are claiming was obvious to them.
Layne, you said,
You know very well what the context of my response was. I have maintained, and still maintain, that you can use the evidence Antichrist puts forth in order to extract from that evidence what the Paulicians were actually teaching, and therefore you can reject the condemnation of heresy. It’s called “taking Rome’s analysis with a grain of salt.” It’s the accusation of heresy that I reject. When considered in the context, the evidence actually exonerates them of the charges. Even the Roman accusers were befuddled by the fact that the “heretics” denied the charges, and mysteriously affirmed Mary as the mother of Christ, celebrated the Lord’s Supper, and appeared outwardly orthodox, “but” (so their accusers said, “only to deceive the simple.” When you have multiple accusers claiming heresy, but continuously frustrated in their efforts to nail down the actual charges, and even marveling that they were able to trick people by their upright and moral lives, and orthodox professions, the charges are trumped up and the verdict of heresy can be dismissed.
Have a good day,
Tim
LAYNE, word of advice, Tim K. will put you in moderation for saying things that he can’t answer. His blog is nothing more than propaganda. It lacks any source credibility and any credibility even from the people he cites. (As I demonstrated).
He’ll continue to box you in to minutia hoping you’ll go away, but you realize that he isn’t open to rational debate. This is a guy who has studied the ECFs until his eyes bulged out of his head hoping to counter every single argument from the Catholic Church. Every month he struggles to produce some article which disproves Catholicism.
What it does, however, is strengthen my faith. The ECFs were ALL Catholic! His “true church” theory rests on making heretics, which he would classify as heretics, being some part of the “true church.” Except these same “true church” individuals or groups are also heretics. He has NO ANSWER for this paradox.
Tim K. is a false teacher. Plain and simple. I pray for him.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark, you wrote,
I have never classified Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Ærius of Sebaste, Sarmatio and Barbatianus and the Paulicians as heretics. But thank you for demonstrating why you personally are under permanent moderation: because you intentionally and repeatedly make false statements in order to create strife, confusion and distraction.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim K. wrote, “I have never classified Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Ærius of Sebaste, Sarmatio and Barbatianus and the Paulicians as heretics. ”
How much heresy are you willing to accept from groups you hold up as the “true church”? You refuse to answer my questions about the Paulicians and have moderated nearly all if not all of my comments to you about them.
” repeatedly make false statements in order to create strife, confusion and distraction.”
Really? This is just ad hominem.
Mark, or David, or who ever is submitting comments under this name today,
You wrote: ““His “true church” theory rests on making heretics, which he would classify as heretics, being some part of the “true church.””
Your question “how much heresy are you willing to accept” is based on your false statement that I classify any of them as heretics. Before you go any further, please explain why you said I “would classify [them] as heretics.” I have never done so, and I have never been willing to do so. Why do you say something false in order to bolster your position?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Do you consider any of these beliefs heresy?
– Believing there is a God who made and governs the material world and a God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored
-Rejecting the Old Testament
-Denying the incarnation
-Believing Christ was an angel sent into the world by God
-Rejecting the Epistles of St. Peter
David, are you even paying attention? Why would you ask such a question?
Tim
It’s a valid question. I am establishing that you would also consider the Paulicians heretics. I define heretics as those who believe and teach heresy.
If you believe any of these things are considered heresy then by my definition you believe the Paulicians to be heretics because these are things they believed and taught and therefore my statement that you would classify them as heretics is true and valid.
So, do you believe any of these things are considered heresy?
Mark, the Paulicians didn’t believe those things.
Tim
“Mark, the Paulicians didn’t believe those things.”
Okay, Tim K. Have a nice day!
That’s right, Mark. The only evidence you have against them is from the folks who killed 100,000 of them in cold blood. That’s your evidence. I don’t trust you or their accusers.
So, your allegation is false. I most certainly would not classify them as heretics. If you had read my articles on them you would have understood my position from the beginning.
Best,
Tim
It is quite unfathomable that you appeal to the New Testament to support the heresy of Paulician dualism. “The Paulicians were accused of being “dualists,” and yet no evidence exists from their own hands or mouths suggesting that they were any more “dualist” than the New Testament itself is “dualist”: then you quote scripture. (COME HELL OR HIGH WATER, PART 7)
Will you stop at nothing to try and undermine the Catholic Church based on a heretical group? Truth be damned?
Are you a dualist Tim K? You appear to be since you justify Paulicians in their dualist heresy by quoting scripture. Tell us, Tim K., does the “true church” teach dualism based on scripture? Arius taught that Christ was a created being based on scripture. Should we believe Arius as well?
Mark, do you think there is a god of this world that is separate from the Trinity?
Tim
I do not believe there is a god who made and governs the material world as the Paulicians believed.
That is not what I asked.
Mark, do you think there is a god of this world that is separate from the Trinity?
If you are asking me if I believe that Satan is “the god of this world” as it says in 2 Cor 4:4, of course I do. He is also called the “prince of this world” in John 12:31.
This, however is NOT what the Paulicians were referring to, if this is the point you were trying to make.
But Mark, do you think there is a god of this world that is separate from the Trinity?
Land the plane Tim K. I am not answering your question over and over and over again because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. You do this ALL THE TIME and it is tedious and tiresome and quite frankly uncharitable. This is why I said to Layne that you try to bury people in minutia. Since you’ve already got your point in mind you are trying to force me into going against, just land the plane, make your point, and then we’ll discuss.
Mark, you wrote,
It’s not that you aren’t giving me the answer I want. It’s that you’re not answering the question I asked. Mark, do you think there is a god of this world that is separate from the Trinity?
Tim
I’ve already answered you twice. Neither was the answer you wanted. Since now you are into hair splitting, please define “god of this world” and “separate from the Trinity.” Otherwise I can’t give you an adequate response.
That’s interesting, Mark. Something that is plainly taught in the Scriptures (that there is a god of this world, separate from the Trinity), and you are ashamed to answer in the affirmative. I’m curious to know why. It’s a yes or no question, and yet you fear to answer in a manner consistent with the Scriptures.
Tim
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? I’ve already answered it:
Mark Rome
AUGUST 18, 2017 AT 2:23 PM
“If you are asking me if I believe that Satan is “the god of this world” as it says in 2 Cor 4:4, of course I do. He is also called the “prince of this world” in John 12:31.
This, however is NOT what the Paulicians were referring to, if this is the point you were trying to make.”
Mark, I was not asking you if you believe “Satan is “the god of this world””. I asked you if you believe there is a god of this world, separate from the Trinity.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K., so, you have no response? Why don’t you want to define “god of this world”?
It doesn’t matter to me who you think it is Mark. I’m just asking you if you believe there is a god of this world, separate from the Trinity. It’s a yes or no question. The god of this world could be Jupiter, Zarkon, Thor or Satan as you please, I don’t care who you think it may or may not be and I’m not asking.
Why are you so reluctant simply to provide a yes or a no without going on tangents about who it might be and what the Paulicians may have believed?
Thanks,
Tim
I’ve already given you an answer from Sacred Scripture. Why is the Bible not good enough for you? Why do you ignore my answer?
“The god of this world could be Jupiter, Zarkon, Thor or Satan.” Actually, the Bible only mentions Satan.
If you have another definition other than what the Bible says, please share it, otherwise I’ve answered your question.
Do you agree with the Paulicians that there is a god who created and maintains this world? This is the “true church”?
Oh, I see,
You believe Satan is a god and that he is a member of the Trinity. At least, in all of my questions to you, you have never acknowledged that he is separate from the Trinity.
Thanks!
Tim
PS: See how your words can be twisted under interrogation? I don’t think you really believe Satan is a part of the Trinity. And yet I asked you five times, and in your many answers, you always left that part out of your answer. What else can I conclude but that you think Satan is a member of the Trinity? Less scrupulous men would have concluded that very thing, but I know better than to do so. But those who interrogated the Paulicians were not so scrupulous. That is why you believe, quite erroneously, that they were “dualists,” and yet they were no more “dualist” than you are.
You continued,
Of course there is a God who created and maintains this world!!! Did you not know this?
Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:3
😉
(See? No, I don’t think you do.)
Tim
Interesting that Mark Rome says that mistranslating “την εκκλησιν του Θεου” as “the invocation of God” is minutia. The term actually means “the church of God.” Translating it as “the invocation of God” is absolutely necessary to make Irenæus have the elements of the Eucharist changed into Christ’s flesh in Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18. Irenæus wrote in Greek, and “the invocation of God” is the latin mistranslation. You absolutely have to have that mistranslation to get the change Mark Rome wants in that passage. So Mark wants us to ignore the greek, and just accept the latin, even though it is a mistranslation. Facts don’t matter. All that matters is that the mistranslation supports Roman Catholicism.
Timothy P says focusing on what Irenæus actually wrote in Book IV, Chapter 18 is just making a mountain out of a molehill. The original greek in Book IV chapter 18 (the church of God) says something totally different than the latin translation (the invocation of God), and because it doesn’t support Timothy P’s Roman Catholic preconceptions, the difference in translation is just a molehill. Facts don’t matter. All that matters is that the mistranslation supports Roman Catholicism.
Layne thought Irenæus had stopped talking about the offering for the poor just because Irenæus mentioned the Eucharist in paragraph 5, even though in paragraph 5, Irenæus plainly says Christians are more consistent in offering to Him “His own” creation than the heretics are for offering to Him that which is not “His own,” and “His own” here is simply food products from creation in accordance with Phil 4:18 and Matthew 24:35 and Proverbs 19:17—which Irenæus keeps right on talking about in paragraph 6. And Layne argues his case based on what? The invocation of God! Something that isn’t even in the text. Facts don’t matter. All that matters is that the mistranslation supports Roman Catholicism.
The Roman apologists’ apples don’t fall far from Jerome’s and Ambrose’s tree, that’s for sure. Ambrose says Nicæa forbade 2nd marriages. But Nicæa simply said second marriages were perfectly lawful and those getting reconciled with the church better get used to it (canon 8). Facts don’t matter! All that matters is that Ambrose’s mistake supports Roman Catholicism. Jerome says Nicæa placed Antioch over the whole diocese of the east, but at the time of Nicæa, the diocese of the east included Alexandria, and three provinces of the east were specifically excluded from Antioch’s authority by Nicæa. No matter! All that matters is that Jerome’s mistake supports the Roman Catholic position.
The latin mistranslation is plainly wrong in Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18. Irenæus wrote in greek. Should we go with the latin or the greek? I say we should go with the greek. Roman apologists say we should go with whichever one supports the Roman Catholic position.
That’s all you need to know about Roman Catholic position. Actual facts are minutiæ and molehills.
Tim
Tim, this whole discussion God will use to show how Roman Catholics have little interest in detail or context in scripture or the early church. I can remember years ago attending a mass with our friend Debbie because I was interested to see a Catholic service. The women there with their scapulars on and trinkets in hand. The priest performing what Dabenet called the grand opera of the poor in their ritual to command God by the priests words to come down again on the altar. This antichrist religion makes people feel good that they are safe in the hands of the church, not knowing this very church is the very fulfilment of the awful religion of Judaism and a false hope to those under the delusion of 2 Thessaloonians 2:11 who can’t see the simple gospel of scripture. You have made a compelling eschatological and historical argument. But they also must be told law in not faith Galatians 3. Any attempt to earn God’s favor with their works God will reject. Their whole religion and sacramental system is based on that pressuposition leading people to hell. They have no excuse before God.
” actual facts are minutia and molehill” Tim, but what can we expect huh . Satan is the father of all lies, and Catholicism is built a whole system on Satan’s lies. It’s pretty obvious if one wants to dig and look that Satan’s biggest tool in this world is the Roman Catholic Church. But, Catholics will have no excuse because Jesus clear warning is for all to see ” If someone comes to you and says I am the Christ, don’t believe him.” Matt. 24:23, Mark 13:21. And then keep yourselves from idols 1 John 5:21. Rome claims to be Christ and asks it’s people to worship a created thing. Mark, Layne, Timothy P will have no excuse. They have hardened their heart to the truth of scripture and the simple gospel.
Timothy F. Kauffman —
First, are you going to post my response to Timothy P’s question directed to me so that he can see that I am not just blowing him off?
Second,
You asked– “Layne, where did I accuse you of trying to prove transubstantiation in the context?”
Ok, my mistake. Maybe “accuse” is too strong of word. “Assume” would be a better word.
There is no proof for transubstantiation just like there is no proof that Jesus is currently existing in His resurrected and glorified flesh and blood. The only proof that anyone has is the BELIEF that the early church had of the “presence” of the Body and Blood in the Eucharistic Rite evidenced in their writings. What form that “presence” is in can only be discerned by faith–spiritually not carnally. I seriously doubt that any writers in the beginning centuries of Christianity even knew how to explain that “presence” in terms other than how they actually said it– “this IS the Body of Christ…this IS the cup of His Blood. And one thing is for certain, those writers said that the bread was changed from common bread to the Body and Blood. The question that seems to be debatable is HOW that takes place.
As far as Irenaeus is concerned, he believed the bread had two REALITIES–earthly and heavenly. The earthly reality is not debatable. We experience that reality everyday. Any one who doubts that would be deemed odd if not outright crazy. It is definitely real. The heavenly reality, on the other hand, is physically indiscernible. One cannot touch it, see it, hear it, smell it, or taste it. You cannot measure its dimensions, nor can you weight it. So, is it real? As a Catholic, I can truly say it’s FAITH ALONE that tells us it is.
Irenaeus words seem to indicate the bread was set aside for a special purpose. Is that “setting aside” only for alms for the poor? Or do his words indicate that the bread is set aside not only for alms, but also for the special rite of the Eucharist for the Church to eat? (the perfected oblation of Fragment 37 when “we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”)
Notice the similarities of Fragment 37:
“in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal”
AND
Book IV Ch. 18 p.5:
“so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Tim, you believe that Irenaeus in p. 5 is referencing the Eucharist through the lens of alms for the poor. I believe that he is referencing alms for the poor through the lens of the Eucharist. That is why I believe that “the setting aside for the Church” can mean “invocation of God” (invoke the Holy Spirit)in this particular context.
So, does Irenaeus use the exact Greek words and phasing for the “setting aside” in p. 2 as he does in p. 5? It would be interesting to compare.
Thanks–
–Layne
Thank you, Layne,
The problem with your argument is that in the context of Book IV, chapter 18, the people’s goods are set aside “for the Lord’s purposes,” which is the very definition of ‘sanctified’. The bread taken or set aside by the church, or we could say “received by the church,” (proslambano is rendered both ways in the NT), is set aside for the Lord’s purposes, and is therefore holy, before any words of consecration are spoken. We agree that the bread has two realities (according to Irenæus), earthly and heavenly, and in the context of this chapter when he is arguing against heretics who offer to God that which is not “His own,” and contrasting it with Christians who offer to Him what is “His own,” it is all in the context of the offering of first fruits of creation, and it is sanctified simply by being set apart for the Lord’s purposes—at the offering for the poor, not at the consecration. And Irenæus simply says now that it is set aside, or “received by the church,” it is now “heavenly,” having been offered in heaven. That’s it. He just keeps on talking about the hungry and poor, from start to finish. That there is an implicit invocation after it is received by the church, I do not deny, for Irenæus himself states elsewhere that after the oblation, the Holy Spirit is invoked, at which point the antitypes of Christ’s body and blood are administered to the faithful.
To that degree, your identification of a parallel between Book IV chapter 18 and Fragment 37 is spot on. In fragment 37, there is an oblation, and then when the offering of the church (identified here as a collection for the poor in accordance with Phil 4:18, Proverbs 19:17, and Mathew 24:35) is complete, the church then invokes the Holy Spirit in order to exhibit Christ’s sacrifice to men. According to Book IV.18, the oblation of the church is the spiritual sacrifice of caring for the poor. What is missing in all of Irenæus’ citations is Christ’s body and blood being offered to God. Prior to invoking the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the earth is offered in heaven—making it both earthly and heavenly. After the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the bread is administered to men, or as he says in Fragment 37, “exhibited” to men.
You, Timothy P, and others have argued based on ‘the invocation of God’, that Irenæus must have the “real presence” in mind when he says that the bread now is now two realities, both earthly and heavenly, because that’s the only way, in your mind, to account for the fact that Irenæus makes a connection between the two realities of the bread and the condition of our bodies after receiving the consecrated bread. But the implications you are making from that connection are still grounded on the words “the invocation of God,” which to you was the very thing that made Christ’s flesh present; which is to say, you are presuming the “real presence” in order to prove the “real presence,” and still presuming it now that “the invocation of God” is shown not even to be in the passage under examination. The ostensible change, in this chapter, took place when it was received by the Church, and that change did not make the bread into Christ, it just made it into heavenly bread, earthly bread that has been set aside for the Lord’s purposes. In fact in the next paragraph, he explains exactly this, for the fruits of the earth have been offered in heaven.
Your other question will shed some light on this:
It would be indeed, but we do not have the greek for paragraph 2. There are other data available to you that will be of interest.
First, Irenæus uses a similar word root each time he speaks of receiving in paragraph 5. I translate it accordingly to bring out the additional parallel:
Here he has made a parallel between the church receiving the bread when it is still an offering for the poor, and Christians receiving the bread after it is consecrated. That’s not how it has been represented by Roman Catholics, or by the latin translation, which tries to connect the change in the bread to the invocation of God, and thus equate the change in us when we receive the bread to the change it incurred when it was ostensibly transubstantiated. That parallel does not exists here.
It is worth noting that when Irenæus actually does talk about the bread receiving the invocation of God, he also acknowledges that our bodies do not really, literally become incorruptible when they receive it (Book V, chapter 2, paragraph 3). Here he says,
Here, when he speaks of the bread receiving (proslambanomena) the word of God, he says that we eat it and die and suffer corruption, or decomposition in the ground.
The problem this causes for Roman Catholicism is that when Irenæus speaks of our bodies becoming incorruptible by the reception of the Eucharist, he does not have the invocation of God (and thus the “real presence” of Christ) in mind—for the change in us is like the change in the bread when it is received by the Church. And when he speaks of our bodies becoming corruptible even after the reception of the Eucharist, he does so in the context of bread that has received the invocation of God, and thus, ostensibly, has the “real presence of Christ” in mind. So much for our bodies becoming incorruptible because of the heavenly reality of the bread after receiving the “invocation of God” and becoming Christ’s actual flesh. There is nothing here that supports the real presence, but I thought you’d be interested in the Greek wording when Irenæus actually refers to the bread receiving the invocation of God.
Speaking of Greek wording, Irenæus refers to the food collected for the poor as Eucharist, even before the Holy Spirit is invoked:
Again, showing that the fruits of the earth are offered by way of gratitude (eucharist) as the pure oblation of the church, and then the Holy Spirit is invoked and the sacrifice of Christ is exhibited to men. I don’t deny that it is Eucharist after the invocation, but it is also Eucharist prior to it as well, and therefore paragraph 5 of Book IV chapter 18 is still contrasting the heretics’ offering to God that which is not His own, with the Christians who offer to God that which is “His own,” and thus “our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion” does not prove that Irenæus has now shifted to a discussion on the “real presence.”
When it comes to the Roman Catholic reliance on Irenæus in the hope that they might find evidence of the “real presence” there, there is nothing here for them.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM KAUFFMAN–
You said– “but we do not have the greek for paragraph 2.”
Ok, back the truck up! Why don’t we have the Greek for paragraph 2? How can you trust paragraph 2 or any other paragraphs if it only comes in Latin? Is that how you are basing your argument on just the passages that are rendered in the Greek? That Greek could have been rendered from the Latin for Protestant purposes. That really is inconsistent.
You also said–“When it comes to the Roman Catholic reliance on Irenæus in the hope that they might find evidence of the “real presence” there, there is nothing here for them.”
If you are defining the “real presence” as transubstantiation, you are absolutely correct. If, however, you are defining the “real presence” that Christ is not really present, then you are sorely mistaken. Again, HOW Christ is really present is debatable and may never be completely determined simply because it is a matter of faith. Tim, when two or more of you are gathered together in your Church, do you believe that He is there in your midst? Is His presence there real or not? Do you believe that you, as Church, are members of His Body–living flesh and bone? Is His presence in you real or not? Are your bodies not really the Temple for the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus certainly believed it.
Man, you gotta have faith for this stuff!
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, you wrote,
No. I am basing my argument on the fact that Irenæus wrote in greek and the latin translation is a barbaric monstrosity from the following century.
The greek is simply more trustworthy, and as Schaff notes in the ante-Nicæan series, the Latin translator “was certainly little qualified for his task.” The Latin translation is from the 3rd century and the greek original was from the 2nd. Where we have only the latin, I am left reading it in order to attempt to understand Irenæus, but it is not completely trustworthy. Where we have the greek, we have arrived at the source. It turns out in the paragraph upon which you have based your entire argument is a paragraph for which we have the greek, and your entire argument is based upon the barbarous latin translation of “receives the invocation of God,” from “received by the church of God,” and you interpreted the “heavenly reality” entirely in the context of that imaginary “invocation of God” which you have said is “the consecration” at which the earthly element is changed to a heavenly reality, as you wrote:
What’s funny is that based on the greek, it turns out that the heavenly reality really is because the bread has been raised to a heavenly reality, and rejecting the greek you have wagered against Irenæus’ actual words based on the barbarous latin. And now the punchline:
That’s a good one, Layne! And I’ll bet the Latin “ante” and the Greek “αντι” both mean “before”! Sure they do! There weren’t protestants in the 3rd century, Layne, and the greek version preceded the latin, so no, your conspiracy theory that the protestants translated the latin original into greek fragments to make it more protestant is, well, it’s just HILARIOUS!
Now that you have defined “real presence” down to “where ever two or more are gathered,” and you have shown that you prefer the barbarous latin translation above the original greek that preceded it by 100 years, and it turns out that your whole argument was based on words that Irenæus didn’t actually write, I’m going to let you keep on fantasizing about conspiracy theories that protestants translated Irenæus’ original latin into the biased greek fragments to remove the “real presence” from the early church fathers, Layne. I’m not going to keep arguing with a man who insisted on his case based on the “invocation of God,” and then insists that the absence of those actual words of consecration don’t change the meaning of Irenæus’ “original Latin” or the basis of your argument (!).
Bye,
Tim
Layne, I think we need to avoid getting into these conspiracy theories when it comes to the early writings of the Fathers. At the same time Timothy K in my opinion likes to make statements based on speculation and not always on fact. When you wrote
“Ok, back the truck up! Why don’t we have the Greek for paragraph 2? How can you trust paragraph 2 or any other paragraphs if it only comes in Latin? Is that how you are basing your argument on just the passages that are rendered in the Greek? That Greek could have been rendered from the Latin for Protestant purposes. That really is inconsistent.”
Now Timothy K responded
“That’s a good one, Layne! And I’ll bet the Latin “ante” and the Greek “αντι” both mean “before”! Sure they do! There weren’t protestants in the 3rd century, Layne, and the greek version preceded the latin, so no, your conspiracy theory that the protestants translated the latin original into greek fragments to make it more protestant is, well, it’s just HILARIOUS!”
Now of course I would agree that there were no protestants in the third century and I have no trouble as I mentioned before accepting the original Greek.
But what I think is HILARIOUS is that Timothy K and Kevin have been suggesting that the Latin translator inserted “the invocation of God” in some type of conspiracy effort against what Timothy K has just admitted was a nonexistent Protestant position. Timothy K wrote
The greek is simply more trustworthy, and as Schaff notes in the ante-Nicæan series, the Latin translator “was certainly little qualified for his task.” The Latin translation is from the 3rd century and the greek original was from the 2nd.”
Now if the Latin translation was from the 3rd century and there were no Protestants in the third century it’s ridiculous to suggest that the translator inserted the phrase to combat a nonexistent heresy. The more rational explanation assuming that the Latin translator was not dealing with a more accurate Greek text of Irenaeus’s writing is that the translator clearly understood that the Eucharist was the consecrated Bread and Wine and naturally had no problem in his view inserting the “the invocation of God” for “set aside in the Church Of God”. Insert the “consecrated Bread and wine”, “the bread and wine offered to the poor” or “thanksgiving” into the quotation in context and obviously one understands the translator’s supposed error. I think Timothy K inserted “[symbols]” after the word antitypes so I would be hesitant to throw stones
Mark and Layne, I have found that sometimes it is best to just insert what Timothy K seems to believe the Fathers are saying and then just see how ridiculous his reasoning is. Now apparently he does not believe that that which is not common bread is not the Eucharist, ie the consecrated bread and wine because the words “receives the invocation of God” is not found in the Greek text that we have. And from what I can tell he believes that this bread that is not common bread is the bread that has been set aside for the poor. So let’s make the substitutions that Timothy K indicates is what Irenaeus meant and see if it makes any sense. We will try the latin translation first, then remove the invocation of God to see how much it appears to change the text and then substitute the bread set aside for the poor for Eucharist since Timothy K believes that the not common bread, is not the Eucharist, ie the consecrated bread and wine
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the Church of God , is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
And Timothy K’s rendition
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Bread set aside for the poor , and the Bread set aside for the poor in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the Church of God, is no longer common bread, but the bread set aside for the poor, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the bread set aside for the poor, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Now Timothy K says
“You absolutely have to have that mistranslation to get the change Mark Rome wants in that passage.”
No Timothy K, even is you leave out the “invocation of God” as I did in the second example it’s obvious Irenaeus is talking about the consecrated Eucharist. He starts the paragraph off with
“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life?”
Why I’m sure Irenaeus wasn’t talking about consecrated bread and wine when he made that statement, he was talking about the bread being given to the poor. Good grief
And then when you make the substitutions you seem to want to make you have those receiving the bread that had been set aside for the poor “are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”.
Well that worked out well didn’t eat. We eat the poor’s bread and get eternal life.
As the quote from Justin Martyr shows the bread is not longer common bread when it is blessed by the prayer of His word.
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” – (First Apology, 66)g”
So much for the molehill, now deal with the mountain.
1. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
2) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
4. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,
5. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.”
That’s pretty funny, Timothy P. We’re right back where we were two years ago when I couldn’t get you to answer a simple question. I asked you,
And this is what I get—great lengths undertaken by you to avoid answering a simple question.
You called it “Timothy K’s rendition,” and yet I never never rendered it that way. That’s your rendition, not mine.
This is why you always get back on moderation: because you excel at red herrings and accusations but refuse to answer the simplest of questions.
Are you unable to answer?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K asks
“Is it your opinion that Eucharist (ευχαριστία) in the early church only refers to bread that has been transubstantiated by the invocation?”
No, the word Eucharist does not “ONLY” refer to the consecrated bread and wine. I don’t remember ever saying Eucharist “ONLY” refers to the consecrated bread and wine. In discussing the difficulty of language how many times have I mentioned that any word may have multiple meanings. I noticed in your article concerning “traps”
“2) The word Eucharist is a transliteration of the Greek word, “ευχαριστια,” and it is translated as “thanksgiving.” Sometimes it refers to the bread, and sometimes it refers to thanks. Thus, the “sacrifice of the Eucharist” does not of necessity imply a sacrifice of “bread,” but rather a sacrifice of thanks. Translating the word “ευχαριστια” as “thanksgiving” instead of transliterating it as “Eucharist” as context demands will help keep out of this trap.”
Obviously context matters and that’s why I gave what I thought was your argument that the Eucharist in Irenaeus’s statement was the bread being set aside for the poor. I wrote
“And Timothy K’s rendition
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Bread set aside for the poor , and the Bread set aside for the poor in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the Church of God, is no longer common bread, but the bread set aside for the poor, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the bread set aside for the poor, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
I thought your argument was that in this specific situation Irenaeus was talking about the bread that had been set aside for the poor. But I can change it to plain “thanksgiving” and see if it makes more sense
6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Thanksgiving , and the Thanksgiving in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the Church of God , is no longer common bread, but the Thanksgiving, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Thanksgiving , are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Mark. Layne and Kevin, which rendition do you guys think makes more sense.
” tell us Mark R. Does the ” true church” teach us there is a special priesthood that have the power to pull Christ down from heaven render him on an altar to re sacrifice Christ? Show us. Your first hurdle is that the word for priest is heirus. It appears 400 times in the OT. It doesn’t appear in the NT. God doesn’t dwell on altars or buildings anymore, but in the heart of true believers. The hypocrisy Mark is staggering. In my opinion in this series Tim has given a formidable historic defense of the Paulicians being defined historically as heretics by antichrist Rome. He proved it IMHO that they were purposely mischaracterized by a religion that wouldn’t recognize orthodoxy if they saw it. The corruption was so great by then inside Rome. And yet you proudly wear the badge of the very evil religion that persecuted God’s faithful. Beware Mark. Scripture says the wrath of God burns 24/7 against unbelievers. You can only imagine the wrath stored for those who support the persecutors of God’s own.
Mark doesn’t want to call the church he argues for Roman Catholic and Timothy P for 2 years won’t say the Eucharist in the early church was transubstantiatiated by the invocation. One thing about false religion, it loves to operate under the appearance of true religion.. And when challenged hides under the cover of darkness. My experience debating Catholics including an ex friend is that they want to debate on blogs under a pseudo name. It’s darkness posing as light. Wonder who that sounds like.
Kevin, I have no idea what you mean when you say, “Timothy P for 2 years won’t say the Eucharist in the early church was transubstantiatiated by the invocation.” I don’t think Timothy P has ever denied this, and has rather insisted that the bread of the Eucharist is transubstantiated by the invocation (or at least at the invocation). I think you have read into my comment what I was not saying. My reference was to a time two years ago when I asked him a question, and I could not get a clarifying answer from him. There was never a time, to my knowledge, that Timothy P refused to say that transubstantiation in the early church occurred at the invocation.
Your propensity for jumping on whatever passing bandwagon appears to be even remotely anti-Catholic irrespective of context and sometimes even irrespective of what is actually being said, is detrimental to whatever cause you think you are advancing.
Also, your judgment of Catholics who “debate on blogs under a pseudo name” is grossly uncharitable especially in light of the fact that you singlehandedly shut down creed code cult because Jason Stellman, despite many direct and impassioned pleas to you, could not get you to stop posting comments under a pseudonym. Who does that sound like, Kevin? For you to say such a thing of them, when you are far more guilty than they, is simply unacceptable.
You have been warned and advised against such behavior so many times by so many people, that I am not going to correct you privately any more. You need to end your harmful addiction.
Tim
Thank you, Tim.
Tim, my error, I was not accurate. I meant to say that he says the bread of the Eucharist is transubstantiated by the invocation. No, I wasn’t reading into your comment, I just mistated what he refuses to say. Please accept my apology. Tim, are you saying after repenting for using pseudo names that I have lost the ability to point out that same deception? You were once a Roman Catholic , does that disqualify you from speaking on the subject? Let me know. I’ll respect your wishes. What addiction are you talking about, I don’t use pseudo names anymore and haven’t for some time. Seems like an unfair shot to me, and I don’t appreciate it. But if that’s the way you feel so be it. Have a good day.
Tim said ” you’ve been warned by so many people against such behavior privately that I’m not going to correct you privately anymore.” This statement tells me you are totally unaware of what God has done in my life. For your information I haven’t used pseudo names since code, creed etc. over 2 years ago, so there would be no need to ” correct me privately” . I have fully repented of many things that needed to change in relationship to my participation on blogs and in my life. Out of the abundance the heart speaks. You have shown me what you think of me. You have kept me in my sins in your mind according to this statement. Fortunately, my hope is in the word that tells me Christ isn’t. Thank you for your post today. What you just said to me in that comment is much worse than anything Walt has ever said to me. All the best.
Kevin, you wrote
“This statement tells me you are totally unaware of what God has done in my life”
Kevin, I want to attest to what God has done in your life. I have been reading your posts for the last couple of years and have come to admire the change that has taken place. While we still obviously disagree on many theological points I can tell you are a much kinder and more humble person then you were at one time. I thank you for your concern for my salvation and hope that you will continue to participate in the discussion. I am very aware of what God has done in your life
Thank you for your kind words Timothy P. K
You are most welcome.
.
TIMOTHY KAUFFMAN–
You said: “What’s funny is that based on the greek, it turns out that the heavenly reality really is because the bread has been raised to a heavenly reality, ”
What is really funny is, because of your conclusion, we are now back to my original question.
You claim that Irenaeus’ Greek really says:
“For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is “set aside by the Church of God”(meaning the setting aside of food for the poor), is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also OUR bodies, when they receive the Eucharist(meaning the setting aside of food for the poor), are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
My question still stands: how can the heavenly reality of bread when OUR bodies receive it (the Eucharist, which is the food that was set aside for the poor, not for us), make us no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection and life eternal?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, what makes you think the “heavenly reality” of the bread is what makes our bodies “no longer corruptible”? Irenæus never says so. You have simply assumed that Irenæus has switched (suddenly) in paragraph 5 to a discussion on the “real presence,” and based on that assumption, you have concluded that the “heavenly reality” of the bread is the real presence of Christ, and that “heavenly reality” of the real presence of Christ makes us incorruptible. In IV.18.5, Irenæus never says the heavenly reality of the bread makes us no longer corruptible.
And yet, when Irenæus actually does refer to the ostensible change that takes place when the word of God is spoken over the elements (V.2.3)—and thereby becoming the body and blood of Christ—our bodies nonetheless remain corruptible:
In any case, your question “how can the heavenly reality of bread when OUR bodies receive it … make us no longer corruptible?”, assumes without evidence that the “heavenly reality of the bread” is what makes us incorruptible. I have not said so. Irenæus has not said so. The only ones to suggest as much are you and Timothy P. So Why don’t you and Timothy P tell my readers: what makes you think the “heavenly reality” of the bread is what makes our bodies “no longer corruptible” if Irenæus never actually says so?
Tim
TIMOTHY P–
I know fully well that there were no Protestants back in the 3rd century. What I didn’t know was that the Latin version was translated in the 3rd century. In the way Tim K. was defending his position, I assumed it was a late Medieval to modern translation to combat Protestantism. Here is why I assumed that:
Something occurred to me about what Tim K. just said about that horrible Latin translation. That bad translation came in the 3rd century. Hmmm…..
I remember in earlier postings Tim K. said to me: “Lacking evidence for transubstantiation, the latin translator had to interpret that as “invocation of God,” and scholars have for a long time followed the latin rendering, and both Layne and Timothy P based their entire argument on that intentional mistranslation. ”
AND:
“The statements of the early church stand by themselves without all the hermeneutical back flips Roman Catholics have to make to get the early church fathers to fit into their late 4th century paradigm. The only way for them to do it is to import modern concepts into 2nd century documents.”
AND:
“I’m sure the latin translator wanted (and needed) that invocation there, and the english translation in Schaff and at newadvent.org follows the latin. That’s the flaw in your position. ”
So here is the flaw in Tim K.’s position. The Latin translation is from the 3rd century, roughly 50 years give or take after Irenaeus. (He died at the turn of the 3rd century.) That is a really early translation for a Roman Catholic who believes in transubstantiation to be corrupting, don’t you think?
” latin translator wanted (and needed) that invocation there”
“The only way for them to do it is to import modern concepts into 2nd century documents”
“Lacking evidence for transubstantiation, the latin translator had to interpret that as “invocation of God,”
“that intentional mistranslation. ”
These are all Tim K.’s words. If what he says is true, then the belief of transubstantiation was there easily 100 years plus BEFORE the late 4th century when he said the Rise of Roman Catholicism began. And, on top of that, most of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and the general basis for Tim K.’s defense can only be read in that “untrustworthy Latin”.
Very interesting, don’t ya think?
–Layne
Thank you Layne! I believe it was an intentional mistranslation. Some scholars place the latin translation as early as the 3rd century based on an argument that Tertullian seems to have used it. Other scholars find that “evidence” for that argument “scarcely convincing” and place the latin translation in the latter part of the 4th. I’m willing to grant you 3rd century solely for the sake of argument based on some scholars placing it there. Your argument was silly and hilarious (protestants intentionally mistranslated Irenæus’ latin original into greek—you do realize that Irenæus wrote in greek, don’t you), but the latin translation is often dated to the end of the 4th century, just when Roman Catholicism appears to have discovered the “real presence.”
Tim
Layne wrote
“These are all Tim K.’s words. If what he says is true, then the belief of transubstantiation was there easily 100 years plus BEFORE the late 4th century when he said the Rise of Roman Catholicism began. And, on top of that, most of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and the general basis for Tim K.’s defense can only be read in that “untrustworthy Latin”. ”
And I obviously agree. But as I mentioned before even if you eliminate the “invocation of God”, it does little to change the meaning of the passages. The key is one’s understanding of the word Eucharist in the passage. Now I thought Timothy K was suggesting in these passages that the Eucharist was the Bread being offered to the poor. However when I inserted “bread set aside for the poor” ,Timothy K responded
“You called it “Timothy K’s rendition,” and yet I never never rendered it that way. That’s your rendition, not mine.”
So elsewhere I saw where Timothy K rightly identified as a meaning of Eucharist as ” Thanksgiving”. But when you substitute that meaning you have
” our bodies, when they receive the Thanksgiving , are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
But we give Thanksgiving, we don’t receive Thanksgiving. So at least it seems obvious to me that by Eucharist in this passage Irenaeus must be speaking of the consecrated bread and wine. And if that is the case, the translator can hardly be accused of trying to change the meaning of the passage by inserting the “invocation of God”
Layne, if you see a flaw in my logic please point it out to me. My request of Timothy K would be to be very specific about what he thinks Irenaeus meant by Eucharist, then we can insert it into the passages and see if it makes any sense.
Timothy P,
I’m not sure which blog you have been reading, but I have never on this blog EVER suggested “that the Eucharist was the Bread being offered to the poor.”
The fact that you believe so explains to me why you are unable to understand what I believe Irenæus was saying, despite my many attempts to explain it.
In Against Heresies, Book IV.18.5, Irenæus says when our bodies receive the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, they change in the same way the bread does when it is received by the church. In other words, when Irenæus spoke of the change in the bread, he wasn’t even talking about the point in the liturgy when the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. The change in IV.18.5 is a change that takes place in the bread without the bread becoming Christ’s body and blood. You would do well to determine what he was actually talking about instead of tying to recreate what you think I think Irenæus was saying based on your assumption that he was talking about the bread becoming the body and blood of Christ. He wasn’t talking about that. So what was he talking about?
Context, Timothy P. You need to focus on context.
Thanks,
Tim
I will try to address what Timothy K suggest is the correct context but Layne maybe you could help me out and explain what the eucharist is in this passage and what you believe Timothy K believes the Eucharist is. I am trying to understand the point he believe Irenaeus is making but it makes no sense to me. So is that which is no longer common bread the bread that has been set aside by the church or is it the Eucharist?
“when it is set aside in the Church of God , is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”
It doesn’t say
“when it is set aside in the church of God, is no longer common bread, but will become the Eucharist”
And if Irenaeus is just focusing on the bread that has been set aside, why does the passage begin with this verse.
. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life?
I just find your exegesis to be extremely twisted.
Timothy P, you wrote,
Good question. I asked you “Is it your opinion that Eucharist (ευχαριστία) in the early church only refers to bread that has been transubstantiated by the invocation?” and you responded, “No, the word Eucharist does not “ONLY” refer to the consecrated bread and wine.” Ok, so why here in paragraph 5 of IV.18 do you insist that it has to be one or the other? You wrote,
“So is that which is no longer common bread the bread that has been set aside by the church or is it the Eucharist? ”
You clearly believe and understand that it is ευχαριστία both before and after the consecration, and yet now you want to bicker about whether is ευχαριστία before or after the consecration? It’s obviously ευχαριστία both before and after. The problem for you is that Irenæus just isn’t making the argument you think he is.
Tim
TIM P says: “I just find your exegesis to be extremely twisted.”
Mine or Tim K.’s?
Timothy K’s. I was asking your assistance to help me understand what Timothy K means by Eucharist. What do you think he means by the term as it pertains to Irenaeus’s comments
TIM P–
You ask: ” help me understand what Timothy K means by Eucharist. What do you think he means by the term as it pertains to Irenaeus’s comments”
I have as hard of time understanding Tim K. as you do. So I have to look at Tim K.’s words through the lens of his Presbyterian beliefs. They believe that Eucharist is a sacramental rite of offering to God thanksgiving and praise called Holy Communion. They believe that the presence of Jesus Christ is very real in Holy Communion, but that the bread and wine are just symbols of the spiritual ideas that communion represents. Presbyterians believe that sacraments serve as just illustrations of things already accomplished in Heaven. Christ’s real presence is not in the bread and wine because the bread and wine are just a memorial to remind them of His sacrifice on the Cross. Catholics, on the other hand, believe a sacrament actually is what it symbolizes. So, that is why I asked the question.
Irenaeus’s quote about the two realities of the bread is a no brainer to Catholics. The heavenly reality of bread would be the Body and Blood of Christ, which would give us hope for the resurrection and life eternal.
With Tim K.’s belief that the heavenly reality of the bread is the sanctification for feeding of the poor, it doesn’t make sense that the bread that we set aside for the feeding of the poor would give us hope for the resurrection and life eternal if we were to eat that bread we set aside for the poor. In other words, we are taking the food away from the poor and eating it ourselves. That would be a despicable thing to do, not something that would give us hope for the resurrection.
Maybe I am not following Irenaeus’ sentence structure properly, or maybe it’s just Greek to me. 😉 Anyway, I would like for Tim to talk me through his logic.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
Ignore my presbyterian beliefs. I am not reading Irenæus through that lens. I am reading a statement by Irenæus in the original greek. The meaning of that statement the original greek is all that matters.
Of course it is. Because Roman Catholics read Irenæus through the lens of the late 4th century.
It “would be” if Irenæus had actually said the change in the bread to make it “heavenly” takes place at invocation of God. Instead he says that the change to make it “heavenly” occurs when it is set aside or received by the church of God in the context of receiving it for the poor and offering it as a sacrifice of praise in heaven. When he says elsewhere that the bread becomes the body and blood of Christ (Against Heresies Book V.2.3 and Fragment 37), it is always at the invocation of God, which is why the latin mistranslation is so crucial to your argument. But the latin is a barbaric translation of the greek, and the greek doesn’t say the invocation of God.
And there’s your other problem, Layne. Irenæus doesn’t say that the “heavenly reality” of the bread is what gives us hope for the resurrection and life eternal. Instead, he says that the change that takes place when the bread becomes heavenly (a spiritual sacrifice according to Phil 4:18) IS LIKE the change that takes place in believers when they receive the consecrated elements. He does not say the change that takes place when the bread becomes heavenly is THE CAUSE of making us incorruptible.
You keep in missing that because you keep assuming that the change Irenæus was talking about that makes it heavenly is the change that makes it into the body and blood of Christ. He doesn’t say that, so as you have been doing since the beginning of this conversation you are arguing entirely on what Irenæus didn’t say, and you are arguing as if it is a no brainer because Irenæus said it. He didn’t.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K, why should I be surprised that you try to twist my words as you do Irenaeus. You state
“You clearly believe and understand that it is ευχαριστία both before and after the consecration, and yet now you want to bicker about whether is ευχαριστία before or after the consecration?”
I clearly said “it is Eucharist both before and after the consecration”?
And am I to assume that you base that statement on my saying
“No, the word Eucharist does not “ONLY” refer to the consecrated bread and wine.”
Now as I said before you were correct in that Eucharist can mean thanksgiving, but I do not remember saying and I do not see in Irenaeus’s comments that he ever says that it is Eucharist before the consecration. Now if he does please quote the verse.
And I don’t see any attempt by you to deal with the quote
“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life?”
So Timothy K, is the unconsecrated bread the “body of the Lord and his blood”?
Timothy K was explaining what Irenaeus was saying
“In Against Heresies, Book IV.18.5, Irenæus says when our bodies receive the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, they change in the same way the bread does when it is received by the church. In other words, when Irenæus spoke of the change in the bread, he wasn’t even talking about the point in the liturgy when the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. The change in IV.18.5 is a change that takes place in the bread without the bread becoming Christ’s body and blood”
Now what is interesting in this analysis is that Irenaeus does not say any of the things that Timothy K says he says. The “in other words” is Timothy K telling us what Timothy K believes Irenaeus means but doesn’t say. If you have to explain what Irenaeus is saying when he didn’t say it then you are purely speculating as to what he meant.
Timothy P,
I’ve already provided evidence that Irenæus called it Eucharist both before and after the consecration.
You wrote,
You are disputing what is a fact:
You actually dispute the veracity of that statement?
Tim
I mentioned that Timothy K will make statements explaining what Irenaeus has said but in many of these situations Irenaeus never said what Timothy K claims he said. Timothy K writes
“You are disputing what is a fact”
The only fact involved as I will show is that your interpretation in many instances is not what Irenaeus actually says, even with the mental gymnastics you try to go through to have Irenaeus mean what you want him to mean.
Now Timothy K wrote
“In other words, when Irenæus spoke of the change in the bread, he wasn’t even talking about the point in the liturgy when the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ.”
You actually dispute the veracity of that statement? ”
Now I don’t know of anyone who believes that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ other then during the liturgy. So what did Irenaeus write
“But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.” Mark 4:28
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Now even eliminating the “invocation of God” it is obvious with Irenaeus starting the discussion with “the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord , and the cup His blood” that the context is the change that occurs during the liturgy.
Of course Irenaeus is talking about a change that occurs during the liturgy. I may be mistaken but even Protestants who consider the bread and wine symbolic would not consider it the body and blood of Christ outside of the liturgy. And of course I asked Timothy K to explain what Irenaeus really meant when he said during the same discussion
“6. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life?”
Timothy P,
Again, I’m not even sure you are reading this blog. You wrote,
Which blog were you reading when you read that Irenaeus is not talking about a change that occurs during the liturgy? You certainly weren’t reading this one.
Thanks,
Tim
Is this your quote?
“In Against Heresies, Book IV.18.5, Irenæus says when our bodies receive the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, they change in the same way the bread does when it is received by the church. In other words, when Irenæus spoke of the change in the bread, he wasn’t even talking about the point in the liturgy when the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ. The change in IV.18.5 is a change that takes place in the bread without the bread becoming Christ’s body and blood.
Of course it is! Your point?
As I mentioned one way of discerning what Irenaeus meant is to simply replace the word in dispute with it’s different meanings and see if it makes any sense. So I tried that with at least what I thought was Timothy K’s take on the word Eucharist to which he responded
“Timothy P,
I’m not sure which blog you have been reading, but I have never on this blog EVER suggested “that the Eucharist was the Bread being offered to the poor.”
But earlier Timothy K had posted the following.
“That’s not true. First Eucharistia is used in the early church to refer to the food set aside for the poor as a thank offering, and to the elements prior to consecration, and to the elements after consecration”
This is why I am so confused, But no matter how you slice it, insert “food set aside for the poor”, “thank offering”, “elements prior to consecration” into Irenaeus’s statement , you have to deal with the sentence ” so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”
Timothy P,
The fact that you think,
is equivalent to
shows why you are unable to read, understand and digest the very plain statements I make here, and further, that you are wholly unequipped to attempt to guess at my understanding of Irenæus by simply inserting into Irenæus what you think I mean.
I simply do not know how anyone could read this blog and conclude that I believe the Eucharist is “Bread being offered to the poor.”
You continued,
Yes. YOU do. You have not done so.
Tim
I do try and go back and read Irenaeus so I can figure out how Timothy K comes up with some of his claims. For example
Timothy K wrote
” I’ve already provided evidence that Irenæus called it Eucharist both before and after the consecration.”
To which I responded
“Now as I said before you were correct in that Eucharist can mean thanksgiving, but I do not remember saying and I do not see in Irenaeus’s comments that he ever says that it is Eucharist before the consecration. Now if he does please quote the verse.”
No verse was given, but Timothy K did state earlier
“Speaking of Greek wording, Irenæus refers to the food collected for the poor as Eucharist, even before the Holy Spirit is invoked:
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks (ευχαριστουντες) in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Fragment 37)”
Now it’s all Greek to me but at least in the translations it appears the “giving Him thanks” is not the same thing as declaring the unconsecrated bread THANSGIVING”. I give thanks for everything in my life, I have not given everything in my life the title Thanksgiving.
As I mentioned before there is this effort among Protestant apologist to simply ignore the overwhelming evidence for the real presence in the writings of Church Fathers and try to then explain what the Father’s meant, But I have trouble even when I go back in the writings trying to figure out where they come up with their explanations. For example , Timothy K in his discussion with Layne wrote
“And there’s your other problem, Layne. Irenæus doesn’t say that the “heavenly reality” of the bread is what gives us hope for the resurrection and life eternal. Instead, he says that the change that takes place when the bread becomes heavenly (a spiritual sacrifice according to Phil 4:18) IS LIKE the change that takes place in believers when they receive the consecrated elements”
Then Timothy K again wrote to Layne
“You keep in missing that because you keep assuming that the change Irenæus was talking about that makes it heavenly is the change that makes it into the body and blood of Christ. He doesn’t say that, so as you have been doing since the beginning of this conversation you are arguing entirely on what Irenæus didn’t say, and you are arguing as if it is a no brainer because Irenæus said it. He didn’t.”
Now my question to Timothy K is to cite the verse where Timothy K claims Irenaeus says “that the change that takes place when the bread becomes heavenly (a spiritual sacrifice according to Phil 4:18) IS LIKE the change that takes place in believers when they receive the consecrated elements” I have read Book 4, Chapter 18 many times and Irenaeus never said it.
Timothy K, I am doing my best to understand your point of view and that’s why I asked Layne to help me understand. He of course also could not understand, remember Layne responded :
“I have as hard of time understanding Tim K. as you do. So I have to look at Tim K.’s words through the lens of his Presbyterian beliefs”
So Timothy K wrote
“Timothy P,
The fact that you think,
“Eucharistia is used in the early church to refer to the food set aside for the poor as a thank offering”
is equivalent to
“the Eucharist was the Bread being offered to the poor.”
shows why you are unable to read, understand and digest the very plain statements I make here, and further, that you are wholly unequipped to attempt to guess at my understanding of Irenæus by simply inserting into Irenæus what you think I mean.”
Timothy K, I guess I am unequipped that I can’t read your mind but I am assuming you do not believe the Eucharist in the passages we have been discussing is the consecrated bread and wine because you made a big deal over the Latin translation adding the “invocation of God”. I say it was the consecrated bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. Now I would have to assume that you believe that Irenaeus held one of the views of the Eucharist that was held in the early church. And you wrote
““That’s not true. First Eucharistia is used in the early church to refer to the food set aside for the poor as a thank offering, and to the elements prior to consecration, and to the elements after consecration””
Now unless there are other choices you failed to mention, I picked number three. You are left with the food set aside for the poor or the elements prior to consecration. So which one do you chose? And then explain how
” so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist (as defined by Timothy K), are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”.
Timothy K also wrote
“You continued,
“you have to deal with the sentence ” so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”
Yes. YOU do. You have not done so.”
The focus of course is on the Eucharist and the Real Presence but I think Irenaeus does a good job explaining how our hope is that our bodies “are no longer corruptible , having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”. In the Fragment 37 Irenaeus writes
“We therefore have formed the belief that [our] bodies also do rise again. For although they go to corruption, yet they do not perish; for the earth, receiving the remains, preserves them, even like fertile seed mixed with more fertile ground. Again, as a bare grain is sown, and, germinating by the command of God its Creator, rises again, clothed upon and glorious, but not before it has died and suffered decomposition, and become mingled with the earth; so [it is seen from this, that] we have not entertained a vain belief in the resurrection of the body. But although it is dissolved at the appointed time, because of the primeval disobedience, it is placed, as it were, in the crucible of the earth, to be recast again; not then as this corruptible [body], but pure, and no longer subject to decay: so that to each body its own soul shall be restored; and when it is clothed upon with this, it shall not experience sorrow, but shall rejoice, continuing permanently in a state of purity”
Timothy K, as I mentioned before I think you are extremely bright and maybe part of the problem is you are simply talking over my and Layne’s level of understanding. I would love it if one of your Protestant readers would chime in and explain how they understand your explanation of “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” . I assume we all agree that that which is no longer common bread is the Eucharist. Agreed?
Timothy P, I don’t understand why you would ask Layne to help you understand my point of view. That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand how you could take my words to mean that Eucharistia is an offering to the poor. I have never said that, nor would I. I don’t understand how you could take my words that Irenæus “wasn’t even talking about the point in the liturgy when the bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ” to mean that I do not believe Irenæus was talking about a change that takes place during the liturgy. It’s like you’re reading a different blog, and you keep taking things I write and extracting ridiculous and invalid inferences from them. I’m not talking above your level. You’re just not reading what I’m writing.
So to keep this simple, let’s address just one thing. If you cannot answer this question, there is simply nothing left to talk about: When Irenæaus wrote the following, what is he saying the church offers with single-mindedness? the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God, or the bread and wine after the invocation of God?
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy K wrote
“Timothy P, I don’t understand why you would ask Layne to help you understand my point of view”.
Very simple why I would ask Layne, I still don’t grasp your position on what the Eucharist is in the context of , “no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”, In fact I have even reached out to our Protestant friends to explain your position. And no one seems to have the answer. I wrote
” I would love it if one of your Protestant readers would chime in and explain how they understand your explanation of “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”
Once you tell me what in that part of Irenaeus’s discourse Eucharist means we can make the substitution and see if it makes any sense.
Timothy K also wrote
” I don’t understand how you could take my words to mean that Eucharistia is an offering to the poor. I have never said that, nor would I”
But Timothy K also wrote
“That’s not true. First Eucharistia is used in the early church to refer to the food set aside for the poor as a thank offering, and to the elements prior to consecration, and to the elements after consecration”
Layne, Mark Rome, Kevin, anyone , please explain to me how I am misrepresenting what Timothy K has written. I am totally baffled. Now I can’t say for sure which of these meanings Timothy K wants to substitute for the “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” because I can’t tell where Timothy K has explicitly described which meaning he wants to substitute for Eucharist in that verse. We are talking about the meaning of Eucharist in the early Church . So I will ask you again as I posted
“Now unless there are other choices you failed to mention, I picked number three. You are left with the food set aside for the poor or the elements prior to consecration. So which one do you chose? And then explain how
” so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist (as defined by Timothy K), are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”.”
Timothy K also wrote
“So to keep this simple, let’s address just one thing. If you cannot answer this question, there is simply nothing left to talk about: When Irenæaus wrote the following, what is he saying the church offers with single-mindedness? the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God, or the bread and wine after the invocation of God?
“Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” [Philippians 4:18] For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 4)
Thank you,”
Finally Timothy K, I think we have a point of agreement to the question
“When Irenæaus wrote the following, what is he saying the church offers with single-mindedness? the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God, or the bread and wine after the invocation of God?”
Now I know Kevin would probably disagree with us as I believe he repeatedly stated that in the early Church bread and wine was never offered to God but in this verse I believe that Irenaeus is referring to the bread and wine prior to the invocation. What is this pure oblation that we offer the Father before the invocation? Is it unconsecrated bread and wine alone? Of course not, but that is part of the offering. Besides the bread and wine we offer “praise and thanksgiving, we offer ourselves, we offer our monetary support for the church and the poor, and all of this makes the oblation pure but only after we have made amends with our neighbors. As you pointed out your self Timothy K, Irenaeus in paragraph 3
“paragraph 3: but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend”
But that’s not the end of the Eucharistic Oblation as Layne pointed out. Irenaeus goes on “But how can they be consistent with themselves [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood”. Now again I am not aware of any group, Protestant or Orthodox that consider the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God to be the body and blood of Christ.
I understand I am under moderation again but thought I would add the Catechism’s commentary which actually references Irenaeus’s comments which we are discussing
“1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very action of Christ at the Last Supper – “taking the bread and a cup.” “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving.”175 The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator’s gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.
1351 From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need. This custom of the collection, ever appropriate, is inspired by the example of Christ who became poor to make us rich:176
Those who are well off, and who are also willing, give as each chooses. What is gathered is given to him who presides to assist orphans and widows, those whom illness or any other cause has deprived of resources, prisoners, immigrants and, in a word, all who are in need.177
1352 The anaphora: with the Eucharistic Prayer – the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration – we come to the heart and summit of the celebration:
In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. the whole community thus joins in the unending praise that the Church in heaven, the angels and all the saints, sing to the thrice-holy God.
1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing178) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.”
Have a lot more comments but hesitant to spend the time posting if there is the possibility that my posts will not pass the moderation.
Timothy P, “food set aside for the poor as a thank offering” does not mean “an offering to the poor.”
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K wrote
“Timothy P, I don’t understand why you would ask Layne to help you understand my point of view”.
Very simple why I would ask Layne, I still don’t grasp your position on what the Eucharist is in the context of , “no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”, In fact I have even reached out to our Protestant friends to explain your position. And no one seems to have the answer. I wrote
” I would love it if one of your Protestant readers would chime in and explain how they understand your explanation of “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”
Once you tell me what in that part of Irenaeus’s discourse Eucharist means we can make the substitution and see if it makes any sense.
Timothy K also wrote
” I don’t understand how you could take my words to mean that Eucharistia is an offering to the poor. I have never said that, nor would I”
But Timothy K also wrote
“That’s not true. First Eucharistia is used in the early church to refer to the food set aside for the poor as a thank offering, and to the elements prior to consecration, and to the elements after consecration”
Layne, Mark Rome, Kevin, anyone , please explain to me how I am misrepresenting what Timothy K has written. I am totally baffled. Now I can’t say for sure which of these meanings Timothy K wants to substitute for the “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” because I can’t tell where Timothy K has explicitly described which meaning he wants to substitute for Eucharist in that verse. We are talking about the meaning of Eucharist in the early Church . So I will ask you again as I posted
“Now unless there are other choices you failed to mention, I picked number three. You are left with the food set aside for the poor or the elements prior to consecration. So which one do you chose? And then explain how
” so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist (as defined by Timothy K), are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity”.”
Timothy K also wrote
“So to keep this simple, let’s address just one thing. If you cannot answer this question, there is simply nothing left to talk about: When Irenæaus wrote the following, what is he saying the church offers with single-mindedness? the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God, or the bread and wine after the invocation of God?
“Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” [Philippians 4:18] For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 4)
Thank you,”
Finally Timothy K, I think we have a point of agreement to the question
“When Irenæaus wrote the following, what is he saying the church offers with single-mindedness? the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God, or the bread and wine after the invocation of God?”
Now I know Kevin would probably disagree with us as I believe he repeatedly stated that in the early Church bread and wine was never offered to God but in this verse I believe that Irenaeus is referring to the bread and wine prior to the invocation. What is this pure oblation that we offer the Father before the invocation? Is it unconsecrated bread and wine alone? Of course not, but that is part of the offering. Besides the bread and wine we offer “praise and thanksgiving, we offer ourselves, we offer our monetary support for the church and the poor, and all of this makes the oblation pure but only after we have made amends with our neighbors. As you pointed out your self Timothy K, Irenaeus in paragraph 3
“paragraph 3: but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend”
But that’s not the end of the Eucharistic Oblation as Layne pointed out. Irenaeus goes on “But how can they be consistent with themselves [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood”. Now again I am not aware of any group, Protestant or Orthodox that consider the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God to be the body and blood of Christ.
Timothy P, since you asked me to chime in , ” Kevin said bread was never offered to God” Let me clarify. Not as the natural body of Jesus Christ for sins after some priest says magic words. Tim can correct me if I’m wrong, but Iranaeus when they use sacrifice or oblation are talking about the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and by setting aside bread ,which is of God’s own creation, for the poor as per the verse in Philippians, this sacrifice of giving God accepts from his redeemed people. In the same way the bread nourishes our bodies and the bodies of the poor, we have been made incorruptible by the sacrifice of Christ’s body. This sacrifice happens before any invoking of the Spirit. So the notion that Rome has deceived it’s people into believing Iranaeus supports some reason sacrifice of Jesus in the former of bread is deadly. Until Tim fleshed this out, I’m not sure I could have exactly known this from the text until it was taught to me. That’s why context is paramount. Also, in my opinion Tim’s method of asking you questions and not just directly answering I believe he is trying to help you understand. It wouldn’t be my method, however, many teachers I had in music school used the same approach and I learned allot. Incidentally, I could be wrong about my conclusions in this post. I stipulate that. I don’t speak for others. The only reason I posted is because you asked me to chime in. K
Kevin, thanks for responding and I was hoping you would tell me which definition of Eucharist Timothy K was responding to in the verse ”
“is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”
By the way Kevin interesting in my discussion with Timothy K where we were discussing the offering of the Church as discussed by Irenaeus I posted the Catechism teaching which actually references Irenaeus’ comment. Now on the One Fold blog Kevin you wrote
“White, incidentally, in addition to this wonderful article against the lies of the real presence being taught in the early father’s, go to Out of His Mouth, a blog where Tim Kauffman has completely refuted the famous quote by Iranaeus from Book of Heresies in his comments section of Eating Ignatius. It’s fascinating. The offering, oblation was given before the invoking of the Spirit, which would debunk Roman Catholicism”
But the catechism teaches
“1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very action of Christ at the Last Supper – “taking the bread and a cup.” “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving.”175 The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator’s gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.”
Kevin, if the Catechism teaches that the offering and pure oblation are given before the consecration, how is Roman Catholicism debunked.
Bread was offered to God. Ever hear of the Show Bread or the Bread of the Presence? In ancient Israel every Sabbath while everyone was resting, the priests were busy in the temple baking bread. It was placed on a marble table when first brought in and then placed on a gold table after it was consecrated.
Exodus 34:23 says, “Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.” In Hebrew this means three times a year shall all your males appear before the face of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Hebrew word for face is panim, which is the same word for bread. During these pilgrimages they were only able to see one sacred object from behind the veil, and that was the Bread of the Presence.
So, three times a year, the males will assemble and the priests would bring out the golden table with the consecrated Bread of the Presence, the Show Bread, and raise up the table and say, “Behold God’s love for you!”
Think about this, the consecrated bread was lifted up and the males looked at the face of the Lord.
The Torah specifically states that the Bread of the Presence was not just the “most holy” sacrifice of the Sabbath, it was the sign of the “everlasting covenant.”
This comes from Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre.
Thank you, Timothy P. You are correct that in Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, paragraph 4, in the portion I cited, Irenæus was talking about offering unconsecrated bread and wine in accordance with Philippians 4:18.
Last week we had a brief interaction regarding Irenæus’ use of the word, Eucharist. I provided his words from Fragment 37, as evidence of the fact:
In response, you wrote the following:
May I understand from this that you agree that, in Fragment 37, when he writes, “we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks (ευχαριστουντες)”, he is still at that point speaking of unconsecrated bread?
I appreciate your patience.
Thank you,
Tim
Kevin, I am under moderation again so not sure you will see this post but I found it interesting when you wrote concerning Irenaeus’s comments
“Until Tim fleshed this out, I’m not sure I could have exactly known this from the text until it was taught to me. ”
Again this is the whole point of my discussion. Do you really believe that when Irenaeus was writing that he was writing so that those who would come along later would have to have someone as brilliant as Timothy K to “flesh” it out for them. Seriously.
And by the way, you wrote
” go to Out of His Mouth, a blog where Tim Kauffman has completely refuted the famous quote by Iranaeus from Book of Heresies in his comments section of Eating Ignatius”
The famous quote? I guess it’s famous because it seems to be the one Protestant apologist try to put their spin on to try and defend their Protestant bias. But did you forget about the other four?
1. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made.
2) And as we are His members. we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” Ephesians 5:30
4. And as we are His members, we are also man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, ”
I am not going to try and flesh that out for you because they don’t need any explanation!
Thanks you Timothy K for allowing me to post and I don’t mind being patient as I realize at some point you will tell me the definition you would substitute for Eucharist in the phrase
“is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”
I’m still under moderation and before spending a lot of time on a response which might get censored I thought we could review the fragment 37 verse in a little more detail.
37
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1 And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
You ask–“So to keep this simple, let’s address just one thing. If you cannot answer this question, there is simply nothing left to talk about: When Irenæaus wrote the following, what is he saying the church offers with single-mindedness? the bread and wine prior to the invocation of God, or the bread and wine after the invocation of God?”
Given the parameters of just the quotation you have cited, your question has two parts and thus two answers:
1) The church offers with single mindedness its gift of the first fruits of His own created things.
2) The quotation does not discern whether the gift is before or after the invocation.
It does, however, qualify the oblation to be pure. What makes it pure? Our contriteness of heart — “in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love… with giving of thanks.”
Thanks–
–Layne
Tim K,
Why do you quote all of this research instead of just saying, “I don’t trust the Catholic Church”? The entire Paulician thing comes down to you thinking the Church wasn’t scrupulous with them. It seems strange that you will quote Catholics ad nauseum when you think they support what you believe.
How do you, Tim K., decide which Catholics to trust/quote and which Catholics were not scrupulous? What is your criteria?
Right now it appears that you quote them if they agree with you and deny any ones that do not agree with you.
Mark. You asked,
Mark, I do trust the Catholic Church, of which I am a member. I don’t trust the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation 13 which receives its “power, and … seat, and great authority” from Satan (Revelation 13:2). As Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8:44), I know better than to trust what Roman Catholicism says. You continued,
Not really. To a large degree the “Paulician thing” is all about the fact that a) the Paulicians rejected your late 4th century novelties, and b) even when Roman Catholic critics want to, they can’t seem to establish a consistent story about the Paulicians. One witness says they reject baptism, yet another says they allow baptism, but only to deceive the simple. One says they reject Jesus’ incarnation, and another says they profess that Mary carried Christ in her womb, but only to deceive the simple. Another says they were Manichaen and Marcionite and another says there is no evidence to support that claim. One witness says they denied any affiliation with or origin from Manes, and then takes that to prove that they therefore had no qualms about denying their Manichaean faith! These are all contradictory witnesses, and you know as well as I do, when witnesses can’t get their stories to agree, it serves to exonerate the accused. One writer even expanded upon their many errors, lest someone defend them in protest, saying, “What do you require of these men? They are good and upright; and all things pertaining to Christianity, we wish we were like them!” Wow, they sound awful! 🙂 Another concludes that their good, upright, moral lives must be evidence of diabolical influence! These are great adverse witnesses, and they inadvertently attest to the orthodoxy of the Paulicians and others. Medieval Roman Catholicism could not hold a candle to them.
You continued,
That’s silly. I quoted Roman Catholics who claimed that they were heretics because they believed God had two wives. Does that sound like I’m quoting a Roman Catholic who agrees with me that Roman Catholicism is antichrist? The fact is, such citations as that show how pathetically ignorant of the scriptures the Roman Catholic accusers were. For God indeed had two adulterous wives. (Ezekiel 23:3-4) Did you not know that?
Tim
“even when Roman Catholic critics want to, they can’t seem to establish a consistent story about the Paulicians. ”
Yet you seem to find a way to weave your consistent story of the Paulicians as shining beacons of Christ’s true church that continued and never taught error and always held on to the truths of the true church.
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church? Is the only criteria to be against the Catholic Church? As we’ve discussed, the term “Roman Catholic” is a modern-day invention. You do realize you are being anachronistic in applying that to the 4th century Church, right?
Mark,
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church? Is the only criteria to be for the Roman Catholic Church?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
I have been asking you that ever since my first post on this blog and you have never answer that question.
What must the true Church believe? There is only one Church, which is the Catholic Church and what she teaches is what Christians are to believe.
Now that I’ve answered it, now it is your turn. What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
Oh, I see, Mark. So the True Church must believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Got it:
Keenan’s 1860 Catechism: Papal Infallibility is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
Pope Gregory the Great: Maccabees is not Canonical (Moralia in Job, Volume II, Book 19, chapter 34)
Pope Gelasius I: after the words of consecration, “the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease” (De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium).
Chrysostom: “As the bread before it is sanctified, is called bread, but after the divine grace has sanctified it by the mediation of the priest, it is no longer called bread, but dignified with the name of the body of the Lord, though the nature of bread remains in it.” (John Chrysostom, Ad Cæsarium, book iii).
So the true church believes that Maccabees is not part of the canon of Scriptures, Papal Infallibility is a protestant invention and there is no such thing as transubstantiation.
Thanks for clarifying what the “True Church” has always believed and that the true church can never teach error…
Tim
Tim K.,
Now it’s your turn to answer the question.
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
Thanks,
Mark
Are you agreeing that the true church believes that Maccabees is not part of the canon of Scriptures, Papal Infallibility is a protestant invention and there is no such thing as transubstantiation?
No, I am not.
Now it’s your turn to answer the question.
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
Oh, Mark, I’m completely with you in your submission to tradition and the magisterium (kind of). You and I both completely agree with Pope Gelasius that the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine even after consecration, because I know you would never disagree with a pope. You and I both completely agree with Keenan’s Catechism that no decision of the pope can oblige under pain of heresy (because I know you would never fall for such an obvious “protestant invention”). You and I agree completely with Pope Gregory that I and II Maccabees are not Canonical (because I know you would never disagree with the pope!). See? We believe whatever the True Church believes and teaches to be true and the true church believes and teaches these things. Right?
Oh, and I’m assuming that you also believe Canon 90 of the Council of Trullo “that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays”. After all, the “true church” taught it, and it must be infallible because Pope Hadrian I affirmed Trullo as an ecumenical council!
Don’t you just love the teachings of the “True Church”? It’s a shame that you don’t actually believe any of these things even though your own “True Church” has taught them.
Tell me Mark, how many of the teachings of the “True Church” can you disregard and still be considered member in good standing? Does every Roman Catholic get the same liberty you do to determine what teachings of the “True Church” must be believed and which teachings of the “True Church” can be disregarded just because you personally do not believe them to be true?
What’s funny is that you collect the bigoted opinions of career anti-Christians throughout history and take those opinions as credible reflections of what the Paulicians and other “heretics” taught, and then when I show you what your own popes and scholars have taught about what Roman Catholicism is and teaches, you cry foul!, and context!, and discipline!, and private opinion!, etc… In other words you are using unequal weights and measures to determine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (i.e. “only the parts of what they taught that actually comport with what Roman Catholicism actually ended up teaching and believing”) and to determine what the Paulicians taught “(i.e., “every jot and tittle of what every bigoted accuser ever said of them must be taken literally and at face value!”).
Well, I don’t recognize your fraudulent scale. In the end, it comes down to the eschatological issue. You claim Roman Catholicism as the True Church because you think it is the eschatological fulfillment of Christ’s promise that He would build His church upon the rock. I claim Roman Catholicism is intractably apostate because I believe it is the eschatological fulfillment of the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the first beast of Revelation 13. In response you demand that I show evidence of a True Church apart from Roman Catholicism. Well and good. There was one, and Roman Catholicism, in its blindness, could not see that what they were persecuting was the Church of Christ Himself. You don’t believe it because you do not believe the Scriptures.
There is simply nothing left to be said here (except that Hadrian was right—you shouldn’t be kneeling before your bread idol on Sunday morning). And I’d love to see a list of what Roman Catholics are to believe—something a little more thoughtful than “whatever the Church teaches.” As you can see, the Roman Catholic Church has taught a lot of things that even you don’t believe to be true.
Tim
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
You asked Mark Rome, “What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
He answered your question and then asked you the same question. Your response was a long treatise on what you thought was the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. To be fair, that is not what he asked you.
I am also curious. Tim, what do you say the true church must believe in order to be the true church? You don’t have to go into excruciating detail. A general synopsis will do.
Thanks–
–Layne
Thank you, Layne, but I’m not sure you’re following the conversation very well. I asked Mark,
He has never really answered that except to say that whatever the church teaches is was must be believed. But he can’t really put his finger on it because the Roman Catholic Church has actually taught things that are different than what Mark Rome thinks is the truth of the Roman Catholic Church. You said,
No it wasn’t. It was four examples of what actual Roman Catholics and popes have taught. Are you saying that the pope isn’t Roman Catholic? That’s an odd position to take, for a Roman Catholic.
Thanks,
Tim
You are the one that is claiming there is a “true church” apart from the Church that Jesus Christ founded, which is 20 centuries old.
If I am to find the “true church” based on what they believed, then you should be able to answer me.
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
Oh, goodness, Mark! You know very well that I have never claimed that there is a “true church” apart from the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne is spot on. I’ve been asking this question here since my first post and you have never answered it.
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
Actually, Mark, your very first words on this blog were “There were NO Protestant schismatics prior to the 16th century.” When I asked you to define what you meant by Protestant, you said, “Quite honestly, I don’t know what a Protestant looks like.” That is the substance of your whole interaction here. You have no idea what it is that you are certain of, but you are absolutely certain in your ignorance that you are right.
You have asked, since then, what the True Church must believe. In response I have repeatedly asked you what your True Church believes, and you cannot tell me, but you are sure that whatever she teaches is true, (whatever it may be, although you personally cannot know what it is). I have asked you if Pope Gelasius’ and Pope Gregory’s teachings are Catholic teachings, and you cannot answer, for to do so would be to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic Church has taught error. To answer the question truthfully, you would have to explain that not all the statements of popes are ex cathedra, and that you have no way of knowing which teachings of your church are false and which are true—for indeed, your church has taught both truth and error, and you are absolutely sure you must not believe the error, but you cannot tell me which teachings of your church are erroneous. That is why Roman Catholics throughout the world thump their chests about their infallible papacy that is alleged to teach them infallibly, even as it is unable to tell them which teachings are the infallible ones.
And that, ultimately, is why when pressed on the matter, you have to invent a blatant falsehood. You said,
I have never claimed any such thing. Scour this blog as you like and I have never made any such statement. Why is it that you are unable to communicate truthfully?
Since you are not able to tell me what it is that the true church must believe, then I will not answer you. As I have said many times;
I am supposed to believe the true teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Great. Which ones would those be?
Thanks,
Tim
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
You said “I’m not sure you’re following the conversation very well.”
Well, it does appear to me that you both are taking cheap shots at one another, but I am following it.
Tim K.–” I asked Mark, ‘What must the true church believe in order to be the true church? Is the only criteria to be for the Roman Catholic Church?’ He has never really answered that except to say that whatever the church teaches it must be believed.”
In a very small nutshell that is true. And that really is true of the True Church–whatever it teaches as divinely revealed MUST be believed as truth by members of the Body of Christ. Don’t you agree?
You also said: “But he can’t really put his finger on it because the Roman Catholic Church has actually taught things that are different than what Mark Rome thinks is the truth of the Roman Catholic Church.”
That may be true about Mark Rome. He may think a lot of the things about the RCC, true or not. There is a lot of us like that. You are no different when you cite “four examples of what actual Roman Catholics and popes have taught. Are you saying that the pope isn’t Roman Catholic? That’s an odd position to take, for a Roman Catholic.”
Yes, Tim, the pope is Roman Catholic. And the only way to be truly Roman Catholic in good standing is to be in full communion with the pope. However, not everything a Roman Catholic or the pope says is officially Church teaching that binds one to belief. An example would be the “teaching” of Limbo. It’s not a teaching that binds us to believe such as that of divine revelation.
Tim K.–“I’d love to see a list of what Roman Catholics are to believe—something a little more thoughtful than “whatever the Church teaches.”
What you are looking for is the dogma of the Church. Generally speaking it is the Nicaean Creed–“We believe…etc”. But what you are asking for is (and you probably already know this, Tim, but I am going to tell you anyway) the defined written dogma which is the current edition of The Catechism of the Catholic Church supplemented with the current edition of Sources of Catholic Dogma by Heinrich Denzinger.
I am still curious, though. What do YOU say the true church must believe in order to be the true church? And again, you don’t have to go into excruciating detail. A general synopsis will do.
Thanks–
–Layne
Thank you, Layne. Mark says it’s the Catechism which you can find here: http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html , but in its original publication, paragraph 1481 of the Catechism said Jesus had forgiven the Pharisee, rather than the publican, contradicting Luke 18:9-14. There is a long list of errata in the Catechism, which you can find here: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=220
Mark says the True Church can never teach error, but the document he provided also has a long list of corrections to correct the many errors in it. Obviously, I can’t rely on the Catechism.
In your opinion, the dogma of the church is expressed in the Nicene Creed and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, supplemented with the current edition of Sources of Catholic Dogma by Heinrich Denzinger.
Another Roman Catholic says that even though Denzinger is a helpful source, “you should always double check entries that seem contradictory or obscure against other reliable sources to be sure of the correct interpretation. Using the Catechism, The Vulgate, Ott’s work, the Denzinger, and the writings of the Early Church Father’s together should clarify things nicely.”
I was hoping to find a single place where I could find what the true church believes, and from three different Roman Catholics, I got three different answers.
How can I tell what the True Church teaches, so that I may understand what I am to believe to be saved? Should I trust you, Mark, or the other guy?
Thanks,
Tim
Here’s what True Church that Christ founded believes and teaches. Give it a read. If you have any questions about it, let me know.
http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html
“Since you are not able to tell me what it is that the true church must believe, then I will not answer you. ”
Now that I’ve told you what it is that the true church must believe, will you NOW answer the question?
What must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
You said– “I don’t trust the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation 13 which receives its “power, and … seat, and great authority” from Satan (Revelation 13:2). As Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8:44), I know better than to trust what Roman Catholicism says.”
And yet you say: “These are great adverse witnesses, and they inadvertently attest to the orthodoxy of the Paulicians and others.”
How can that be if you can’t trust what those witnesses say?
You said: ” To a large degree the “Paulician thing” is all about the fact that a) the Paulicians rejected your late 4th century novelties,”
How can you establish that as fact when your witnesses can’t be trusted?
“and b) even when Roman Catholic critics want to, they can’t seem to establish a consistent story about the Paulicians.”
Again and again you say the witnesses can’t be trusted, and yet you base YOUR defense of the Paulicians on evidence that can’t be trusted. It’s all hearsay from bad witnesses! Why should we trust anything you say when your defense is clearly arbitrary?
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
Paul wrote,
If Cretians are “alway liars,” how can “this witness” of a Cretian be true? I mean, if Cretians are always liars, wasn’t that Cretian lying when he said “the Cretians are always liars”? Shouldn’t Paul rather have said, “This witness is false”?
Paul says the witness of the Cretians can’t be trusted, and then bases his argument on evidence that can’t be trusted. It’s all hearsay from bad witnesses!
Do you think Paul was confused in some way?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said–“Paul says the witness of the Cretians can’t be trusted, and then bases his argument on evidence that can’t be trusted. It’s all hearsay from bad witnesses!
Do you think Paul was confused in some way?”
No, I do not think Paul was confused. The Cretians already had that reputation anyway. And Paul most probably had dealings with the Cretians personally, so he could confirm what the prophet said. Your conclusion that Paul was basing his argument on the prophet’s witness is somewhat shallow.
Thanks–
–Layne
Timothy P, I think your post to me serves as an example of how Protestants and Catholics may approach a text. When you say about this author ” a Protestant putting his spin on it” you imply that he is taking the context of Iranaeus and twisting it to mean something it doesn’t. But, in fact the thing he is doing the opposite. He is interpreting Iranaeus quotes in their original context along with scripture. For instance, don’t you think it’s pretty important that the sacrifice/ oblation comes before the invoking of the Spirit. And as important the sacrifice is bread being set aside for the poor, not changing bread into Jesus natural body for the purpose of him being sacrificed again for sins, since Trent annathamatize anyone in your church that doesn’t believe that. Kinda important don’t you think. Or how about the fact that the Latin words of consecration were ADDED to the text. Pretty important don’t you think. How about the example today he pointed out that the catechism had the Pharisee being forgiven in Luke 8, when the whole point of the passage is that the Pharisee ( the one trying to get in on his own righteousness) didn’t make it, but the tax collector who repented and believed went home righteous. Pretty important huh. My point is, and maybe Tim’s point is who are you going to trust for your salvation, the scriptures and proper context, or a church whose sign says this way to heaven. If I have observed anything in these exchanges between Tim K and you, Layne, and Mark, is that Tim has given you a laundry list of Roman error so clearly as telling someone from Houston a hurricane is coming, and yet the 3 of you say Tim, where is the true church. How about he has shown you where isn’t the true church. So the only question is where and how does one find the catholic church of Christ? And what criteria would one use to find Christ’s church. Try scripture, it’s God’s infallible Word. K
Kevin, would love to give you a more detailed response but I am still on moderation. When I get released I’ll try to give you an appropriate response. While I am waiting, could you tell me what you believe Timothy K’s definition for Eucharist is in the phrase “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist
Timothy P, there is nothing about being in moderation that prevents you from a detailed response. Simply write one, as you have continued to do under moderation for months. Also, Kevin’s opinion on what my definition for Eucharist is in the phrase “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” is immaterial to your conversation with me.
Thanks,
Tim
Given that I still have some posts under moderation I am hardly going to spend a lot of time writing post that get buried away. Obviously the whole moderation thing is like asking someone to fight you with one arm tied behind their back. It would be different it Mark Rome, Layne and I were spouting profanities but obviously the advantage lies with the one deciding what and what not he will allow to appear on his blog. If a point is made that that person cannot answer, won’t answer or which obviously shows everyone that he is wrong it is just too tempting to bury it.
Now you write
“Also, Kevin’s opinion on what my definition for Eucharist is in the phrase “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” is immaterial to your conversation with me.”
Obviously Kevin’s opinion is very material to our conversation as you have never clearly let us know which definition of Eucharist you are willing to insert into the phrase. No one on this blog has been able to figure out what substitution you would make so I think it is very material to ask Kevin since you apparently have no intention of letting me know.
Timothy P, you said,
And yet just one day earlier, you wrote,
You may recall that we are in the middle of a conversation on that very thing. My most recent comment on this is here: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/#comment-34163
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said: “I was hoping to find a single place where I could find what the true church believes, and from three different Roman Catholics, I got three different answers.”
Since you say you can’t trust the Roman Catholics, please, Tim K., tell us what must the true church believe in order to be the true church?
You asked it of us and we gave you our best answer. Now I ask you to do the same.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne,
You have given me your best answer. (Though I’m curious what version of the Nicene creed to which you would subscribe, as there are several versions). Also, your use of Denzinger is fraught with difficulty, as Denzingers is always in need of an update, and what is more, when the 1957 “green” version came out it had a long list of corrigenda at the beginning, correcting errors in the previous version, and they are by no means trivial corrections. Several of the errors in the 1954 version accidentally required readers to subscribe to heresy, and the 1957 version provided the corrigenda, i.e.,
These had to do with the Deity of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of Christ. There is a possibility, however remote, that anything you read in Denzinger’s is liable to be corrected in the next version.
Mark, too, has given me his best answer, though when he gave me the document he failed to provide the extensive “corrigenda” for the same—they have repeatedly had to update it to correct errors and mistakes, even though Mark alleges that the “True Church” can never teach error, and what the True Church teaches is to be found in the Catechism. Had I obliged him by reaching for the Catechism I currently have on my bookshelf, I would have concluded that Jesus had forgiven the Pharisee rather than the Publican. Oops.
Someone else trying to help me find what the true church is to believe gave me yet a different—and I might add, more realistic—answer. He says that all of the sources (and there are a lot) have to be evaluated in the light of each other in order to arrive at what the “True Church” teaches:
But what Version of the Vulgate? This version leaves out Acts 23:25. And Roman Catholics are very often relying on Origen and Tertullian—but when can you rely upon Tertullian and Origen as reliable sources, and when not? Who is to decide?
Each of you must not only explore the resource(s) you provided in order to discover what the “true church” teaches and its members are to believe, but you must also make judgments about the content of those sources and await information in the next edition to find out what was left out or what heresy the previous versions may have advanced, even incidentally.
The reason I have pressed you and Mark and others to explain what the True Church believes before I am willing to answer is because I know that Mark’s question is not so much about the means of obtaining the truth, but the mode of discerning it. You are each left to your own devices to determine what the “True Church” teaches, and therefore what you are to believe. You each end up constructing in your mind a different version of what the True Church is and teaches, and yet each of you individually thinks he has found it.
You may recall a similar exercise we had on this site when H. Wilnot posed the question about which Church he should join if he were to leave the Roman Catholic church. I posed the question back to him, asking which Church a hypothetical Jerry should join if he were to become Roman Catholic, and this was Wilnot’s response:
But it’s not actually so crystal clear. Wilnot’s recommendation is his personal recommendation. It is not a teaching of the “True Church.” Roman Catholic apologist Taylor Marshall advised that “Jerry” should do something quite different, because Marshall knows that not all churches that show up as “Catholic” in the register of diocesan parishes are actually “Catholic.” He says others should join him in the Great Catholic migration by “realigning their attendance, resources, skills, and money to those parishes, orders, schools, colleges, and other institutions that support and promote traditional Catholic orthodoxy and practice.”
But to do THAT, the people joining the Great Catholic Migration would have to understand “traditional Catholic orthodoxy and practice,” and to do THAT they would have to understand what the “True Church” teaches, and to do THAT, they would have to sort through the Catechism and its corrigenda, or through the Nicene creed (using the version of their choice), and the Catechism with its extensive corrigenda, and Denzinger with its extensive corrigenda, seeking out other reliable source like the Vulgate (that sometimes leaves out Bible verses), and the Early Church Fathers (who sometimes fell into heresy), and then figure out which local parish (if any) teaches the same version of Roman Catholicism that they personally believe is an accurate reflection of what they personally have determined that the True Church “teaches.” See how simple it is to find the True Church? Wow, Catholics have it so easy!
Now, to answer your question, what must the True Church believe? The Scriptures.
Thanks,
Tim
“Mark, too, has given me his best answer, though when he gave me the document he failed to provide the extensive “corrigenda” for the same—they have repeatedly had to update it to correct errors and mistakes, even though Mark alleges that the “True Church” can never teach error, and what the True Church teaches is to be found in the Catechism. ”
We don’t have to refute every purported discrepancy that you find. So far, the only criteria for your “true church” to exist is to not be Catholic. I understand your not wanting to commit yourself to what the “true church” believes because that opens YOU up to scrutiny not just by Catholics but by other Protestants as well.
In the end, however, your true church theory rests on what that true church BELIEVED, and if you can’t tell us what the true church MUST believe, then your arguments fail.
Mark wrote,
Why not? It is your claim that the True Church cannot teach error, and yet the document you provided that summarizes what the True Church teaches includes error. I have not provided “purported discrepancies.” They are actual errors. The Catechism said Jesus forgave the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. You think that’s only a “purported discrepancy”?
Mark continued,
Please indicate where I have ever listed that as a “criteria” so that I may properly respond to the charge. You continued,
As does yours. You continued,
Now you understand the significance of my question to Roman Catholics. No Roman Catholic can give me an answer that doesn’t involve, at its core, their personal interpretation of what the “True Church” teaches, and thus their personal interpretation of what must be believed.
The True Church must believe the Scriptures.
Thanks,
Tim
“The True Church must believe the Scriptures.”
Whose interpretation?
When were Scriptures readily available to read and understand? What about people before that time? Do you have to have a Bible to be a “true Christian”? What if you can’t read? What if you are in a country where you cannot have a Bible? Where did you get the Scriptures?
Mark, you wrote,
When was the 2000 Catechism readily available to read and understand? Did the apostles have access to the 2000 catechism? Did they write it? What about people before 2000? Do you have to have a copy of the 2000 Catechism to be a “true Christian”? What if you can’t read? What if you are in a country where you cannot have a Catechism?
Do you really believe that the first century Christians had access to the 2000 Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Thanks,
Tim
“The True Church must believe the Scriptures.”
I believe the Scriptures. According to you, then, I am part of the True Church.
Mark, Layne,
That, too, is hilarious. Roman Catholicism does not believe the Scriptures.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K.,
Don’t you mean YOUR interpretation of Scriptures? Why is your interpretation better than mine?
Thanks,
Mark
Mark, don’t you mean YOUR interpretation of the Catechism? Why is your interpretation better than mine?
Thanks,
Tim
Because I don’t give my private interpretation. I true up to the infallible teachings of Christ’s Church. In the end, your interpretation of Scripture is only your private fallible opinion.
In fact, you don’t even have assurance that you have an infallible list of inspired books in the Bible.
Mark, you said,
Sure you do. 😀 Every Roman Catholic thinks he does. In fact your currently warring Cardinals all think they have “trued up” to the infallible teachings of Christ’s Church. But what you all have done is “true up to your personal interpretation of the infallible teachings of Christ’s Church.” Many Roman Catholics of very many different and irreconcilable stripes all argue that their interpretation of the Catechism is correct, and that their understanding of the infallible teachings of Christ’s church is correct. Heck, they don’t even agree on how to interpret Denzinger. You are no different.
In fact, you don’t even have assurance that you have an infallible understanding of what constitutes the infallible teachings of Christ’s Church. I still can’t figure out from you which Roman Catholic parish I should join if I were to become Roman Catholic. I’d probably select one that you recommend only to find that Taylor Marshall wants me to join him in his Great Catholic Migration, and start attending one that he personally thinks has “trued up to the infallible teachings of Christ’s Church.”
Thanks,
Tim
So, tell us all what one must believe in order to be part of the “true church”?
I am starting to suspect that it doesn’t really matter to you. Maybe all of this cynicism has turned you into an agnostic.
Mark, you say “the Catechism.” I say “the Scriptures.” You say, “But it’s your personal interpretation of the Scriptures.” Well, I say “But it’s your personal interpretation of the Catechism!” So you respond, “No it’s not, because I true up my beliefs to the infallible teachings of the Church.” Well, I respond that I true up my beliefs to the Scriptures. And you will respond, “But it’s your personal interpretation of the Scriptures!” And I respond, “But it’s your personal interpretation of the Catechism.”
And round and round it goes. You think that you have trued up your beliefs to match the teaching of the church, but don’t realize that you, like every other Roman Catholic, have simply “trued up” your beliefs to what you THINK is the infallible teaching of the Church. I have given this example many times before, but perhaps it will register with you now. Some faithful Roman Catholics do not believe Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an ex cathedra proclamation. Others do. Each side arrives at its personal interpretation of the teachings of the magisterium, and each side thinks the magisterium agrees with them. Your warring cardinals are just one more example of the reality that within Roman Catholicism there are warring parties of different beliefs claiming that they have “trued up” their thinking to that of the magisterium, neither side able to provide infallible proof that their personal interpretation of the magisterium is correct, but all sides think theirs is infallibly correct.
Just look at the different answers I got when I asked three different Catholics what the True Church teaches. You say the Catechism. Layne says the Nicene Creed, the Catechism and Denzinger. Another says Denzinger, the Catechism, the Vulgate, but check against Ott and the early church fathers to be sure but keeping in mind that some of the ECFs stumbled into heresy, and Denzinger includes corrigenda to correct earlier errors. When Layne reads Irenæus, against heresies, IV.18.4, he says “The quotation does not discern whether the gift is before or after the invocation” but Timothy P reads the exact same citation and concludes that “in this verse I believe that Irenaeus is referring to the bread and wine prior to the invocation.”
Two different Roman Catholics, reading the same text and one thinks it is about bread prior to the invocation, and the other thinks you can’t tell from the text. And yet we were supposed to be able to know what the True Church teaches by examining the Early Church Fathers? Just so, if I were to ask either side of the many warring parties within Roman Catholicism what I must believe to be part of the true church, each side would insist that I must believe their interpretation of the teachings of the true church. In the end you personally have nothing to offer me but your own personal interpretation of the teachings of the magisterium, and yet you thump your chest as if you know the “teachings of the true church,” demanding that I provide an ex cathedra or conciliar pronouncements from the Paulicians indicating the list of things that must be believed—even as you demonstrate that you cannot possibly do that very thing for Rome.
What is clear to me is that the Paulicians believed the Scriptures. I can see that in their many responses to their accusers.
That was your question, wasn’t it? What did the Paulicians believe? The Scriptures. Their persecutor neither understood nor believed the Scriptures.
Now if you can’t provide me an infallible list of the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic church, you can hardly expect me to do the same. I have never claimed that my epistemology is superior to yours, but you have claimed that yours is superior to mine. Very well. Show me an infallible list of infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic religion. You can’t.
Thanks,
Tim
Here’s one example. John 3:3-5 says that we are born again through water baptism. This has been dogmatically defined by the Church.
What is your interpretation of this and is your interpretation infallible?
Mark, I asked for an infallible list of infallible teachings, not an example of what would be on such a list if it existed.
But heck, as long as you are listing infallibly interpreted bible verses, why don’t you at least list all six or seven verses that the Magisterium has actually infallibly interpreted? Or is it eight? Nobody knows. I’m sure it’s an impressive list, whether there are six or seven or eight verses on it.
Thanks,
Tim
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN SAID THIS:
“Now, to answer your question, what must the True Church believe? The Scriptures.”
According to Timothy F. Kauffman, the True Church must believe the Scriptures.
If this is the only requirement, then the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church. The Roman Catholic Church believes the Scriptures 100%. So according to you, Tim K., you should have no problem at all with what the Roman Catholic church teaches.
Thanks–
–Layne
Still waiting to be released from moderation so we can continue our Irenaeus Eucharistic debate with Timothy K and I can give a more detailed answer to Kevin, but the following comment from Timothy K again is quite misleading. Timothy K knows that the way we worship can and has changed over the years. These are not doctrinal or dogmatic beliefs. So the following comment is plain silly
“Oh, and I’m assuming that you also believe Canon 90 of the Council of Trullo “that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays”. After all, the “true church” taught it, and it must be infallible because Pope Hadrian I affirmed Trullo as an ecumenical council! ”
So Timothy K, is kneeling on Sunday a dogma of the Church?
Well, Timothy P, I guess that depends on what “perpetual” and “until the end of the World” means. Pope Leo the Great wrote,
Man, he sure seemed to think the canons of Nicæa could never be changed, EVER. And canon 20 says the “True Church” doesn’t kneel on Sundays. And he is, after all, the Pope, and Layne has recently confirmed my deep, abiding suspicion: that the Pope is Roman Catholic.
And the Council of Trullo sure seemed to think that the “True Church” is supposed to honor Christ’s resurrection by not kneeling on Sundays.
Now you may not believe Trullo was an ecumenical (and therefore infallible) council (or perhaps you do not believe that the church should honor Christ’s resurrection?) but Pope Hadrian I did! In his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople he included the canons of Trullo as Ecumenical, and therefore infallible.
So two ecumenical councils declare that kneeling is forbidden on Sundays, and two popes affirm that prohibition of kneeling, and the greatest of the two claims that the Canons of Nicæa can never be changed and are to remain in effect until the end of the world for our perpetual advantage. Doesn’t that sound a little dogmatic to you, Timothy P?
You wrote,
Of course I know the way you worship changes, but what I think doesn’t matter. What you think doesn’t matter. Leo and Hadrian were infallible popes speaking on matters of faith and morals and in their minds the decrees of Nicæa can never change. You may think that the kneeling prohibition can change, but the question you should be asking is “Did Leo think the kneeling prohibition could change?” And perhaps a better question, why did he think they couldn’t? What has been revealed to you, Timothy P, that was not revealed to Leo? Can you provide a list of popes whose opinions can be subordinated to yours? I would enjoy perusing such a list.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K, you did not answer my question. Is kneeling on Sunday a dogma of the Church? Yes or no?
Timothy K writes
“Man, he sure seemed to think the canons of Nicæa could never be changed, EVER. And canon 20 says the “True Church” doesn’t kneel on Sundays”
Is that really what Canon 20 says? “the “True Church” doesn’t kneel on Sundays? As usual Timothy K continues to twist what is written. When you look up the canon, in a desire to have uniformity in worship throughout the Church “it seemed good to the Holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing”
Canon 20
Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lordís Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
Timothy K writes
“So two ecumenical councils declare that kneeling is forbidden on Sundays, and two popes affirm that prohibition of kneeling, and the greatest of the two claims that the Canons of Nicæa can never be changed and are to remain in effect until the end of the world for our perpetual advantage. Doesn’t that sound a little dogmatic to you, Timothy P?”
Dogmatic? Canon 20 doesn’t even issue an order! It is hardly a declaration that kneeling is forbidden on Sundays and when you read the Canon uniformity is the emphasis of the canon. As I am sure you are aware all Catholics to the best of my knowledge kneel on Sunday so the spirit of Canon 20 does stand until the end of the world. Timothy K, you continue to focus on molehills and ignore the mountains. This reminds me of your comment on Cyril of Jerusalem’s description of the Mass where you focused on how the early Christians handled the Eucharist. I would plead for anyone who wants to see how the early Christians worshiped to read Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lectures 23 and 24 for a beautiful description of the Mass in Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christianity
Timothy P, I’m only telling you what your own popes and councils have said.
When I interpreted Canon 20 to mean “the “True Church” doesn’t kneel on Sundays”, you responded that “Timothy K continues to twist what is written.”
Well, the council of Trullo said “We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays”. Where did the council of Trullo ever that get that crazy idea? Man, that Council of Trullo sure knew how to “twist what is written.” If only they had Timothy P there to instruct the council that Canon 20 didn’t even issue an order.
Timothy P, it matters not what I think about kneeling. What matters is that Hadrian thought Trullo was an ecumenical council, and if the pope receives as true the canons of an ecumenical council, that council is infallible, and an infallible council interpreted the 20th of Nicæa 20 to mean that “we are not to kneel on Sundays”. What part of that means “kneeling on Sundays” is in the spirit of “not kneeling on Sundays”?
If you think Trullo twisted what is written—that’s between you and the magisterium. They’re your popes and councils, not mine.
You wrote,
Trullo thought otherwise. They thought the spirit of Canon 20 was that “we are not to kneel on Sundays”.
Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to get back to the Eucharist. Would you please respond to the most recent questions to you on this?
Thanks,
Tim
Mark Rome and Layne, do either of you have any problem with this quote from Irenaeus
37
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1 And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.”
Now I think we all agree with Timothy K that the “bread and cup of blessing” is the unconsecrated bread . Timothy K asked
“May I understand from this that you agree that, in Fragment 37, when he writes, “we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks (ευχαριστουντες)”, he is still at that point speaking of unconsecrated bread?”
So the question is what is meant by the word Eucharist in, “is not longer common bread, but the Eucharist”.
Now correct me if I am wrong but from what the catechism says and when we follow the Mass it appears that before the consecration we offer ourselves, praise and thanksgiving, our material belongings for the church and the poor, and unconsecrated bread and wine. Now given that our conscious is clear and we have made amends with our fellow men before we bring our offerings to the altar by these actions we have “perfected the oblation”, then as Irenaeus says “we invoke the Holy Spirit”. Following along with the catechism we read
“1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing178) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit ”
Now I don’t know much about the prayer service that Timothy K attends but do they invoke the Holy Spirit as Irenaeus describes? Irenaeus’s descriptions of the events seems to follow the outline of the Mass and the catechism.
Thank you, Timothy P. I am glad that you all agree with me that the “bread and cup of blessing” is the unconsecrated bread. (Although Layne didn’t really agree). In any case, Irenæus wrote after likening the pure oblation of the church to the incense of our prayers (Revelation 5:8, 8:3), the “living sacrifice” of our bodies( Romans 12:1) and “the fruit of the lips” being a sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15), he then explains that the nature of this incense and these sacrifices is that they are “not according to the law” but rather “are according to the Spirit,” and then said,
A few days ago you said of the second sentence,
You have also said that the oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine is pure because “our conscious is clear.”
Would you agree, then, that in the context of Fragment 37, where he says “the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure” he is still talking about our prayers and offerings in accordance with Phil 4:18, Romans 12:1, Hebrews 13:15 and Revelation 5:8, 8:3)? And when he goes on in the next sentence, “For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment,” that “the Eucharist” here still refers to the liturgy of the Eucharist before the Holy Spirit is invoked? That the oblation of the Eucharist at that point in Fragment 37 is an oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine, but nonetheless not carnal but spiritual and is pure “in this respect” that our conscience is clear and that it is not an offering according to the law but according to the Spirit? In other words, do you agree that when Irenæus uses the term, “the oblation of the Ευχαριστιας,” he is still referring to the Eucharistic oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine offered in the spirit of Philippians 4:18?
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K, you ask
“In other words, do you agree that when Irenæus uses the term, “the oblation of the Ευχαριστιας,” he is still referring to the Eucharistic oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine offered in the spirit of Philippians 4:18?”
My response would be since Irenaeus does not specifically define what he means by “the oblation of the Ευχαριστιας” you are simple speculating what he means. Why limit it to just the unconsecrated bread and wine?
TIMOTHY P.–
You said: “do you have any problem with this quote from Irenaeus 37?”
No I don’t. Do you have a problem with this:
TIM K. said something like this– “I am reading a statement by Irenæus in the original greek. The meaning of that statement the original greek is all that matters. The Latin was translate in the 3rd century. I’m willing to grant you 3rd century solely for the sake of argument based on some scholars placing it there. ”
And response was based according to his reference which I trusted. He has now modified it by adding “Other scholars find that “evidence” for that argument “scarcely convincing” and place the latin translation in the latter part of the 4th.” Did you think he intentionally omitted that information?
He also said: “but the latin translation is often dated to the end of the 4th century, just when Roman Catholicism appears to have discovered the “real presence.”
Yes, probably by the ones who “conveniently” originally came up with the idea of the late 4th century “Rise of Roman Catholicism.” 😉 However, I am going to trust Tim K.’s original information that the Latin translation happen in the 3rd century.
Again, he said– “I am reading a statement by Irenæus in the original greek. The meaning of that statement the original greek is all that matters.”
So let’s get back to the original Greek, shall we?
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV Chapter 18:
“5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, ‘when set aside by the Church of God’, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Let’s revisit something that I assume the Greek also says: ” For we offer to HIM HIS OWN, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.”
Tim K. said that the context here is food set aside for the poor. Well the context seems to say a little more than that. Let’s go back to chapter 17 of Book IV:
“5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of HIS OWN, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the NEW OBLATION of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, OFFERS TO GOD throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of HIS OWN gifts in the New Testament…(passage from Malachi1:10-11) — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place SACRIFICE SHALL BE OFFERED to Him, and that A PURE ONE; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
6. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and MAN also? And because it is [the name] of HIS OWN Son, who was MADE MAN by Him, He calls it HIS OWN. Just as a king, if he himself paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness HIS OWN, for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and because it is HIS OWN production; so also does the Father confess the name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the Church, to be HIS OWN, both because it is that of His Son, and because He who thus describes it gave Him FOR THE SALVATION OF MEN. Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church MAKES OFFERINGS THROUGH Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, “And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice.” Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the “incense” is “the prayers of the saints.”
18:1. The OBLATION of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a PURE SACRIFICE, and is acceptable to Him…”
Timothy P., not only does the context say the fruits of the Creation are HIS OWN, but it also maintains that Jesus Christ is HIS OWN. And this is in the context of the oblation of the New Covenant– a pure sacrifice offered to God.
Interesting how context ties things together don’t you think?
Thanks–
–Layne
That’s hilarious, Layne. When we were talking about chapter 18, I showed that from paragraph 1 to paragraph 6, Irenæus is consistent in his references to the collection for the poor and needy. I cited paragraph 2 to prove it, and you responded,
So when I cited paragraph 2 from chapter 18, you considered it “out of context.” But when you discover that Irenæus believed that Jesus was God’s own Son, and that he also believed that we are to offer to Him His own created things, you think that it proves that Irenæus thought we should offer Jesus to the Father? We are talking about paragraph 5 of chapter 18, and you think 17:6 is more “in context” with 18:5 than 18:2?
Well, I’ll give you credit for elasticity. But I’ll also give you credit for hitting the nail on the head. You have no idea how close you are to the truth, and how far away from Roman Catholicism you are when you say,
Well done. You are not far from the truth. But near to truth is far from Rome and I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, but I don’t think you have realized its implication.
Best,
Tim
There are still a few of my comments that Timothy K has under moderation and I can understand why as his position on Irenaeus unravels before our eyes. Now Timothy K is all about context but seems to find it hilarious that Layne has found a couple of paragraphs from Irenaeus 17:6 that obviously puts chapter 18 into the proper perspective. Of course maybe Timothy K needs to be reminded that the chapter and verse would not have been in the original writing. “HIS OWN”. Hmmmm.
Let’s look at those verses again
“God, but that in every place SACRIFICE SHALL BE OFFERED to Him, and that A PURE ONE; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
6. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and MAN also? And because it is [the name] of HIS OWN Son, who was MADE MAN by Him, He calls it HIS OWN. Just as a king, if he himself paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness HIS OWN, for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and because it is HIS OWN production; so also does the Father confess the name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the Church, to be HIS OWN, both because it is that of His Son, and because He who thus describes it gave Him FOR THE SALVATION OF MEN. ”
“A Sacrifice Shall be offered”, “A Pure One”, and what is the next line. “AND HIS NAME IS GLORIFIED AMONG THE GENTILES”.
Timothy K responds hilarious! And Kevin responds ”
“Layne, are you serious. You equate that first fruits of HIS OWN gifts and HIS OWN SON means that the bread is Jesus and therefore the oblation for sins? ”
Now what is so great as a Catholic we offer the Father HIS OWN Gifts and HIS OWN SON, just like Irenaeus. That is hilarious.
Thank you Layne
Timothy P, since (as you say) my “position on Irenaeus unravels before [y]our eyes,” you should have no problem answering the questions I posed to you here http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/#comment-34163. I look forward to your response.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim K. has kept some of my comments under moderation and then complained that I never explained something.
Mark, so that you may understand why you are perpetually under moderation, perhaps this will help. You wrote, “Tim K. has kept some of my comments under moderation and then complained that I never explained something.”
Please explain where I “complained” that you never explained something.
Thanks,
Tim
Actually, it was me who complained to you about keeping a comment under moderation which explained to you what you were asking of me. As far as I know that was never posted. I pretty much gave up on the dialog after that. I don’t care for stilted conversation.
Mark, just to be clear, when you said that I had “complained that [you] never explained something,” it wasn’t a true statement? The most recent moderated comment prior to this one was from two weeks ago, August 22, in which you summarized the errors of the Paulicians:
Do you believe that comment about what you think the Paulicians believed will in some way answer my question to you about an infallible list of infallible teachings?
Thanks,
Tim
It was before then. I think we were talking about Ignatius. You went on a side conversation with Kevin claiming that I don’t explain this or that. I said I did explain it in a post that was sitting in moderation.
Ok. I don’t know which comment you’re talking about so I can’t help.
Thanks,
Tim
No problem Timothy K. I love to stay with Irenaeus. By the way, where you aware that the catechism referenced the passages from Irenaeus that you thought refuted the Catholic position. And am I the only one under moderation at this time or are all the Catholics under moderation?
Thank you, Timothy P. You wrote,
Yes. Do you realize that I referenced the passages from Irenæus that you thought refuted the Protestant position? You also cited 1353 of the catechism saying,
Actually, no they don’t. Irenæus never actually has Christ’s body and blood offered to the father in his description of the liturgy. But Roman Catholicism does. 1367 goes on to say that in the Mass, “the same Christ who offered himself … is offered “.
At no point in Irenæus’ liturgy does he have Christ’s body and blood offered to the Father. So no, Irenaeus’s descriptions of the events do not follow the outline of the Mass and the catechism.
You also asked,
Because after the consecration (the invocation of the Holy Spirit) nothing is offered or sacrificed. It is simply “exhibited.” In other words, what’s missing in Irenæus is the Roman Catholic mass.
Thanks,
Tim
Oh, Tim K. how silly of me. Of course my response to you is also still sitting in moderation. LOL.
“Mark Rome
JULY 18, 2017 AT 9:00 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I’ve explained this in a post on JULY 14, 2017 AT 8:02 PM which is still sitting in moderation. You just choose to ignore it.”
Tim K.,
No comment from you?
I showed you that not only was my explanation in moderation you also moderated my comment to you where I gave a clear explanation (and it still is in moderation).
Your buddies at CAnswers also restrict comments on their profoundly untenable Youtube posts.
It’s your blog, I get that, and you’ve put pretty much everyone in moderation, I get that as well. No problem. I just refuse to continue in conversations which you heavily censor. I’m not swearing at you. If you don’t like your veracity to be challenged, then apologetics isn’t the right field for you or you should shut down all comments from anyone reading your blog.
Mark, I just can’t find the comment to which you refer. I have no comments from you held in moderation from the times and dates you specify.
Tim
LOL, I can see the posts which say “this comment is awaiting moderation” and you can’t?
I really cannot see the ones you are talking about. I really can’t. I have no comments awaiting moderation on the dates and times you specified. I will gladly look for them if you will tell me the content.
Thanks,
Tim
Can you see this comment that is still in moderation Tim K.? I’ve copied and pasted it here for you.
“Mark Rome
JULY 18, 2017 AT 9:00 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I’ve explained this in a post on JULY 14, 2017 AT 8:02 PM which is still sitting in moderation. You just choose to ignore it.”
Ok, thank you. I did find it. I will be happy to release it from moderation. However, I think it is important that I first explain to you why a long series of your comments was held in moderation in the first place. You wrote, for example,
I held that in moderation because it is a silly question and a silly comment, considering that I am in the middle of a series showing historical evidence that there was a True Christian Church in existence alongside the heretical Roman Catholic Church. It shows me that you are neither reading what I write nor interacting meaningfully with it. You are simply offering knee-jerk Roman Catholic responses. By way of example, you also wrote,
You asked this question in response to my article in which I denied that the Paulicians were heretical. You asked later,
You wrote this in response to my series on the Paulicians in which, rather than “overlooking” their heresies, I evaluated them and showed why I believe that what they taught was not heretical, but simply misconstrued to be. You then wrote,
You wrote this in response to my article in which I denied that they taught the things that have been often attributed to them. And yet, despite my extensive writing claiming that it is my conviction that they did not teach heretical things, and were not heretics, you responded that I “would also consider the Paulicians heretics”—the very thing I have repeatedly denied.
Because you apparently are only able to operate in one mode—calumniation—I simply stopped allowing your comments through. You have continued with your calumniation even very recently.
Now, turning our attention to the comment you have requested to be released from moderation, I will release it. I did find it, and yes, I do need help with WordPress. That I am clumsy and illiterate on all manner of IT functions and web publishing, I do not deny. Now, some context:
You claimed,
In response, I showed you exactly where in his letter to the Smyrnæans he did exactly that: he said to stay away from the Gnostics because the deny the incarnation.
Having showed you that in his letter Ignatius did exactly what you said he didn’t do, you responded,
And yet, anyone here is free to inspect your comments and determine if you were specifically talking about chapter 7 or not. Here is the entirety of your comment:
Nary a word about “speaking specifically of chapter 7.”
I have had enough. You are willing to lie, calumniate and cast all manner of aspersion on everyone and anyone who disagrees with you, irrespective of the facts. You simply make up new facts as you go.
So, you have your wish: I have released your comment from moderation. It adds nothing new to the conversation. I had asked you to show me where, in the first four chapters of his letter to the Smyrnæans, Ignatius said they should avoid the gnostics because they denied the real presence, and unable to answer, you simply went back to your talking points:
Yes, except for the part where he actually said that.
Mark, I have grown weary of your calumniations and your willful and repeated misrepresenations. You are not welcome here, and your ban is permanent. But I have released your comment from moderation.
Enjoy,
Tim
How can I see it as sitting moderation and the blog owner/administrator cannot?
I copied and pasted the comment. It had a time and date stamp as well as my message.
Do you need help with WordPress?
Like I said, I will gladly look for them if you will tell me the content. I simply do not have any moderated comments from you on the dates you specified. I can’t do anything more than that.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne, are you serious. You equate that first fruits of HIS OWN gifts and HIS OWN SON means that the bread is Jesus and therefore the oblation for sins? Wow that’s better sophistry than your church. First, the oblation of the Eucharist is spiritual not carnal. He is talking about prayers and thanksgiving and those offerings as per Philippians 4. There is no priest here in Iranaeus saying magic words changing the bread into Jesus body. On numerous occasions you all have been cited Pope Gelasius and I believe Chrysostom saying the nature of the bread and wine don’t change. Layne said ” interesting how context ties things
together don’t you think” Actually what’s interesting how butchering the context as you have done ties things together. It is interesting to watch you, Timothy P, and Mark die on the hill for the Roman Catholic view. But it’s understandable since you have to believe that to get to heaven. Your last statement to Timothy P tells me it is the sacrifice of Christ in the mass that you need for heaven. Here is what you said ” and this is the context of the oblation of the New Covenant- a pure sacrifice of God.” The sad thing is that if you new the scriptures you would know that the sacrifice of the New Covenant was offered when Christ offered himself by the Spirit ONCE and for all in time, never to be repeated of continued. Ephesians 1:7 says true believers, those who repent and believe the gospel have already been redeemed. God is just applying what has already been finished. By our sacrifices of Thanksgiving and praise we are living out an acceptance we already have. Roman Catholics are living out to get that acceptance. That’s law, not faith. Thanks K
Kevin,
Layne actually said, “a pure sacrifice offered to God,” not “a pure sacrifice of God.”
While agree with you in your enthusiastic insistence that Christ’s death on the cross is the one, only and final sacrifice for sins, in the context of the conversation we are having Irenæus believed that the sacrifice of the church in the new covenant is the sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15) and the sacrifice of our bodies, our reasonable service (Romans 12:1) and the well pleasing sacrifice of caring for those in need (Philippians 4:18). That, to Irenus, was the sacrifice, or oblation, of the New Covenant. In that context, he is not wrong, since in context he is simply citing the apostolic exhortations that we continue to offer sacrifices.
When Protestants object to continued sacrifices in any form, they do so out of respect for the one sacrifice of Christ, but at the expense of the legitimate apostolic exhortations that we continue offering sacrifices (Rom 12:1, 1 Peter 2:5, Hebrews 13:15, Phil 4:18, Rev 5:8, 8:3). That is one of the main reasons Protestants convert to Roman Catholicism—after all these years of being against more sacrifices, they discover not only that the apostles exhorted us to keep offering them, and the Early Church actually did offer them, but that Roman Catholicism has been offering sacrifices of its own since the latter part of the 4th century, and they fall into the trap of the Sacrifice Challenge and convert to Rome.
A better, more scriptural, approach is to emphasize not that there are no more sacrifices (to hold such an opinion is to be against the Scriptures) but rather that there are no more sacrifices for sin. In his context, Irenæus believed exactly that and was holding to the scriptural imperative to offer more sacrifices and called them the oblation of the new covenant. In context, I see nothing wrong with Irenæus calling it that.
Layne, of course, does not understand the context in which Irenæus said this, so he has misunderstood Irenæus to say that we are to sacrifice Jesus to His Father. Irenæus says nothing of the kind.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne, I am still blown away how eye opening the last verses in chapter 17 are in displaying the Catholic view of the Eucharist as seen in chapter 18. In fact, since the original Greek did not have chapters and verse let’s look at the verses without the chapter and verse
And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the NEW OBLATION of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, OFFERS TO GOD throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of HIS OWN gifts in the New Testament…(passage from Malachi1:10-11) — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place SACRIFICE SHALL BE OFFERED to Him, and that A PURE ONE; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and MAN also? And because it is [the name] of HIS OWN Son, who was MADE MAN by Him, He calls it HIS OWN. Just as a king, if he himself paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness HIS OWN, for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and because it is HIS OWN production; so also does the Father confess the name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the Church, to be HIS OWN, both because it is that of His Son, and because He who thus describes it gave Him FOR THE SALVATION OF MEN. Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church MAKES OFFERINGS THROUGH Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, “And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice.” Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the “incense” is “the prayers of the saints.”
18:1. The OBLATION of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a PURE SACRIFICE, and is acceptable to Him…”
And thus, Timothy P, “The OBLATION of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world,” as you can see throughout chapters 17 and 18, is the oblation of gratitude (eucharistia) in accordance with Philippians 4:18 ( I am full, having received … the things which were sent from you), Proverbs 19:17 (He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD), and Matthew 24:35 (For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink:). It’s all about food for those who need it. That’s the eucharistic oblation of gratitude of the new covenant, and that’s the oblation Irenæus said “the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world,” and that is the oblation Malachi foresaw (Malachi 1:10-11). Not the mass sacrifice. See how much easier it is to read the church fathers in context?
So, there you go. I, too, am blown away by how “the Catholic view of the Eucharist” is completely missing from Irenæus. And that is why my position in these debates is so much easier then yours. All I have to do is provide the exact words of the Church Fathers and let them speak for themselves, and you are stuck defending your position from a barbaric Latin translation of his works.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K writes
“All I have to do is provide the exact words of the Church Fathers and let them speak for themselves”,
Is this the same Timothy K who wrote
“Rather he says we offer oblations to God in accordance with Philippians 4:18, and the bread and wine become heavenly, being set aside for the Lord’s purposes, and then we exhibit “the sacrifice” of Christ antitypically, and feed the antetypes to the gathered believers that they, believing, may live forever”
Irenaeus exact words ? Irenaeus speaking for himself? Really? That is why Kevin wanted to thank you for unraveling Irenaeus for him. I asked Kevin before if he did not find it strange that someone would write with the intention that later someone as brilliant as Timothy K would need to unravel his writings so they could understand them. No response! And we haven’t even touched a number of quotes that I have provided you. Should we both write a summation of our current discussion on 17 and 18 and then move on to the others?
Yep, the very same. You probably didn’t get the joke, but I simply recited your own claim back to you. It was you who first said your position is so easy because all you have to do is let the Fathers speak for themselves, and when I asked what Cyprian meant when he said the people are mixed up with Christ in the Cup before the consecration you said,
He was? Where did Cyprian say he was being symbolic? Is this the same Timothy P who wrote,
Yes, we all know you must read Irenæus and the other fathers through your Rome colored glasses.
You wrote,
Do you not find it strange that someone would write in Greek with the intention that later someone as brilliant your Latin translator could to unravel his writings into a barbarous Latin mistranslation so they could better understand them?
I have only argued from the Greek text, Timothy P. Why do the original sources offend you so much?
Tim
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
you said “Layne, of course, does not understand the context in which Irenæus said this, so he has misunderstood Irenæus to say that we are to sacrifice Jesus to His Father. Irenæus says nothing of the kind.”
I have been corrected, Tim. You corrected me, remember?
We, the Body of Christ, offer our sacrifices “Through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit” so the glory and honor are all the Heavenly Father’s. Everyone else would know that if you had posted my comment which is still in moderation.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, your comment on that point is here: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/#comment-33879 and has been for weeks.
Tim
That’s not the one I was talking about, although it is about that. I shall re-enter the post I was referring to:
LAYNE says:
August 15, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Timothy F. Kauffman–
You said–“Not sure I understand the sequence. Are you offering yourselves as living sacrifices before or after the consecration?”
Yes, both. We are the living Body of Christ before and we are the living Body of Christ afterwards. Christ abides in us and we abide in Him. Do you not do the same in your Communion rite?
Thanks–
–Layne
Timothy K wrote
“Yep, the very same. You probably didn’t get the joke, but I simply recited your own claim back to you. It was you who first said your position is so easy because all you have to do is let the Fathers speak for themselves”
Oh Timothy K, I definitely did get the joke and what is so funny is your constantly saying a Church Father says such and such and then having to give this convoluted explanation trying to defend you comments. For example once again, Timothy K wrote concerning Irenaeus
“Rather he says we offer oblations to God in accordance with Philippians 4:18, and the bread and wine become heavenly, being set aside for the Lord’s purposes, and then we exhibit “the sacrifice” of Christ antitypically, and feed the antetypes to the gathered believers that they, believing, may live forever”
And I responded
“Irenaeus exact words ? Irenaeus speaking for himself? Really?”
Now you obviously don’t want the Fathers to speak for themselves because I haven’t seen a single quote from you from Irenaeus that actually denies the real presence. And Kevin’s refusal to share the quotes that I provided with family member and friends just simply proves my point.
Timothy K wrote
“Do you not find it strange that someone would write in Greek with the intention that later someone as brilliant your Latin translator could to unravel his writings into a barbarous Latin mistranslation so they could better understand them?”
Are you talking about that Latin translator whom you originally stated made his translation in the 3rd Century but when Layne corrected you that it did not fit into your apostasy scenario you came back that actually scholars thought it was probably the 4th century. And of course that Latin translator obviously had a better understanding of the beliefs of the early Christians then someone 1600 years later warped by the Sola Individualitica of the Protestant Reformation. I also find it interesting that as I remember when the barbaric translation seemed in your opinion to support your position no mention was made as to how barbaric a translation it was, but when it appeared to support the Catholic position it was a barbaric translation which could not be trusted. As Mark Rome and Layne pointed out your selective use of Catholic Scholars is pretty evident. When they seem to agree with you they are beacons of Truth, when they disagree they are pawns of the antiChrist
Timothy P,
You wrote,
I did, in the context of Layne’s claim that maybe Latin came first and the Greek was the mistranslation. Should I have said, “the earliest possible dating of the Latin is the 3rd century”? Yes, I should have. Nevertheless, my response to that is verifiably true:
Do you wish for me to acknowledge that I made a mistake in not qualifying my initial remarks. Sure. I did. But it is not I, but the patristic scholars, who date it to the late 4th century:
Altaner was a “Catholic historian and patristic scholar.” Obviously one of those, to use Bob/Layne’s words, “who “conveniently” originally came up with the idea of the late 4th century “Rise of Roman Catholicism.””
You continued,
I rejected the latin Irenæus in AH.3.3 because it said everyone must agree with the Church of Rome, and not only do the patristic scholars of both stripes acknowledge that the latin is not a good guide here, but other Patristics, citing letters from Irenæus, acknowledge that Irenæus personally disagreed with the church of Rome.
I accept the latin conditionally when there is no greek to back it up, because that is all we have. But it is not I, but the patristic scholars, who acknowledge that the latin translation is barbaric, and the translator unequal to the task of translating the greek.
I accept the latin when it actually comports with the greek. Telesantes (τελεσαντες) means “completed” and it got rendered in latin as “finito” which makes perfect sense, and we can validate that. In english, it gets rendered as “perfected,” which is inconsistent with both the latin and the greek.
I reject the latin when it does not comport with the greek. “προσλαμβανομενος την εκκλησιν του Θεου” in Greek does not translate into “percipiens invocationem Dei” in latin or into “receives the invocation of God” in English.
You summarized this perfectly reasonable assessment of Irenæus by saying,
That’s hardly a fair assessment. I have provided evidence for my positions, and the data can be validated and fact checked. Your only justification for deferring to the Latin is that the guy who translated it into latin must have had a better understanding of what Irenæus meant than Protestants do. But it matters not who reads the Latin and interprets it. What matters is whether the Latin translation is trustworthy, and whether the Latin comports with the greek where the greek is available. That seems to me to be a rather reasonable, levelheaded approach, but for some reason, Roman Catholics think relying on the greek and the preponderance of evidence is a bad thing.
Tim
Tim, I agree with everything you just said. I checked my last post and I did not clarify no more sacrifice for sins. Generally I do, my apology. But if you could respond to a couple observations I have. It seems to me that distinguishing spiritual sacrifices which are acceptable to God such as praise, thanksgiving, setting aside gifts for the poor, our bodies as a living sacrifice etc. Such as we see in Iranaeus and you so well captured in your series on The Praise was their sacrifice out of a redemption we already possess Ephesians 1:7 is easily seen by Protestants as distinctly different from the re sacrifice of Jesus in the wafer for sins. But, to me, the reason these 3 and Catholics in general can’t see this distinction is because many Catholics don’t understand the gospel and the finished work of Christ. Far be it from me to disagree with the eschatological argument you make which I agree is very important and the many articles you have written pointing out all the many errors on Roman Catholicism, but I sometime wonder why you don’t make the gospel argument and the justification argument more because it seems to be the misunderstanding they are having with seeing the differences in the supper. Iow, understanding the finished sacrifice of Christ and justification may help them to view sacrifice and Iranaeus in a different light. Because when I read Layne tying together those concepts in his last post I see him needing to have transubstantiation because it is the sacrifice of the mass that saves them and justifies them. They keep holding on to the same views because they have to. It’s the sacrifice that saves them and justifies them. Again, I think your approach is of the most importance, but often times it seems to me their lack of understanding is they see the process of sanctification as justification,and if we don’t make these distinctions for them how are they going to properly understand acceptable sacrifices in the supper . Just an observation. K
Tim, also I think you make a really good point why Protestants convert to Roman Catholicism. The Protestant church has failed to teach the apostolic sacrifices and what they are and what they mean in the NT. I just admit until I came here I’m not sure I fully appreciated full understanding. I also think your point makes my point that even Protestants don’t fully understand how salvation is accomplished and applied fully. I don’t know if your a fan of John Murray’s book Redemption Accomplished and Applied ? but I found it good.
Timothy F. Kauffman said–
“A better, more scriptural, approach is to emphasize not that there are no more sacrifices (to hold such an opinion is to be against the Scriptures) but rather that there are no more sacrifices for sin.”
OK Tim. Here is a teachable moment for you.
Irenaeus said in fragment 37 “And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit THIS SACRIFICE , both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, IN ORDER THAT THE RECEIVERS OF THESE ANTITYPES MAY OBTAIN REMISSION OF SINS and life eternal.”
I figure that you are going to tell us all, Tim K. why Irenaeus doesn’t really mean what he just said.
Thanks–
–Layne
If he had said that, Layne, you might have a point.
The original Greek says “THE sacrifice” (την θυσίαν) not “THIS sacrifice” (αυτη θυσίαν).
Thanks,
Tim
TIM K. said “If he had said that, Layne, you might have a point.
The original Greek says “THE sacrifice” (την θυσίαν) not “THIS sacrifice” (αυτη θυσίαν).”
Ok. THE sacrifice. You’re focusing on the wrong part of that statement. Notice what he says about “the” sacrifice. “IN ORDER THAT THE RECEIVERS OF THESE ANTITYPES MAY OBTAIN REMISSION OF SINS.”
IN ORDER THAT the receivers of these ANTITYPES may obtain remission of sins. By your definition of antitype as symbol, receivers of those symbols may obtain remission of sins. How can that be if they are just symbols? He is not talking about the Cross 2000 years ago because the Cross is not an antitype. Those antitypes are the bread and wine that were just now part of the oblation–that pure and acceptable sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Thanks–
–Layne
Wow, Layne, “THIS Sacrifice” seemed awfully important to you when it was “THIS.” Just like “INVOCATION OF GOD” seemed awfully important until it wasn’t “INVOCATION OF GOD.” But for some reason, when Irenæus doesn’t actually say what you thought he did, for some reason you don’t believe that changes what he is saying. (!) Now that it’s “THE SACRIFICE” and doesn’t refer to “THIS OBLATION,” suddenly I’m focusing on the wrong part of the statement? You’re focusing (again) and the part of the statement that Irenæus didn’t even say.
Besides, this is where you’re wrong:
No, they are not. The bread and the wine were part of the oblation before they were antitypes of Christ’s body and blood. They did not become “antitypes” until after “we invoke the Holy Spirit” and thus, it is not true to say that “Those antitypes are the bread and wine that were just now part of the oblation”. The bread and wine are part of the oblation, and then “we invoke the Holy Spirit” in order to exhibit the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood antitypically. Notice that the bread and wine are offered, but the antitypes are not offered, but rather are exhibited. What is missing anywhere in IRENAUES is OFFERING the ANTITYPES, and yet your whole argument depends on him offering the antetypes. Thus, Jesus’ body and blood are not even symbolically offered to the Father here or anywhere else in Irenæus.
In any case, to answer your most pressing question,
Quite easily, actually. I explained this to you before but you could not hear it. I know how very much you wish Irenæus had written,
At alas, he did not. So back to the Greek, again:
The “just as” and the “so also” link the manner in which bread set aside in the church becomes heavenly with the manner in which our bodies become no longer corruptible when they receive the symbols. So how did the bread and wine become heavenly? By being set aside for the poor “in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love” (AH, IV.18.2) How do our bodies become incorruptible? By receiving the antetypes “in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love.”
It’s not difficult, Layne. The bread and wine, though taken from earth, take on heavenly realities when they are brought in faith and hope and love to the church as an offering for the poor, and our bodies, though they will be buried in the earth, become incorruptible when the symbols of Christ’s body and blood are received in faith and hope and love as a reminder of what He did for us.
That’s “how can that be if they are just symbols.” Your whole argument was based on Irenæus saying the bread and wine become heavenly realities “at the invocation of God,” and because “this sacrifice” is offered to God and then fed to the people to grant them everlasting life. But it turns out Irenæus doesn’t actually say that. Rather he says we offer oblations to God in accordance with Philippians 4:18, and the bread and wine become heavenly, being set aside for the Lord’s purposes, and then we exhibit “the sacrifice” of Christ antitypically, and feed the antetypes to the gathered believers that they, believing, may live forever.
Can you find any explicit references in Irenæus to the body and blood of Christ being offered to God? Nope.
I don’t know a Protestant who doesn’t celebrate the Lord’s supper the same way Irenæus describes. We even say “this is the Body of Christ” after the elements have been consecrated. But like the early church, we only offer our goods and prayers to God as a sacrifice of gratitude and thanksgiving, and then once the sacrifice is over, we consecrate the elements of the supper that the sacrifice of Christ may be exhibited by the Holy Spirit in symbolic form. See? The people don’t eat the oblation. And the minister does not sacrifice the symbols. You should join us and celebrate the Lord’s Supper the way the early church did, according to the Scriptures, and not according to your late 4th century novelties.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I must commend you on that post to Layne. A remarkable ability to explain what confuses many about the early church. I just told my wife God has given you a great gift of understanding and interpretation of the scriptures.
TIM K.–
You said: “Wow, Layne, “THIS Sacrifice” seemed awfully important to you when it was “THIS.”
WOW back at ya Tim! All the word gymnastics it took to explain something that you think Irenaeus said but didn’t. Quite a circus!
Now about that word THIS. When I highlighted it to capitalize “sacrifice” the word “this” highlighted with it. It was not my intent to emphasize the word “this” but I left it that way anyhow. I didn’t think it would be such a big deal. But obviously you thought you had a “gotcha!” moment. It didn’t matter to me at all for the word “this” to be capitalized for me to make my meaning. So sorry to burst your bubble. But it was kinda funny to see you jump all over that.
I’m going to stick with what Irenaeus said instead of what you think he said. It makes a whole lot more sense.
And about the “That’s hilarious” comment, again that is not the point I was trying to make when I brought up Book IV chapter 17. Chapter 18’s first sentence has the word “therefore” in it which connects the context to chapter 17. The reason I brought up the last paragraph of chapter 17 was to show that Christ being God’s own was in fact in context with paragraph 6 of chapter 18 when you indicated that it was not (“Thus, your belief that, in context, Irenæus is describing the offering to God His own Son in the Eucharist. But again, context is exactly what is missing from Irenæus’ quotes as provided by Timothy P. When referring to “offering to Him His own,” Irenæus is referring to the unconsecrated food of the collection for the needy—the first fruits of His creation. This is why context matters so much”–Tim Kauffman Aug 8 2017).
The point I was trying to make is the last paragraph of chapter 17 is just as relevant to the oblation of the Eucharist as the rest of chapter 18 tying in the phrase “His own.” Otherwise the oblation of the New Covenant would have no reason to be offered through Christ. Our setting aside for the poor would have been good enough.
I now await with anticipation your slings and arrows.
Thanks–
–Layne
I love it Timothy K when you say “when Irenæus doesn’t actually say what you thought he did”. I would invite anyone to go back and read the entire discourse chapter 17 and 18 and then look at Timothy K’s “unraveling” of Irenaeus and see how many times Timothy K suggests that Irenaeus says something he never says.
A perfect example
“Rather he says we offer oblations to God in accordance with Philippians 4:18, and the bread and wine become heavenly, being set aside for the Lord’s purposes, and then we exhibit “the sacrifice” of Christ antitypically, and feed the antetypes to the gathered believers that they, believing, may live forever”
Seriously Timothy K, Irenaeus said that. Amazing!
Timothy P, in fact, yes, Irenæus said that. Quite amazing indeed. And to think all these years you had been basing your understanding of Irenæus on the barbaric Latin translation instead of the original Greek. I am, of course, happy to help.
Tim
Layne
It must have been one of those Roman Catholic interpreters from the 4th Century that changed the phrase from “The sacrifice” to “This sacrifice”. Maybe Kevin can explain to us why the change from the to this is of significance?
Timothy P, it’s funny to me how little the original text matters to you. I repeatedly bring you back to the Greek in which Irenæus wrote, and for some reason to Roman Catholics, that’s making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Greek says “την θυσίαν” which is “the sacrifice.” The latin says “hanc victimam” which is “this sacrifice.” Translating it as “this sacrifice” makes it sound like Irenæaus is referring to the oblation just completed when he refers to the bread, the body of Christ and the wine, the blood of Christ. In fact, that is the very argument Layne makes. But Irenæus doesn’t say “this sacrifice.” He says “the sacrifice.” The bread and wine are offered as the oblation of the new covenant in accordance with Phil 4:18, and then the Holy Spirit is invoked that He may exhibit the sacrifice of Christ. Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward. I don’t know a Protestant who doesn’t do the same thing.
You ridicule the significance, asking someone to “explain to us why the change from the to this is of significance.” And yet Layne thought THIS SACRIFICE was extremely important to his argument, and thus, the all caps. Perhaps, instead, Layne could explain why the Latin translation was so important to his interpretation, and the Greek is just a distraction.
Instead of wishing Irenæus had written something about the Real Presence, you should be focusing on what Irenæus actually wrote.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM K. said: “The Greek says “την θυσίαν” which is “the sacrifice.” The latin says “hanc victimam” which is “this sacrifice.” Translating it as “this sacrifice” makes it sound like Irenæaus is referring to the oblation just completed when he refers to the bread, the body of Christ and the wine, the blood of Christ. In fact, that is the very argument Layne makes.”
AND
“And yet Layne thought THIS SACRIFICE was extremely important to his argument, and thus, the all caps.”
In light of my previous explanation to you (posted September 5, 2017 at 11:23 pm), it is clear your statement is a boldface lie. Even Kevin has jumped in on it. You not only have painted yourself into a corner, but Kevin as well. You are going to have to either delete my explanation or own up to your deception.
Thanks–
–Layne
BOB,
You have been posting comments here long enough (as, BOB the Methodist, or LAYNE the Roman Catholic, or any other number of pseudonyms) for me, and everyone else, to know that you emphasize with all caps when you intend to emphasize, i.e.,
You provided the following explanation for why you rendered it as “THIS SACRIFICE” instead of “this SACRIFICE”:
Sure you did, Bob. I do not believe or accept your explanation, Layne, Bob, or whoever you really are, and whatever denomination you claim to be. In your original response (2017/09/05 at 4:58 pm), you said, “Ok. THE sacrifice. You’re focusing on the wrong part of that statement,” and then you continued unabated, as if “THIS sacrifice” was in reference to the oblation that had just been offered because it could not have been in reference to THE sacrifice of Christ:
The Cross is not an antitype? That’s desperation, Bob. Nobody has even suggested that the Cross is the antitype to which Irenus refers. The bread and wine are antitypes of Christ’s body and blood which was sacrificed on the Cross. But they are not declared antitypes until after the oblation is over, and when they are antitypes, they are not “offered” or even “sacrificed.” In short your answer remains the same, namely that Irenæus could not have been talking about THE sacrifice (the Cross), so he must have been talking about THIS SACRIFICE that had just been offered. But the problem is, Irenæus had already said that the OBLATION was over, and then THE SACRIFICE of Christ’s body and blood is exhibited, not offered. THE SACRIFICE is not THE OBLATION. You’re still trying to make “the sacrifice” = “THIS SACRIFICE.”
Oh, by the way, the word rendered “exhibit” here is αποφηνη (apophene), from which we get the modern term, apophenia, “the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)”. Isn’t that a great word to use? In other words, Irenæus says we invoke the Holy Spirit that the believers may perceive a connection or meaningful association between the bread and wine on the table and the sacrifice Christ offered on the cross.
The boldfaced lie, Bob, is that “It was not my intent to emphasize the word “this” but I left it that way anyhow.” Sure you did, … BOB.
Tim
” I figure that you are going to tell us all, Tim K why Iranaeus doesn’t really mean what he just said.” This is my point. If these guys had a proper understanding that Christ’s sacrifice for sins is finished then they could understand Iranaeus in proper context. If they understood that the gospel by which a man is saved is told and believed, not done Mark 1:15 ” repent and believe in the gospel, then they would understand that the setting aside of bread as an oblation isn’t a redemption sacrifice of Jesus for sins. Since in this discussion Tim has pointed out many errors in the catechism of the RC and errors in their interpretation of the fathers, lets point out the biggest error of Trent. The Roman Catholic Church annathamatizes any Catholic that DOESN’T believe that the mass is a proper and true sacrifice, though unbloody, in and of itself for sins. It is a place where Catholics offer themselves for their sins, and Christ is really offered. It is merit for the strong, not grace for the weak. And for this reason the Reformers said Rome corrupted the sacraments. Layne, Timothy P, Mark, the supper is a meal at a table where we offer thanksgiving and praise for a redemption we already possess, it is not a sacrifice of Christ again for sins. Understanding Iranaeus in this context seems rather easy.
Kevin writes concerning Layne’s comment
” I figure that you are going to tell us all, Tim K why Iranaeus doesn’t really mean what he just said.” This is my point. If these guys had a proper understanding that Christ’s sacrifice for sins is finished then they could understand Iranaeus in proper context.”
Well that makes sense Kevin. We come up with our interpretation of the bible and then based on that “proper context” determine what Irenaeus is saying even if that is not what it sounds like he is saying. No wonder you need Timothy K to “unravel” Irenaeus for you.
Layne, said ” do you not do the same in your own communion rite” What we don’t do is offer ourselves as a sacrifice for our sins. And what we don’t do is offer Christ over and over for our sins. Our sacrifices from the altar of our heart are from a thanksgiving for a redemption we already have Ephesians 1:7. . Peter in 1 Peter 2 calls every true believers priests. In fact he calls us a royal priesthood. We offer sacrifices , not to propitiate our sin, but to praise God for the one time sacrifice that saved us. The Catholic Church doesn’t do that. Their mass is a rejection of being justified FREELY by his grace. The Roman church says their people are justified cooperating with his grace by meriting the increases of salvation in the mass. That’s works righteousness, and maybe why you aren’t willing to read Iranaeus correctly. K
” and feed these antitypes to gathered believers that they, believing, might live forever. ” Hence, Paul’s words ” the righteous shall live by faith”
TIM K. says–” The people don’t eat the oblation.”
Ok, I’ll bite. If they don’t eat the bread and wine (the fruits of His own creation) offered in the oblation of the Eucharist, then what do they eat???
Thanks–
–Layne
That’s easy, Layne. I didn’t say the people don’t eat the bread and wine. I said they don’t eat the oblation.
Irenæus says once the oblation is finished (τελέσαντες), “we invoke the Holy Spirit” Who exhibits the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood antitypically to the gathered believers, and then we feed the antitypes of Christ’s body and blood to them.
The people don’t eat the bread and wine until after the oblation is over. Once the offering of the food for the poor is complete, Irenæus doesn’t call it the bread and wine of the oblation anymore. Thus, they don’t eat the oblation for the poor as part of the Lord’s Supper.
Pretty simple!
Thanks,
Tim
TIM K. said “The people don’t eat the bread and wine until after the oblation is over. Once the offering of the food for the poor is complete, Irenæus doesn’t call it the bread and wine of the oblation anymore. Thus, they don’t eat the oblation for the poor as part of the Lord’s Supper”
So am I to understand that the bread and wine of the oblation is not the same bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper? What do you do with the bread and wine of the oblation?
Thanks–
–Layne
Bob, you wrote,
No, you are to understand that the meal doesn’t begin until the oblation is over, and the bread and wine of the meal were not “antitypes” of the body and blood of Christ during the oblation. That much is clear from Irenæus. In other words, Irenæus did not celebrate “the sacrifice of the Mass.”
If you have some evidence from Irenæus to show that he thought the bread and wine were antitypes of Christ’s body and blood during the oblation, or that the antitypes of Christ’s body and blood are in any way offered to God, I will be happy to consider them.
Thanks,
Tim
Ok, let me back up a bit. What I am saying is not what you are hearing obviously. Let’s follow the bread through the steps:
The bread is brought up to the altar in the presentation of the gifts. Along with the wine and the basket of money, the bread is then, with prayers of thanks and praise, offered as an oblation to God. That same “oblated” bread is then changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Then that same “oblated” bread is offered to the congregation to eat. Do you agree?
Thanks–
–Layne
Sure, let’s back, up, Bob. Do you agree that the meal doesn’t begin until the oblation is over, and the bread and wine of the meal were not “antitypes” of the body and blood of Christ during the oblation?
Tim
Layne said ” I’m going to stick to what Iranaeus said and not what you think he said” Iow Layne, you are going to stick to what you think he said. But you were wrong on the words of invocation, you were wrong on the sacrifice being the symbols, and you were wrong about the oblation. So why would you stick to what you think he said. It isn’t what he said?
Timothy P ” maybe Kevin can explain to me why the change from the to this is so significant.” What cannot be underestimated is the difficulty there is in challenging informed Roman Catholics on the mass what these early father’s were saying. Why? Because they are brought up in a false church that has indoctrinated them into believing their salvation is earned at the mass through the continuing sacrifice of Christ. Tim K can explain Iranaeus to you until he is blue in the face, but he knows as I know that until you understand the utter idolatry and evil of works righteousness, earning the increases of salvation at the mass is, you will never change your mind. Only God can show you that, as God opened the eyes of former RC’S like Tim. I’ve posted here for a few years and have been blessed beyond measure with what Tim is doing. The eschatological argument is powerful, and the meticulous interpreting of the fathers in context is powerful, but one must go after the mass primarily because Catholics are taught that is the sacrifice for their sins and by eating that Jesus wafer they are accumulating salvation by doing it. Satan’s lies and anti gospel. Works righteousness! Idolatry! These understandings of Iranaeus aren’t differences of opinion of this or the, they differences of opinion about different religions. Roman Catholicism isn’t a different denomination but a different religion. One that reverses meaning to hoax their people.
Tim, the bread they were setting aside for the poor as the oblation, was the bread used for the symbol taken from that bread, or did the church have its own bread as they do today? Is seems like Layne might be confused that some bread was going to the more and some eaten.
It’s a good question, Kevin. Yes, the bread used for the Lord’s Supper was taken from that food over which thanks had been pronounced. Layne’s confusion is that he thinks “THIS SACRIFICE” refers to “THE OBLATION” just completed. But in Irenæus’ Eucharistic liturgy, they did not eat the food until the oblation was over and when he refers to the food as antitypes, he says the Holy Spirit “exhibits” the sacrifice of Christ through the symbols of bread and wine. Had he called it “THIS SACRIFICE”, Roman Catholics would pounce all over it (in fact, they do) as if Irenæus was referring to THIS SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. But all he says is the Holy Spirit exhibits the sacrifice, the bread the body of Christ, the wine the blood of Christ through symbols.
Thus, to my point and to your question, they offer the oblation of food for the poor and when the oblation is over, they eat the sacrifice of Christ as exhibited by antityptes. They do not eat the oblation of food for the poor or offer the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. They offer the oblation of food for the poor, and eat the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood exhibited for them by faith. What Rome needs, but cannot find, in Irenæus is “offering the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood.” It does not exist in Irenæus because the early church did not teach it.
Tim
WOW! TIM K.! It’s getting worse and worse. You better stop right now before everyone else realizes what you have done.
–Layne
Thanks, Bob.
Sure, “Layne”. 😉
Tim, don’t you find it interesting that Roman Catholicism reverses everything . For instance the sacrifice which is exhibited and eaten in the antitype they have being offered to God, and the oblation which is offered they reverse. The Catechism reverses having the Pharisee being saved. They reverse justification and sanctification . Priesthood of believers with a special priesthood patterned after OT. The church as the natural body of Christ. Faith and law. Etc. I keep coming back to scripture saying Satan makes good look evil etc. That is why I use hyperbole to say read RC doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. Satan actually has dangled this beast and ensnared millions by posing as biblical Christianity. What a seductress. Sad!
Timothy P , I have no problem sharing those quotes with family and friends. I’ll also tell them to come here to understand them. Seriously, Timothy P, why do you believe Rome, this site is full of their lies and errors. The only thing your church has been infallible at through history is being fallible. Take off your Roman glasses, study the scriptures, and repent and believe in the biblical gospel which is the only thing that can save you Mark 1:15. Your trusting the wrong head. Your leader and his religion can’t save you. God bless
Kevin, you are the gift that keeps on giving. After not being willing to share the quotes from Irenaeus on the Eucharist because they obviously sound so Catholic, you respond
“Timothy P , I have no problem sharing those quotes with family and friends. I’ll also tell them to come here to understand them”
So to understand the quotes your family and friends need the brilliant Timothy K to unravel Irenaeus for them. Is that what you really believe Kevin? When I call Timothy K brilliant I am not being sarcastic, I truly believe that he is extremely intelligent. But sometimes extremely intelligent people don’t have a lot of common sense. The Church Fathers did not write with the idea that years later someone would have to unravel their writings to understand what they really meant. And if the apostles had taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol of Christ’s Body and Blood it would have been nearly impossible to make people believe in the real presence without a major debate going on in the early Church. It’s called common sense.
Timothy P,
Nope, they do not. They simply need an honest rendering of the text. You continued,
That’s right. And Irenæus did not write with the idea that years later someone would translate “προσλαμβανομενος την εκκλησιν του Θεου” in Greek into “percipiens invocationem Dei” in Latin. It is not I, but the patristic scholars themselves, who identified the latin translation as “barbaric,” and its author ill-equipped for the task of translating from the Greek. You wrote elsewhere,
That’s fantastic, Timothy P. You have encapsulated all of Roman Apologetics in a single sentence: we prefer the Latin mistranslation because it is a better understanding of the early church than the Greek original! You continued,
Or without a “strong delusion” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). A major debate did actually break out in the latter part of the 4th century, and those who succumbed to the “strong delusion” became what is called the apostasy of which Paul warned—Roman Catholicism. The true church went on, denying that the bread and wine became Jesus’ body and blood, or that Jesus’ body and blood were actually sacrificed.
If the early church really believed in the “real presence” as you define it, you would actually be able to produce evidence that the early church taught and believed in the real presence.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy P, it’s not that they would ” need” to come here to understand those quotes. That would be silly. But Out of his mouth is one great source of the truth on all things Roman Catholic and learning what these men were getting at. Listen, Tim has been hard on me at times, much of it warranted, some not IMHO, however, God has used Tim’s input and articles hear to equip me and educate me on the scripture, the church, and the Beast. The only leaky dispensalionalist that gets invited to Reformed conferences is John MacArthur, because he is a studied man of the scripture. Reformed just know more about scripture and these things IMHO. They tend to be prideful but that doesn’t matter to me. I’m now Reformed and have been for a few years. We attend a PCA church and love it. I always say, it’s like a seminary degree coming here, and the fact that through my many mistakes Tim has graciously allowed me to be part of it, I’m grateful. Timothy P, every ex RC I know have found in the scriptures the truth and therefore it magnified the error in Rome they were part of. You need to look hard at what ghetto gospel is and how the supper plays into that. K
The gospel not ghetto gospel
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN–
You said “Sure you did, Bob. I do not believe or accept your explanation, Layne, Bob, or whoever you really are, and whatever denomination you claim to be.”
Ok, Tim. You’re kinda going off the deep end here. Who’s Bob???
Honestly, I had no intention of emphasizing the word “this”. It simply was a matter of highlighting the word “sacrifice” which I did intend to emphasize. When I highlighted, it highlighted both words at the same time, but since “this” was just an article, I didn’t think it a big deal. But obviously you did.
There was no intent on my part to base any of my argument on the word “this” but you decided to make it so anyway even after I told you it was not (“Ok. THE sacrifice. You’re focusing on the wrong part of that statement,”).
And maybe it is my fault not to edit my responses a little more closely, but the fact remains that I explained my intent twice and you still ignored it, Dick, or Kevin, or Tim, or whatever your current pseudonym. Your pride has gotten you in trouble. You need to own up to your mistake.
Thanks–
–Layne
Bob/Layne, I must admit you are one of the great Jesus wafer defenders in history. Maybe greater than Franciss of Assisi. ☺
So my question to you Tim, do you agree that the bread and wine are still “oblated” when you eat it?
–Layne
My question to you, Layne, is: in Irenæus, does the Eucharistic liturgy involve eating the bread before the oblation is over? No it does not. My question to you, Layne is: in Irenæus, do the antitypes ever get “oblated” or offered? The answer to both questions is No. Only after the oblation is over does the bread get eaten. So, in the context of my comment, they do not eat the oblation and they do not offer the antitypes. That’s pretty simple.
However, in the Irenæus of your imagination, the oblation includes the antitypes, and the antitypes are both oblated and eaten, language that never actually occurs in Irenæus.
In the actual Irenæus of record the bread and wine are offered, and then the Holy Spirit is invoked and the antitypes are eaten.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne,
One thing that is apparent is that Tim K. answers no questions. You have to answer all of his questions and respond exactly as he expects you to respond or your comments get send to moderation Hades.
I am beginning to doubt that Tim K. is even a believer any more.
That’s funny, Mark, and this is why you are in perpetual moderation. You said,
On 2017/09/05 at 4:58 pm Layne asked,
Two hours later, I answered it in considerable detail.
So, it is obviously not “apparent” that I answer no questions. I just know where all the Roman Catholic traps are.
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman
Said this to answer my question: “My question to you, Layne, is:….”
It was a simple yes or no question and it did not get answered. Instead it got a brush aside. Instead I get some more questions that I don’t have a chance to answer because you answer them yourself! Ok, well….ummmm….
Tim K. says : “So, in the context of my comment, they do not eat the oblation and they do not offer the antitypes. That’s pretty simple.”
Well, ok. I am going to assume you mean that the bread and wine don’t get eaten during the oblation. Great. I’ll agree with that. That does not happen at Mass either.
But in my question I ask, are the bread and wine still “oblated” when you eat it? Let me return the favor and answer that for you. Yes they are. The bread and wine were blessed during the oblation and they remained so after the oblation even to the time when they are eaten. There is no mention of the bread and wine ever becoming “unoblated”. So yes, technically, the people eat the oblation.
You also said “However, in the Irenæus of your imagination, the oblation includes the antitypes, and the antitypes are both oblated and eaten, language that never actually occurs in Irenæus.
In the actual Irenæus of record the bread and wine are offered, and then the Holy Spirit is invoked and the antitypes are eaten.”
That is your interpretation. And here is the crux, there is a plausible counter to your interpretation. And here is my presentation of it:
Fragment 37 in part:
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have PERFECTED the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
The key word here is “perfected”. And I know you agree that this is key. And I agree with you that the Greek rendering means “completed” or “finished”. Yes I agree with that rendering too.
But here is where we differ. You claim it to mean that the oblation offering has ended. I say that the oblation has been completed in that all the parts of the oblation have now been assembled to one final and complete whole, ready to be offered in its entirety–bread, wine, alms, our very selves as the Body of Christ with all the different prayers of thanksgiving and all the different prayers of praise. The Holy Spirit is then invoked so that He may exhibit the sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. And before they are given out for communion, the final doxology is proclaimed “Through Him, With Him, and In Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory is Yours Almighty Father, forever and ever.” and the whole congregation ends the offering with the great “AMEN!”
Nowhere does Irenaeus say the offering of the sacrifice ends with the completion of the oblation. So yes, the people eat the bread and wine of the oblation which are the antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ. And just like at home, we are not supposed to eat our dinner until after the Blessing has been spoken and the people say AMEN!
That is my interpretation.
Thanks–
–Layne
Layne, that is nonsense. You have changed “completed the oblation” to mean “completed gathering all the parts of the oblation together to get ready to offer the oblation,” something Irenæus does not say.
Irenæus says the oblation of the new covenant is “the prayers of the saints,” “our bodies a living sacrifice,” “praise, that is, the fruit of the lips,” and the collection of the first fruits for the poor, explaining that these sacrifices “are not according to the law, … but they are according to the Spirit” and thus, “the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual.” That’s the eucharistic oblation of the new covenant: offering our prayers, our bodies, our praise, and the first fruits of the harvest. So let’s substitute that for the Eucharistic oblation in Fragment 37:
What’s missing, Layne? The Mass Sacrifice! That’s what’s missing.
Nice try, though! Maybe Timothy P can help you out.
Oh, and Timothy P, since you delight to take definitions and substitute them into the text—a helpful tool, I admit—in Book IV, Chapter 18, paragraph 5, Irenæus is using “Eucharist” to mean “liturgy of the Eucharist,” as in, “But our opinion is in accordance with the liturgy of the Eucharist, and the liturgy of the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit,” and indeed, according to him, the setting aside of the food for the poor is not only part of the liturgy of the Eucharist, but it is also the point at which the bread becomes “heavenly” as well as earthly, having been offered on the altar in heaven. The Bread is called “the Eucharist” not only when it is offered in heaven, prior to the consecration, but also is called the Eucharist after the Holy Spirit is invoked, at which point is given to men, but not offered to God. In any case, by the time the Holy Spirit is invoked, the bread and wine are already “heavenly,” showing that Irenæus’ reference to the heavenly reality of the bread is not a reference to the “real presence” in the Eucharist as you have so long maintained. You’re going to have to pull Fragment 17 and Book IV, chapters 17 & 18 out of your collection of Irenæus’ alleged “comments on the Real Presence.” Consistent with fragment 37, the oblation of the Church is “the prayers of the saints,” the sacrifice of praise, and feeding the poor and setting side the best of the harvest for the Lord’s use.
However, I do encourage you to study these chapters to discover why it mattered so much to Irenæus that “we offer to Him His own” in the Eucharistic oblation. The heretics said Jesus did not “come to His own things, but to those of another” (AH, Book III.11.2), which is why the heretics were inconsistent to offer the created things to the Father, even while denying that Jesus was “the Son of the Creator of the world” (AH, Book IV.18.4). That’s why Irenæus insisted that when Jesus says “All things are delivered to Me by My Father … He did not deliver to Him the things of another, but His own.” (AH.IV.20.2), and why He thought the Eucharistic liturgy of the Christians was so consistent compared to the inconsistency of the heretics: “For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.” (AH.IV.18.5). To Irenæus, it was sufficient to show that “He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.” (AH, Book V.2.2). The fact that he said of the created bread “this is my body,” and the created wine “this is my blood,” showed that Jesus really had become part of creation—otherwise He never would used elements of creation to figure His Body. He goes on, for example, in V.2.3, saying of Paul’s reference to Christ’s flesh, “He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.” And yet, even so, they were mere antitypes of His body, not the real thing.
In short, Irenæus’ treatises on the lord’s supper, though occasionally complex and verbose, are simply profound expositions of the very concise expressions of Tertullian:
That puts a pretty fine point on it. All the Roman Catholic proof texts alleged to support the Real Presence from Irenæus come down to a rather simple, and I might add Protestant, expression: If He said “this is My Body,” then He must have really had a body! You would know this if you would study the context in which Irenæus wrote, rather than studying it, as Layne has, in the context of your late-breaking novelty that you call the Sacrifice of the Mass. Because of your inability to consider the text outside of the context of a Mass Sacrifice, you must therefore conclude, If He said “this is My Body,” then He really must have meant that the bread had become His body! The early church is against you on this, and I might add, so are the Scriptures.
I guess that means you’ll have to remove AH.V.2 from your list, as well. And I’m pretty sure that leaves you with nothing.
Have a good weekend, and if you can, stay out of the path of Irma.
Best,
Tim
Mark ” Tim answers no questions” Mark this site is a Willie Wonka chocolate factory of answers. There are probably 100 articles here meticulously sourced. Have at the chocolate Mark.
Kevin, I think we can move this discussion forward if you or Timothy K would define what Eucharist means in Irenaeus’s comment ” no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”. Is that really too much to ask. And please try to make it simple.
Timothy P, You have responded to my most recent request of you, and I appreciate it. You did say something confusing, however, and I would like to request a clarification before we continue.
When I explained to you that Irenæus referred to the unconsecrated bread and wine as “the Eucharist,” I provided the following statement from Irenæus, fragment 37, as evidence:
To this, you responded that just because he is giving thanks for unconsecrated bread does not mean that the unconsecrated bread is the Eucharist:
That seemed pretty obvious to you. You and I both agree that “an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks (ευχαριστουντες)” is an oblation of unconsecrated bread. In fact, speaking for yourself, Layne and Mark, you said, “Now I think we all agree with Timothy K that the “bread and cup of blessing” is the unconsecrated bread.”
So twice you have confirmed to me that in this sentence, the oblation “of the bread and the cup of blessing” is a Eucharistic oblation of unconsecrated bread. Yes, “we all agree.”
Then, I added in the sentence immediately prior to that, as follows:
And then suddenly, you changed your tune. It is obvious to anyone reading that “the oblation of the Eucharist (Ευχαριστιας)” in the first sentence is the very same oblation “of the bread and the cup of blessing” in the next sentence. It is very simple, indeed: “the oblation of the Eucharist (Ευχαριστιας) is not a carnal one … For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks (ευχαριστουντες)”.
Suddenly, when the two sentences are put together, in which he clearly identifies the oblation of the Eucharist as the oblation of unconsecrated bread, thus identifying “the Eucharist” as the unconsecrated bread, you reversed yourself saying,
But Timothy P, you had just said, “Now I think we all agree with Timothy K that the “bread and cup of blessing” is the unconsecrated bread.” Why did you limit it to “just the unconsecrated bread and wine” until it became clear that he had called the unconsecrated bread and wine “the Eucharist”?
You will have to answer that specific question before this conversation will be allowed to move forward.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K writes
“Mark, I have grown weary of your calumniations and your willful and repeated misrepresentations. You are not welcome here, and your ban is permanent. But I have released your comment from moderation.”
Oh Timothy K, not only have you banned Mark Rome from the website but you unfortunately continue to misrepresent what others have said. I’m sure Layne and I will be banned in the near future as we are already under moderation. In fact you apparently are not reading what I have said. Now I had offered you the opportunity to show us where Irenaeus explicitly says that the unconsecrated bread was called Eucharist by asking for the direct quote and no quote was provided. Can you tell us why you did not give us the direct quote that I asked for?
Then you write
“So twice you have confirmed to me that in this sentence, the oblation “of the bread and the cup of blessing” is a Eucharistic oblation of unconsecrated bread. ”
Now Timothy K, did I call the offering of unconsecrated bread and wine for which we give thanks a “Eucharistic oblation of unconsecrated bread”. No I did not. In fact when you asked
“In other words, do you agree that when Irenæus uses the term, “the oblation of the Ευχαριστιας,” he is still referring to the Eucharistic oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine offered in the spirit of Philippians 4:18?”
I responded
“My response would be since Irenaeus does not specifically define what he means by “the oblation of the Ευχαριστιας” you are simply speculating what he means. Why limit it to just the unconsecrated bread and wine.”
Now the offering of unconsecrated bread and wine is part of the oblation of the Eucharist I think we would all agree. But what you are speculating is that when Irenaeus says the oblation of the Eucharist he is referring only to the unconsecrated bread and wine, or that he is calling the unconsecrated bread and wine Eucharist. Irenaeus never says that but knowing your Protestant bias I can understand why you would try to have him say what he does no actually say. Would you not agree that the offering of praise and thanksgiving is part of the oblation of the Eucharist. And of course Layne pointing out Irenaeus’s obsession with Malachi and Christ being “His OWN” only helps to put the whole discussion into context. So we can get a real feel for the whole context I am going to repost fragment 37 and the end of chapter 17 and 18
And I am still waiting from you and Kevin to answer the question I have posed multiple times
“Kevin, I think we can move this discussion forward if you or Timothy K would define what Eucharist means in Irenaeus’s comment ” no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”. Is that really too much to ask. And please try to make it simple.”
Hi, Timothy P, you wrote,
Are you not paying attention?
Your initial request was:
So as a first I provided you with the following:
To which you responded,
Of course you agree. In fact when discussing this with you on Against Heresies, Book IV, ch 18.4, I asked you what Irenæus meant when cited Philippians 4:18 to describe what “the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God.” And your response?
Of course he is. So yes, you have more than once confirmed that Irenæus is referring to the offering of unconsecrated bread and wine. Now that I have you on record as confirming that Irenæus was referring to unconsecrated bread and wine, I am free to present you with the citation in which Irenæus refers to the oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine as the Eucharist:
Now, this is as plain a reference as you can get, especially given the fact that you already agree that the second sentence is referring to unconsecrated bread and wine. The rest is simple: clearly to Irenæus, “the oblation of the Eucharist (Ευχαριστιας)” = “an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks (ευχαριστουντες)”—which even Timothy P acknowledges is a reference to unconsecrated bread. I have therefore provided you a quote from Irenæus referring to the unconsecrated bread and wine as The Eucharist. That is one of the most straightforward, simple confirmations of exactly what you asked for: a quote from Irenæus saying “that it is Eucharist before the consecration.”
And yet you maintain that I have not responded to you.
I’ll just remind you that it is for this reason that you are under perpetual moderation: for your dithering and misdirections which constantly require correction. You will remain perpetually under moderation. I have no plans to change that.
Thanks,
Tim
Layne, what does Iranaeus call what is eaten? Antitypes. If they are symbols they aren’t sacrificed, they are eaten. You don’t sacrifice a symbol. And he says the sacrifice is exhibited. What sacrifice? The one that is symbolized by the bread which is the body of Christ being broken on the cross for our sins, and the cup being the blood shed for our sins. Never is the bread being eaten by the receivers ever sacrificed. He calls it bread.
Unfortunately Kevin we have to correct you again. While an antitype can be a symbol, the word does not mean symbol . Now I caught Timothy K trying to make that substitution in fragment 37 of Irenaeus and as I remember Timothy K found a commentary that mentions the word symbol along with a number of other descriptive terms in an attempt to try and describe what the word antitype meant , but I would be interested since Timothy K likes to stick with the original Greek are there any English translations of the ancient Greek word for antitype that translate the word as symbol instead of antitype. Would you not agree that any translator that would translate the ancient Greek word antitype as figure or symbol would obviously be engaged in a deception? Also I assume there is a ancient Greek word for symbol, could Timothy K tell us what that word was?
Timothy P, I remember when you were always quoting Stone’s admonition “that to suppose that ‘symbol’ in Clement of Alexandria or ‘figure’ in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING.” In response, I provided evidence from Clement that he used “symbol” in exactly the same way we do today:
I also provided evidence that Tertullian used “figure” in exactly the same way we do today. In any case, yes, there is a Greek word for symbol, and it is συμβολον.
Fast forward to our current conversation on antitype, we have Roman Catholic participants insisting that “antitype” must mean the REALITY represented by a symbol, based on Webster’s modern dictionary. Well, as it turns out, antitype meant the opposite back then as it does today. For example, here is 2 Clement 14, which has incorrectly been attributed to Clement of Rome, but is nonetheless acknowledged to be from the 1st or 2nd century, using antitupon to mean “copy” in contrast with the authentic, authentikon:
Well, if antitype meant the opposite back then as it does today, that would mean instead of meaning “the REALITY represented by a symbol,” antitype would have meant back then, “the symbol that represents the reality.” Pretty simple stuff. Yeah, I intentionally translated it as symbol, because back then, that’s what it meant.
Anyway, you asked, “Would you not agree that any translator that would translate the ancient Greek word antitype as figure or symbol would obviously be engaged in a deception?”
Well why don’t you ask the nice folks over at New Advent, who render 2 Clement as:
Wow, they intentionally translated it exactly backwards. Do they not know that there is actually a Greek word for “type”? It is τυπον. Do they not know that there is actually a Greek word for “antitype”? It is ἀντίτυπον. I think they know that, but even in the full knowledge of the existence of those words, they translated “antitype” as “type” and “authentikon” as “antitype.” They must be engaged in deception.
Anyway, here is an interesting dictionary entry from 1828, which contrasts type with antitype (something the scriptures do not do explicitly), but then the dictionary acknowledges a rather obvious point that I have been making for years: a long, long time ago, for the Greek fathers, antitype meant something different than “the REALITY”:
Well, anyway, since this is obviously a matter of great concern to you, please contact New Advent and let them know they are engaged in deception. If it makes you feel better, I am more than happy to insert [figures, similtudes] for antitype in Fragment 37.
Thanks,
Tim
Would be most happy to respond after you release my previous post that you are still holding under “awaiting moderation”. I am thoroughly enjoying James and Rocky’s defense on the One Fold blog. Brian chastises previous Catholics for not staying on the blog and debating him and then after just a few exchanges with James starts slinging insults and agrees with another Protestant that it’s just a waste of time. Rocky gives multiple verses showing the biblical evidence for apostolic succession and the laying on of hands and Mike accuses him on not knowing the Bible and does not provide a single Bible verse against apostolic succession. Really?
Why are you asking me?
Kevin–
You said: “Layne, what does Iranaeus call what is eaten? Antitypes. If they are symbols they aren’t sacrificed, they are eaten.”
I have demonstrated that “antitype” is more than a symbol:
an·ti·type /ˈan(t)iˌtīp/
noun Origin: early 17th century: from late Latin antitypus, from Greek antitupos ‘corresponding as an impression to the die,’ from anti ‘against, opposite’ + tupos ‘type, a stamp.’
But of course you have condemned the use of Websters in apologetics so anything goes, right?
You also said: “Never is the bread being eaten by the receivers ever sacrificed.”
I have demonstrated that the bread being eaten has indeed been sacrificed–an oblation is a sacrifice–and nowhere in any writings does anyone say that the oblation is reversed to become common bread again before we eat it.
I have come to the conclusion that the impass in this discussion has been caused by differences in definitions of words and then, moreover, the interpretation of passages. This is an age old battle that obviously is not getting solved in this forum. And what does not help in any of this is that one side of the debate cannot come to any conclusion that favors the Roman Catholic stance–the preconceived notion that anything Roman Catholic is wrong, no matter what. I should expect no less for a sight that its whole purpose is to refute Roman Catholic error. The dialog even got to the point of becoming toxic.
I should have known better, but I tried anyway. I will be looking in from time to time to see what is new from Tim K. because I like to read his opinions just to see what’s happening on the “Dark Side” of things. 🙂
Maybe I can show some restraint in the future.
May God bless you all.
Thanks–
–Layne
From Chapter 17
“5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent;” Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
6. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and man also? And because it is [the name] of His own Son, who was made man by Him, He calls it His own. Just as a king, if he himself paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness his own, for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and because it is his own production; so also does the Father confess the name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the Church, to be His own, both because it is that of His Son, and because He who thus describes it gave Him for the salvation of men. Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, “And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice.” Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the “incense” is “the prayers of the saints.” ”
Now it is pretty obvious from the above statement that the “new oblation of the new covenant” is not the unconsecrated bread and wine but the consecrated bread and wine. Why would Ireneaus call it the new oblation of the new covenant after describing the consecration? But Timothy K seems to believe that the oblation stops before the consecration.
Timothy P, you wrote,
I believe that, in Irenæus, the oblation is over before the words of consecration are spoken because Irenæus says that the oblation is over before the Holy Spirit is invoked (See Fragment 37). Interesting that in Fragment 37, once the Holy Spirit is invoked, there is no more talk of offering an oblation. That’s what is always missing.
Even in this citation (IV.17.5) Irenæus says Jesus gave “directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things.” What were they to offer? Unconsecrated bread. And when Irenæus talks about the oblation of the new covenant, he says “which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament.” His Own gifts. That’s unconsecrated bread. What did Jesus teach the apostles to offer? “the first-fruits of His own, created things”. Even you, Timothy P, know this is in reference to unconsecrated bread.
What’s missing is an explicit reference in Irenæus to the oblation being “Christ’s body and blood.” All that is left is your conjecture: “Why would Ireneaus call it the new oblation of the new covenant after describing the consecration?” But when is the oblation actually offered? Prior to invoking the Holy Spirit.
Even in Fragment 37 it is quite obvious that the oblation of the Eucharist is the oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine in accordance with Phil 4:18, thanks and praise in accordance with Hebrews 13:15-16, ourselves in accordance with Romans 12:1, and the incense we offer is “the prayers of the saints” in accordance with Revelation 5:8,8:3. So lets do that. Let’s show what Irenæus actually thought these oblations are:
That’s unconsecrated bread. But wait, there’s more. Let’s back up even more to the beginning, and what do we find? These oblations of the new covenant are the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11:
Your citation of IV.17.6 just proves the point. Yep. Jesus instituted the oblation of the new covenant. What was it? Unconsecrated bread and wine. The whole paragraph simply shows that what the Church offers unconsecrated bread and wine in fulfillment of Malachi 1:10-11, it is done in the name of Christ. And since the Father calls the Son’s name His own, the Father’s name is glorified when the church throughout the world offers unconsecrated bread and wine in Christ’s name. Pretty simple.
What’s still missing Timothy P? Anyone in the Church offering Christ’s body and blood to the Father.
You won’t find it in Irenæus. Or perhaps you can.
Why not just show me where Irenæus explicitly refers to JEsus or the Church offering His Body and Blood to the Father as a sacrifice in fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. Where does he say this explicitly? Can you show me?
Tim
When you release all my previous comments I will be happy to respond. Sad that you would attack someone else’s religion and then use the “awaiting moderation” to hide the weakness of your arguments. Sleeping well at night. I sleep like a baby. Timothy K, you know as well as I do you are just looking for a reason to ban me like you did Mark Rome because to be honest I don’t believe you can handle the truth.
Timothy P, I’m glad to hear you’re sleeping well at night.
ha, ha, thanks. I have to be at work at 7:30 AM. how about you?
I find this quote from Irenaeus interesting in his rewording on the words of Malachi. Maybe Timothy K or Kevin could comment.
“I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent;” Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
Very interesting,
Not sure what your point is. What do you think he changed?
Tim
Chapter 18
Concerning sacrifices and oblations, and those who truly offer them.
1. The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world, is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable to Him; not that He stands in need of a sacrifice from us, but that he who offers is himself glorified in what he does offer, if his gift be accepted. For by the gift both honour and affection are shown forth towards the King; and the Lord, wishing us to offer it in all simplicity and innocence, did express Himself thus: “Therefore, when you offer your gift upon the altar, and shall remember that your brother has ought against you, leave your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then return and offer your gift.” Matthew 5:23-24 We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation, as Moses also says, “You shall not appear in the presence of the Lord your God empty;” Deuteronomy 16:16 so that man, being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude, may receive that honour which flows from Him.
2. And the class of oblations in general has not been set aside; for there were both oblations there [among the Jews], and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the people; sacrifices there are, too, in the Church: but the species alone has been changed, inasmuch as the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by freemen. For the Lord is [ever] one and the same; but the character of a servile oblation is peculiar [to itself], as is also that of freemen, in order that, by the very oblations, the indication of liberty may be set forth. For with Him there is nothing purposeless, nor without signification, nor without design. And for this reason they (the Jews) had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely not the less valuable portions of their property, since they have the hope of better things [hereafter]; as that poor widow acted who cast all her living into the treasury of God.
3. For at the beginning God had respect to the gifts of Abel, because he offered with single-mindedness and righteousness; but He had no respect unto the offering of Cain, because his heart was divided with envy and malice, which he cherished against his brother, as God says when reproving his hidden [thoughts], “Though you offer rightly, yet, if you do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at rest;” since God is not appeased by sacrifice. For if any one shall endeavour to offer a sacrifice merely to outward appearance, unexceptionably, in due order, and according to appointment, while in his soul he does not assign to his neighbour that fellowship with him which is right and proper, nor is under the fear of God—he who thus cherishes secret sin does not deceive God by that sacrifice which is offered correctly as to outward appearance; nor will such an oblation profit him anything, but [only] the giving up of that evil which has been conceived within him, so that sin may not the more, by means of the hypocritical action, render him the destroyer of himself. Wherefore did the Lord also declare: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you are like whited sepulchres. For the sepulchre appears beautiful outside, but within it is full of dead men’s bones, and all uncleanness; even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of wickedness and hypocrisy.” Matthew 23:27-28 For while they were thought to offer correctly so far as outward appearance went, they had in themselves jealousy like to Cain; therefore they slew the Just One, slighting the counsel of the Word, as did also Cain. For [God] said to him, “Be at rest;” but he did not assent. Now what else is it to “be at rest” than to forego purposed violence? And saying similar things to these men, He declares: “You blind Pharisee, cleanse that which is within the cup, that the outside may be clean also.” Matthew 23:26 And they did not listen to Him. For Jeremiah says, “Behold, neither your eyes nor your heart are good; but [they are turned] to your covetousness, and to shed innocent blood, and for injustice, and for man-slaying, that you may do it.” Jeremiah 22:17 And again Isaiah says, “You have taken counsel, but not of Me; and made covenants, [but] not by My Spirit.” Isaiah 30:1 In order, therefore, that their inner wish and thought, being brought to light, may show that God is without blame, and works no evil — that God who reveals what is hidden [in the heart], but who works not evil— when Cain was by no means at rest, He says to him: “To you shall be his desire, and you shall rule over him.” Genesis 4:7 Thus did He in like manner speak to Pilate: “You should have no power at all against Me, unless it were given you from above;” John 19:11 God always giving up the righteous one [in this life to suffering], that he, having been tested by what he suffered and endured, may [at last] be accepted; but that the evildœr, being judged by the actions he has performed, may be rejected. Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man, for God stands in no need of sacrifice; but it is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering] as from a friend. “But the sinner,” says He, “who kills a calf [in sacrifice] to Me, is as if he slew a dog.” Isaiah 66:3
4. Inasmuch, then, as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God. As Paul also says to the Philippians, “I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things that were sent from you, the odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, pleasing to God.” Philippians 4:18 For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation. But the Jews do not offer thus: for their hands are full of blood; for they have not received the Word, through whom it is offered to God. Nor, again, do any of the conventicles (synagogæ) of the heretics [offer this]. For some, by maintaining that the Father is different from the Creator, do, when they offer to Him what belongs to this creation of ours, set Him forth as being covetous of another’s property, and desirous of what is not His own. Those, again, who maintain that the things around us originated from apostasy, ignorance, and passion, do, while offering unto Him the fruits of ignorance, passion, and apostasy, sin against their Father, rather subjecting Him to insult than giving Him thanks. But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.” Mark 4:28
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
6. Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created. For even as God does not need our possessions, so do we need to offer something to God; as Solomon says: “He that has pity upon the poor, lends unto the Lord.” Proverbs 19:17 For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says: “Come, you blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you. For I was an hungered, and you gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and you took Me in: naked, and you clothed Me; sick, and you visited Me; in prison, and you came to Me.” Matthew 25:34, etc. As, therefore, He does not stand in need of these [services], yet does desire that we should render them for our own benefit, lest we be unfruitful; so did the Word give to the people that very precept as to the making of oblations, although He stood in no need of them, that they might learn to serve God: thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed); the temple likewise [is there], as John says in the Apocalypse, “And the temple of God was opened:” Revelation 11:19 the tabernacle also: “For, behold,” He says, “the tabernacle of God, in which He will dwell with men.”
About this page
Source. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
Fragment 37
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1 And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.
Hopefully posting the above will allow at least me to not have to leave the website to looks at the full context of a quotation.
Now notice this comment from Irenaeus
“Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom”
“These oblations in remembrance of the Lord”. Somehow that sounds familiar. Oh that’s right . I think it was Christ who said “Do this in remembrance of me”. And when did Christ say “Do this in remembrance of me”? Did he say it before he CONSECRATED the bread and wine or after he consecrated the bread and wine? Timothy K is arguing that the oblations ended before the consecration, but Christ did not say “Do this in remembrance of me” until after the consecration. Timothy K, you seem to have a timeline problem.
It’s not a timeline problem, Timothy P. It’s a context problem, and it is yours problem, not mine.
Thanks,
Tim
Now I am still under moderation and I hope Timothy K will not try and bury my comments but that we can discuss each comment one by one as I have been trying to answer his challenges.
Now Timothy K wrote
“Irenæus says the oblation of the new covenant is “the prayers of the saints,” “our bodies a living sacrifice,” “praise, that is, the fruit of the lips,” and the collection of the first fruits for the poor, explaining that these sacrifices “are not according to the law, … but they are according to the Spirit” and thus, “the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual.” That’s the eucharistic oblation of the new covenant: offering our prayers, our bodies, our praise, and the first fruits of the harvest. So let’s substitute that for the Eucharistic oblation in Fragment 37:
“And therefore the offering of our prayers, our bodies, our praise, and the first fruits of the harvest is not a carnal oblation, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an offering of our prayers, our bodies, our praise, and the first fruits of the harvest, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have completed offering our prayers, our bodies, our praise, and the first fruits of the harvest, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit the sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”
What’s missing, Layne? The Mass Sacrifice! That’s what’s missing.
Nice try, though! Maybe Timothy P can help you out.”
Now I actually have to thank Layne for pointing out the end of chapter 17 which is obviously relevant. But to start Timothy K has left out the consecration and this is the oblation of the “new covenant”. How do you leave the consecration out of the oblation of the new covenant? Remember “This cup is the new covenant in My blood”.
So Layne had pointed out that obviously Irenaeus considered the consecration as part to the “oblation of the new convenant”. Look what Irenaeus wrote.
“5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament.”
Sorry Timothy K, but that sounds like the Mass to me. Irenaeus did not leave out the consecration from the “new oblation of the new covenant” !!!
Timothy P, what do you mean, “Timothy K has left out the consecration”? Isn’t “we invoke the Holy Spirit” the consecration, according to Roman Catholics? In the catechism (1333) it says, “by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.” My citation of Fragment 37 included Irenæus’ explicit reference to the invocation of the Holy Spirit. So I don’t know what you mean by “Timothy K has left out the consecration”.
Anyway, in Fragment 37, after the Holy Spirit is invoked, nothing is offered. The sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood is exhibited under the figures of bread and wine. I don’t know a Protestant who would disagree. Irenæus, it would appear, invoked the Holy Spirit too late, and thus the sacrifice of the new covenant church is not the body and blood of Christ, but thanksgiving for what God was done for us and given to us—”that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful.”
Your citation of Book IV.17.5 doesn’t help you either. “[G]iving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things” refers to the oblation or offering of the unconsecrated bread as a thank offering in accordance with Phil 4:18, which you have already acknowledged. “[W]hich the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world,” is simply a reference to that offering already discussed above. What’s missing from your attempt to find the mass and the “real presence” in Irenæus is any reference to offering the body and blood of Christ. What you really need is for Irenæus to say, “After He said this is My body and this is My blood, he offered himself to the Father as a sacrifice for sins, and thus taught the oblation of the new covenant.” The best you can to (and this is all you can do) is show that Irenæus believed that Jesus instituted the oblation of the New Covenant at the same meal at which He instituted the Lord’s supper. I agree. What you can’t do is show that the consecrated bread and wine was that oblation.
In fact, as Irenæus continues on this theme in the next chapter, he expounds upon “The oblation of the Church, therefore, which the Lord gave instructions to be offered throughout all the world” (IV.18.1), and keeps right on talking about it as if he was a Protestant: the oblation of the new covenant is setting aside food for the poor, taking care of the needs of the saints, the fruit of our lips giving praise, etc…
Your only hope remaining is to rely upon Layne’s attempt to make Irenæus “offer to Him His own Son” because Book IV, Chapter 17.6 says that Jesus’ name is “His own.” But that, as usual, is to extract Irenæus from his context. All Irenæus says in chapter IV.17.6 is that when we, in the name of Jesus, “offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things” [which Timothy P acknowledges is a reference to unconsecrated bread] it satisfies the Malachi 1:11 prophecy that “My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice” because our “offering to God the first-fruits of His own, created things” [which Timothy P acknowledges is a reference to unconsecrated bread] is done in the name of Jesus’ which is God’s own name:
Thus, the offering of unconsecrated bread and wine as a thank offering in Jesus’ name is a fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, not the mass sacrifice.
That’s why Irenæus says the oblation of the new covenant is offered and completed before the Holy Spirit is even invoked (Fragment 37). That’s heresy, according to Roman Catholicism.
Thanks,
Tim
So many errors in your response I don’t know where to begin. but I do appreciate your finally releasing my post after 8 days. Timothy K writes
“That’s why Irenæus says the oblation of the new covenant is offered and completed before the Holy Spirit is even invoked (Fragment 37). ”
Now the reason I posted the entire quotes was so people could review what Irenaeus really said. Now did Irenaeus really say “THE OBLATION OF THE NEW COVENANT” is offered and completed before the Holy Spirit is even invoked. Where do we find the term “OBLATION OF THE NEW COVENANT”? Ireneaus did say
“5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament.”
It was after the consecration, ie This is My Body, This is My Blood that Irenaeus mentions the “NEW OBLATION OF THE NEW CONVENANT”. Did Christ call the wine “the blood of the convenant ” before or during the consecration.
Now Timothy K writes
“[G]iving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things”, but leaves out the rest of the verse
” not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant;”
Now Irenaeus has to be read with some biblical context. Read the last Supper accounts. What were the directions Christ gave to the disciples?
Timothy P, you wrote,
Yes, Irenæus REALLY said the oblation of the new covenant is complete before the Holy Spirit is invoked. And in fact you already know that he wrote that. Instead of using the New Testament to interpret Irenæus, you need to use Irenæus to interpret Irenæus, something you have attempted to avoid repeatedly, and for good reason—Irenæus does not agree with you.
What is missing, and what would absolutely seal your case for you, is Irenæus saying anywhere that “we invoke the Holy Spirit, that we may offer this sacrifice,” but Irenæus never says it. After the oblation is already over, he says we invoke the Holy Spirit that He may exhibit the sacrifice antitypically. No Protestant would disagree. But I understand why Roman Catholics get stuck with Irenæus, trying to get him to say what he obstinately refuses to say.
Timothy P, please provide some evidence, explicit evidence, from Irenæus saying that he offers to body and blood of Christ as the oblation of the new covenant. Just like your multiple failed attempts to get the “real presence” out of Irenæus, you are also unable to get the sacrifice of the mass out of him.
I’ve asked you repeatedly to provide evidence—explicit evidence—from Irenæus that he thought the body and blood of Christ is the oblation. All you have done is show what is plainly obvious to anyone who reads Irenæus: that he believed the Lord instituted the oblation of the new covenant at the Last Supper. I agree. What you cannot show, because Irenæus did not teach it, is that Irenæus thought Christ offered His body and blood at the Last Supper.
This is why my position is so much easier than yours: Irenæus ACTUALLY SAYS that the oblation of the new covenant is gratitude, praise, care for the poor, setting aside the fruits of our labors.
Thanks,
Tim
If I may interject:
TIMOTHY F. KAUFFMAN said concerning this quote:
“And then, when we have perfected [telesantes-completed] the oblation [of the New Covenant], we invoke the Holy Spirit, (Irenæus, Fragment 37)
“What is missing, and what would absolutely seal your case for you, is Irenæus saying anywhere that “we invoke the Holy Spirit, that we may OFFER this sacrifice,” but Irenæus never says it. After the oblation is already over, he says we invoke the Holy Spirit that He may EXHIBIT the sacrifice antitypically. No Protestant would disagree. But I understand why Roman Catholics get stuck with Irenæus, trying to get him to say what he obstinately refuses to say.”
No, he actually does say it–“that He may exhibit this SACRIFICE, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ.
What sacrifice is Irenaeus talking about here? Let’s interpret Irenaeus with Irenaeus. He just said the sacrifice is the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ. Again, what was just sacrificed? The body of Christ in the form of bread and the blood of Christ in the form of wine in the cup. Yes, that IS what he said. The Holy Spirit exhibits that to us, the change of the oblation of bread and wine from an earthly to a heavenly sacrifice–changed from common bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
Tim, if you believe Irenaeus was referencing the original sacrifice of the cross here, can you show me any reference that shows that bread and a cup of wine were nailed to the cross with Christ?
Now, you say “antitypically”. Yes the bread and wine are antitypical and are carnal not spiritual. But the presence of Christ is the real deal–spiritually not carnally. That is what the Holy Spirit exhibits.
Thanks–
Layne
Layne, that train has already left the station. You wrote,
As you well know, in Roman Catholicism, the bread is not the body of Christ and the wine is not the blood of Christ, until after the Holy Spirit is invoked. Thus what was ‘just sacrificed’ was not the body and blood of Christ, and certainly did not have the “real presence” of Christ as Roman Catholics define it. That can’t happen until after the Holy Spirit is invoked and without the invocation of the Holy Spirit, it’s just unconsecrated bread. That is why Timothy P says of the very same text,
That is what was just “sacrificed.” And then, when the oblation of the new covenant is over (telesantes, finito, terminato, over, done, complete, finished), only then is the Holy Spirit invoked that the bread and wine may be exhibited, not offered, antitypically.
Irenæus has the Holy Spirit invoked just 1 second too late to be Roman Catholic.
If you think Jesus’ body and blood “was just sacrificed,” you may take up the matter with Timothy P who expressly agrees that “what was just sacrificed” was “the unconsecrated bread”.
I’ll let you two sort out your disagreements on that.
In any case, Irenæus then says that the Holy Spirit is invoked that He might exhibit (αποφηνη, apophene) Christ’s sacrifice through the figures of the bread and wine. That term “apophene” is the origin of our modern word “apophenia” which means, appropriately, “the tendency to attribute meaning to perceived connections or patterns between seemingly unrelated things.” In other words, Irenæus invokes the Holy Spirit that He may cause a perception in the mind of the believer of the connection between the bread and wine and what Jesus did for him on the cross.
Just like Protestants today.
Tim
TIM K.–
So are you saying that both the bread the body of Christ and the cup the blood of Christ were not sacrificed at the same time during the oblation (which is a sacrifice)?
Thanks–
Layne
Layne, much better and more appropriate for you to address that to Timothy P who has already acknowledged that “during the oblation” that Irenæus had just mentioned, “the ‘bread and cup of blessing’ is the unconsecrated bread.” Here’s Irenæus…
It sounds like Timothy P is saying that the bread was not yet the body of Christ and the cup was not yet the blood of Christ at the time the “oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing” [bolded above for your convenience] occurred in Fragment 37. Timothy P has already agreed that the reference is to unconsecrated bread. The Catholic Catechism confirms that the cup and bread do not become the Body and Blood of Christ until after the Holy Spirit is invoked.
Sounds like an internal dispute between Roman Catholics, so I’ll let y’all sort that out.
Best,
Tim
Timothy P, and Timothy K.–
TIM K. quoted:
“And then, when we have PERFECTED (τελεσαντες) the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may EXHIBIT this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ…” (Irenæus, Fragment 37)
And then you say:
“And then, when the oblation of the new covenant is over (telesantes, finito, terminato, over, done, complete, finished), only then is the Holy Spirit invoked that the bread and wine may be exhibited, not offered, antitypically.”
And there is where I see your misusage of the word τελεσαντες as “finished” or “ended”. It fits better when the usage is “perfected” or “completed” as in an assembly of components into a perfect whole such as ingredients to a recipe are put together to make a dish. The ingredients are gratitude, praise, care for the poor, setting aside the fruits of our labors. Is the recipe complete if it is just praise and setting aside the fruits of our labors? No, not yet. Is it complete when we add care for the poor? No, not yet. Is it complete when we add gratitude to the mix? Yes, now all the ingredients have been added so that the mixture is perfected. Now the recipe (oblation) is complete (τελεσαντες) for cooking. The Holy Spirit is invoked to “bake” the ingredients and change them into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit now exhibits (αποφηνη, apophene) this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ–giving meaning to perceived connections or patterns between seemingly unrelated things–bread and wine–body and blood. Now the oblation is ready to be blessed, broken, and eaten.
Thanks–
Layne
Layne wrote,
Even though I have shown it is used exactly that way in other ancient sources (here).
Sure, Layne.:) Irenæus did not say “when the recipe is complete,” he said “when the oblation is complete.” You wrote,
Oh, goodness, now that’s just silly. You just changed “completed” to “just getting started”! Let’s see how your new invented definition fits in with the common ancient usage of τελεσαντες:
History of the Peloponnesian War, (Thucydides) the way he wrote it:
Now with Layne’s spin:
Library of History (Diodorus Siculus), the way he wrote it:
Now with Layne’s spin:
Sorry, Layne, you can’t just take actual historical facts and turn them on their heads. But I do understand why you have to resort to such extreme. It’s so much easier for protestants, since we can just let the early church fathers speak for themselves.
Have a great weekend!
Tim
Timothy P, for your further research, I will encourage you to investigate the context of Irenæus a little more deeply. Here is some additional evidence for you about the historical use of τελεσαντες to mean “finished.”
In his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides uses the word “τελεωσαντες” (in its 5th century B.C. Attic Greek form) in the same context that Irenæus does when he says that after the hymn and libations were finished, the fleet moved out to assemble for battle:
The term is used by Roman historian, Diodorus Siculus, in his Library of History (c. 30 – 60 B.C.) to describe what the Thebans accomplished in a very short time:
The term is also found in a spurious work attributed to John Chrysostom, Sermo in sanctos duodecim apostolos. We cite it solely for the value the Latin translator of the spurious work provides to the present discussion. The sermon includes the phrase, “ενα δρομον τελέσαντες,” which includes the particular word used by Irenæus above, and means “one end of the course,” or as the Latin translator helpfully renders it, “unoque etiam cursu terminato” (Migne’s Patrologia Græca, Tomus Octavus, (1836) 624-625). Here, as the Latin makes abundantly clear, τελέσαντες means terminato, or “end.”
The term is also found in John Kaminiates’, The Capture of Thessaloniki, in which a man is described as accomplishing a task and remaining in place until the day ended (τελέσαντες, 10th century A.D., Byzantine Greek), (John Kaminiates: the Capture of Thessaloniki, 65, (904 A.D.)).
In all these cases, the term means that something has come to an end, is finished, accomplished, is over, terminated, ended and done. It never means, “when we are just getting ready to start.” It is the same term Irenæus uses to say that the “pure oblation” of the New Covenant is over before the presbyter ever states the words of institution or invokes the Holy Spirit. From that point forward, the bread and wine are for the people, and are exhibited to them as symbolic representations of the sacrifice of Christ. They are not offered to God.
Also, I will also encourage you in this way. If you are going to start a comment with “So many errors in your response I don’t know where to begin,” it will be helpful if you would actually identify an error in my response.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K, we are making progress. Not all of my posts have been released and as I predicted before you would not release them until you have what you consider a good response. In fact I am not sure my post even end up on the Recent Posts comments so I am not sure anyone is seeing them but I am glad you are reading them.
Now I could of saved you some time on your research on the Greek word for finished. Now correct me if I am wrong but the word oblation refers to offering and unless you have forgotten during the Mass we have the offertory . The offertory is completed before the consecration. Where is the problem?
And Layne maybe you can help me understand what this great disagreement is Timothy K believes we have. I know neither of us could figure out what he meant by the word Eucharist. I assume you agree that we offer unconsecrated bread and wine, our monetary support , and our praise and thanksgiving to God during the offertory. And I assume you believe that at the consecration the Holy Spirit takes our offering of bread and wine and changes it to the body and blood of Christ. Any disagreement?
Now the problem both I and Timothy K have as I pointed out previously is that Irenaeus never clearly defines what he means by the “oblation of the Eucahrist” or “THE OBLATION OF THE NEW COVENANT”. I find it interesting that Timothy K has admitted that the consecrated bread and wine are referred to as the Eucharist in the early Church but then insists that the “Oblation of the Eucharist” only includes the unconsecrated bread and wine. Go figure.
Yes, I do have good responses, I admit. If you are accusing me of thinking about a question before I answer, I am guilty as charged. In any case, I will answer your questions one at a time. If you do not think it is fair for me to handle your questions and comments as I see fit, please feel free to take the matter up with the administrator.
There is no problem. The offertory is the oblation of the new covenant. As Irenæus plainly says, the oblation of the new covenant is over before the Holy Spirit is even invoked. No problem! There was no such thing as your sacrifice of the mass in the early church.
Yes, you two do need to sort that out don’t you? Timothy P says that before the Holy Spirit is invoked, what is offered is “the bread and cup of blessing” which is unconsecrated bread. Layne is saying that “the bread and cup of blessing” that was offered prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit was the body of Christ in the form of bread and the blood of Christ in the form of wine in the cup.
In other words, Layne thinks Christ’s body and blood is offered for the sins of the world before the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and Timothy P thinks that is not true. Let me know how you two resolve your differences. It’s much easier for Protestants who don’t have to try to fit Irenæus into a late 4th century mass sacrifice novelty. Irenæus plainly tells us what is offered in the oblation of the new covenant, and it’s not Christ’s body and blood. Irenæus plainly states what is exhibited figuratively in the bread and wine after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is Christ’s body and blood. Unfortunately for you Roman Catholics, Irenæus says the oblation of the new covenant is over before the alleged “transubstantiation” even occurs. That’s a tough situation to be in, but I do understand why you have to try so hard to read the mass into Irenæus.
Actually, I do not have that problem. Irenæus tells us exactly what it is, and he does so repeatedly. Your problem is that Irenæus actually does tell us what the oblation of the new covenant is:
You continued,
Now this is why you are under constant moderation. I don’t think I have ever said that the “Oblation of the Eucharist” only includes the unconsecrated bread and wine. If I ever said that, I was wrong. But before we proceed, can you just show me where I ever said the “Oblation of the Eucharist” only includes the unconsecrated bread and wine
Let me know when you have proof that I have ever insisted that.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM P. and TIM K.–
TIM K. said:
“Layne is saying that ‘the bread and cup of blessing’ that was offered prior to the invocation of the Holy Spirit was the body of Christ in the form of bread and the blood of Christ in the form of wine in the cup.”
No, that is not what I am saying. I said nothing about the change happening before the invocation. What I said was: “The Holy Spirit exhibits that to us, the change of the oblation of bread and wine from an earthly to a heavenly sacrifice–changed from common bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.” The invocation is the procedure where the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood AND exhibits it to us in that way. That procedure includes the epiclesis and the words of consecration SO THAT the Holy Spirit “may exhibit the sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ”. Only after that does the complete process of the oblation end (cease, terminate) with the final doxology and the great Amen. The oblation has now been blessed and is ready to eat. (Refer to the recipe analogy in my other post.)
You have to understand the reason for a sacrifice in the first place. It is for our benefit, not God’s. God doesn’t need our sacrifice–He doesn’t “consume” the bread or wine for His appeasement; instead, He blesses it for the spiritual nourishment of our bodies. He makes it the Body and Blood so that Christ may abide in us and we in Him.
Thanks–
Layne
Layne, you wrote in another post,
What was just “sacrificed” is the oblation of the New Covenant, which anyone who can read can see is a reference to unconsecrated bread:
That’s what was just “sacrificed.” Unconsecrated bread and wine. You’re trying to say that “both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ” were just sacrificed (as you have said on this very passage, “an oblation is a sacrifice”), which is not what Irenæus said. Irenæus continues, saying,
That’s right, the Holy Spirit is not invoked until the oblation of the new covenant is completed. Why is the Holy Spirit then invoked? In order that the bread and wine may become figuratively in the eyes of the believers the body and blood of Christ, so that by the figures of Christ’s body and blood the sacrifice of Christ may be exhibited to the believers present. As I have said, Irenæus invokes the Holy Spirit one second too late to be Roman Catholic.
What you are missing is the fact that the oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine is offered to God, but once the Holy Spirit is invoked, the sacrifice of Christ is exhibited to men. What you need from Irenæus is, “And then, when we have collected all the ingredients necessary for a complete oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that WE may OFFER this oblation TO GOD at which point the oblation of the new covenant is completed.” If I have overlooked Irenæus’ statements to that effect, please provide the reference that I may read it for myself.
You also wrote,
Yes, that is indeed what Irenæus held.
Yes, that is indeed what Irenæus held.
No. That is not what Irenæus held.
Your interpretation of “when we have completed the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit” is that it really means “only after the Holy Spirit is invoked is the oblation completed”? And even though Irenæus says the bread becomes a heavenly sacrifice before the invocation when the bread and wine are just set aside for the poor, he really meant “bread and wine become a heavenly sacrifice after the invocation of the Holy Spirit“?
And all this in an exhortation to me that I must interpret Irenaeus with Irenaeus. You’re interpreted Irenæus with Layne!
That was a really nice try, Layne.
Tim
Layne said ” I have concluded that the impass in this discussion by differences in words, and then moreover the interpretation of passages.” And you know why Layne. Because there are only 2 religions in this world, Divine Accomplishment and Human Achievement. Protestants believe scripture clearly teaches Divine accomplishment. There is nothing we do to participate in our salvation, that we are justified by his righteousness alone that comes by believing the gospel. The Roman system which you are under teaches the other. It’s the difference between Cain and Abel, true remnant of Jews and Judaizers. Remember not all of Israel is Israel. Not all churches that claim Christ are Christian churches. The whole book of Galatians is about those trying to add one part of the law to faith in justification. Galatians 2:5 Paul wouldn’t relent and neither will we. The garden is the example. Adam and Eve sinned. They tried to cover themselves. But their works were no avail. God came to them. God killed the sacrifice. And God clothed the. They did nothing. Divine accomplishment. They simply received salvation. Your view of these passages has everything to do with that only. You are lost in a religion where salvation doesn’t exist. And unless God removes your glasses and strips the delusion you are under 2 Thessalonians 2:11, you can’t see Iranaeus any other way. K
Layne said ” The change of the oblation of the bread and wine
from an earthly to a heavenly sacrifice changed from common bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ” Layne, the oblation doesn’t change. It’s made BEFORE the Spirit is invoked and the symbols are exhibited and eaten. Not good for your religion, since your religion says the sacrifice is AFTER the invoking of the Spirit and that sacrifice is the body blood soul divinity of Christ and it’s propitious for your sins .The problem is to confuse spiritual sacrifices before the invoking of the Spirit with an oblation of Christ himself that is propitious after the invoking is dangerous. Christians believe in a finished sacrifice. That’s why it’s called good news. News is about something that already happened. Layne, Iranaeus is performing a Protestant service much like the one Tim and I attend every week. It is not a Roman Catholic service which can save no man.
Tim, can I suggest a great sermon on YouTube ” The danger of Adding to the gospel” by John MacArthur. I hope Layne, Mark, and Timothy P as well as your readers will listen. Thanks K
Tim, Iranaeus says the oblation are no from the law. The mass is law ( merit) correct? So the mass sacrifice violates the spiritual sacrifices Iranaeus say come from faith? You agree? Thanks
Kevin, the Mass is simply the reinstitution of the Jewish sacrifices. I suggest reading through the Catholic encyclopedia on the mass sacrifice. Roman Catholicism would say that the mass does not increase the merits of Christ’s sacrifice of the Cross, but rather appropriates the infinite merits of His sacrifice, for the benefit of the recipients. But when you get down into the details, it’s never enough:
That’s the problem. The mass can never accomplish the redemption of the elect: “the impetratory value of the sacrifice is always as limited as is its propitiatory and satisfactory value.”
Tim
Tim, am I understanding that quote to says that because Christ was God man that his sacrifice has limited extrinsic value because of the limitations of man. Is this reducing Christ to something less than God as other false religions do. If you add the works righteousness of Roman Catholicism this is the 2 things cults do. They really irony Tim is the gospel is simple that child could understand juxtaposed against a complex and convoluted system of Satan. And maybe that complexity and religiosity is what makes Catholics feel secure. If you care to opine. K
Kevin, I’d recommend reading the entire entry on the mass sacrifice so you can see the context in which Roman Catholics see the sacrifice as having limited value.
Thanks,
Tim
Needless to say I am disappointed Timothy K that you continue to refuse to post my comments. Actually I do pray for you and especially for your children. I don’t know what happened to you but there obviously is an emotional component as to why you continue to refuse to post my comments. A reading we had in Mass today might help.
” Wrath and anger are hateful things, yet the sinner hugs them tight”
That gave me a chuckle, Timothy P.
” the greater or less measure of the fruits derived will naturally depend very much on the personal efforts and worthiness , the devotion and fervor of those who celebrate or are present at Mass.” Works righteousness at its best.
Salvation of the instalment plan. This is how I see it in Roman Catholicism , they do and God gives them grace. The more they do the more God gives the grace. That’s law! God gives us grace and we do. Big difference. Thanks Tim for your response.
” Roman Catholicism would say they don’t increase the merits of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, but rather appropriates ..” You are correct Tim, but why the mention of merit at all whether condign or congruent. Aquinas said that a man was predestined to glory in some way according to his merit instead of just the goodness of God. You said the mass can never accomplish the redemption of the elect. I agree. Your post was clear thank you.
Concerning Irenaeus’s take on the quote from Malachi, Timothy K wrote
“Not sure what your point is. What do you think he changed?”
I still have 5 posts under moderation, and as I mentioned I want to get those released before explaining Irenaeus’s comments of Malachi. I had read that quote from Malachi many times and had never understood it the way that Irenaeus explained it.
Well, by all means, take your time.
Somehow I can’t believe I am having an adult conversation. Obviously one of us wants out of this debate and believe me it’s no me. But I can understand why you don’t want to release the 5 postings that you have been keeping under “awaiting moderation”. As I mentioned your whole exegesis of Irenaeus continues to unravel with a careful reading of Irenaeus and in fact what is most amusing is that most of the material awaiting moderation are the entire quotes from Irenaeus on the verses in dispute so that everyone can grasp the verses in context. I can see why you would not want anyone that comes to this site to read the complete text. Obviously I hope everyone will read fragment 37 and Irenaeus IV : 17 and 18 on their own. By the way, does anyone visit this site besides Kevin. I am just amazed that there are such few comments from Protestants. I can understand why Catholics would not comment because they either get put on the “awaiting moderation ” list or banned.. I’m actually anxious to respond to your last couple of post but just wondering how long those responses will be held in “awaiting moderation”. Are you ready?
Timothy P, you wrote,
I can’t believe it either. If we were having an adult conversation, you would be willing to read Irenæus in context in the original greek (where it is available). But when the greek is available (and the latin is shown to be clearly wrong) you still opt for the latin translation. And then when the latin translation actually agrees with the greek as it does in Fragment 37 “et postea finita oblatione” (and after the oblation is finished), you can’t believe it, so you ask “Now did Irenaeus really say “THE OBLATION OF THE NEW COVENANT” is offered and completed before the Holy Spirit is even invoked.” Yes, yes he did. You continued:
You mean the citation of Fragment 37 that has been posted on this site and has been provided in its totality in articles and comments and for which hyperlinks directly to the online version have been provided repeatedly? Sure, Timothy P—I’m “hiding” the evidence! That’s pretty funny. The evidence you think I’m “hiding” includes Fragment 37 in which Irenæus actually says that the oblation of the new covenant is over before the Holy Spirit is invoked, and to which you have responded: “Now did Irenaeus really say “THE OBLATION OF THE NEW COVENANT” is offered and completed before the Holy Spirit is even invoked.” Yes, yes he did. You continued:
I don’t know. It’s not a very popular site and doesn’t have a big web presence, and not a lot of folks find it interesting. So I’m guessing that’s why not very many protestants comment here. That makes sense to me. You continued,
Catholics don’t get banned or moderated here. Trolls get banned or moderated. In any case, I’ve already told you this repeatedly, but I don’t think you’re hearing me. I consider you a troll:
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K writes
“Catholics don’t get banned or moderated here. Trolls get banned or moderated. In any case”
Seriously Timothy K. Layne, Mark Rome have not been put on moderation? Maybe you can give us a list of all the
Catholics that have either been banned or moderated? And by the way, after all the names I was called on the One Fold blog I am hardly offended by your calling me a troll Like I mentioned I can’t believe I am having an adult conversation,
Timothy K writes
” If we were having an adult conversation, you would be willing to read Irenæus in context in the original greek (where it is available”
Boy we do have a short memory. Timothy K, do you remember that I went back and posted the quote from Irenaeus with your Greek correction? Even with the Greek correction, you still have to substitute your definition of Eucharist which you have repeatedly refused to do. Now I was willing to make the substitution which made perfect sense that the bread was no longer common bread after the invocation.
Timothy P writes,
Of course they have. Read into that what you will.
And here is why you are under permanent moderation:
I have never “refused” to do this. Even you acknowledged this:
You have repeatedly acknowledged that you understand that we are in a conversation in which the end result (which I have acknowledged, too) is an answer to that question. But groundwork had to be laid, and that groundwork was getting you to acknowledge that the Eucharist can and does refer to unconsecrated bread in Irenæus. Faced with that reality, you then attempted to recast my position either as the Eucharist ONLY refers to unconsecrated bread and wine in Irenæus (I have never said that) or that the oblation of the new covenant is ONLY unconsecrated bread and wine (I have never said that either).
And if I asked you to provide any evidence whatsoever that I had “repeatedly refused” to define Eucharist, you would be unable to provide any.
You are unable to carry on an adult conversation, Timothy P. And that’s why you’re always going to be subject to moderation.
Have a good weekend.
Tim
Tim, thanks, I just read that convuluded diatribe on the mass. What a tangled web. As far as I can tell the sacrifice of Christ is a never ending reservoir of grace and justice that is delved out to the people by the church through the priest and the amount of efficacy of it is determined by doing it and the piety of the person doing it. Works righteouness anyway you slice it. And no one should wonder why Luther said the papacy won’t permit men to be saved. Reading that confirmed what an assault on the gospel the mass is. Sad. Thanks for providing it,
I wrote
” September 17, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Needless to say I am disappointed Timothy K that you continue to refuse to post my comments. Actually I do pray for you and especially for your children. I don’t know what happened to you but there obviously is an emotional component as to why you continue to refuse to post my comments. A reading we had in Mass today might help.
” Wrath and anger are hateful things, yet the sinner hugs them tight”
To which Timothy F. Kauffman responded
September 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm
“That gave me a chuckle, Timothy P.”
To which I would respond, if I got you to laugh some today Timothy K I couldn’t be happier. I do worry about you because I know you have children and instead of enjoying them while they are growing up your wrath and anger against the Catholic Church seems to consume your life. And your selective release of posts only convinces me of the validity of my interpretation of Irenaeus and the weakness of your position, By the way, went to bed last night at 10PM and slept like a baby til 8 AM. To be honest I probably wouldn’t be sleeping so well if you were engaging me in a debate. You are a challenge. Thank God I’ve got the teachings of a 2000 year old church on my side!
That gave me another one. 🙂
” Thank God I’ve got the teachings of a 2000 year old church on my side.” They aren’t on your side Timothy P. You can never know you are saved. Like the priest once said ” we are all on a journey to perfection” Well if he’s on a journey to perfection, that ain’t good news. Consider the true gospel Timothy P, it’s for imperfect people, sinners. K
Tim, you point out that the simple and plain understanding of antitype in the Greek is symbol. And yet Satan has led those who are fooled to believe that symbol means the real thing. I ask myself the simple question why? Could it be so they would worship the symbol as the reality and therefore worship an idol. Of course. I remember when you provided the text of when Augustine was struggling through the same thing with Worshipping at his footstool. He knew not to worship the footstool because it was wrong, even though he did not have the clear meaning. Yet I believe those who worship the Catholic Eucharist through the ages, some of whom receiving stigmata, did so because it was visible and they believed that if they saw it that it was certainty. But scripture says blessed are those who don’t see yet believe. If faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen, then those who worship what they see have not faith. And without faith scripture says it’s impossible to please God. This could be one reason God hates idols, it keeps people from true worship.
While awaiting Timothy K to release my numerous comments on Irenaeus I have been reviewing the One fold Blog and noted how Rocky had been quoting Scripture to defend the Catholic understanding of Apostolic Succession while Mike was not providing any scriptures against Apostolic Succession
I wrote
” September 22, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Rocky gives multiple verses showing the biblical evidence for apostolic succession and the laying on of hands and Mike accuses him on not knowing the Bible and does not provide a single Bible verse against apostolic succession. Really?”
To which Timothy K wrote
“Why are you asking me?”
I just thought Timothy K that you could help Mike out. There seems to be a pattern here. When Walt agreed to debate the biblical basis for the real presence in the Eucharist I posted all the verses I could think of that support the Catholic position and asked Walt to post verses that defend his position. He then refused to continue the debate. By the way, what happened to Walt?
And you wonder millions of sit in an adoration chapel and worship the Jesus wafer. If I’ve learned anything debating with Catholics their complete obsession with the real presence and the sacrifice of the mass. But a statement Tim gave me in response to Rome’s defenition of the mass ” but when you get down into the details, it’s never enough” Rome has conditioned their people through the ages to rely on a work for their salvation that can never accomplish their salvation. So the question arises, why would anyone do this as oppose to simply repent and believe the gospel and obtain eternal redemption. And the answer lies in a faulty view of justification. Working out you salvation with fear and trembling from an acceptance already possessed is the complete antithesis from working out your salvation with fear and trembling in order to be accepted. One is grace , the other law.
Tim, taking the cup and bread we make an oblation or sacrifice thanksgiving, praise, setting aside for the poor etc. And after that sacrifices is finished, only then, does he invoke the Spirit to exhibit to us the sacrifice of Christ reminding us of the cross. Welcome to our Protestant service is right. K
Timothy K’s rendition of Fragment 37 somehow seems different then the original version. Now I think everyone realizes that I am not mentioned in the original version but there still seems to be some differences.
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant … And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing [which Timothy P acknowledges is unconsecrated bread and wine], giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment [again, a reference to unconsecrated bread]. And then, when we have perfected [telesantes-completed] the oblation [of the New Covenant], we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ…” (Irenæus, Fragment 37)
Do tell, Timothy P.
Tim, at what point after 2 years do you feel that it’s not really about understanding, but obstinace on the part of those like Timothy P and Layne. It is my opinion that they fully understand the text because you have explained it in detail 6000 times. I think they think they can wear you down and change your view. It’s simply amazing how Nanyang times you have explained things. I feel like I’m ready to teach a class on it because I’ve read every post. K☺
I wrote
“I find it interesting that Timothy K has admitted that the consecrated bread and wine are referred to as the Eucharist in the early Church but then insists that the “Oblation of the Eucharist” only includes the unconsecrated bread and wine.”
And Timothy K responded
“Now this is why you are under constant moderation. I don’t think I have ever said that the “Oblation of the Eucharist” only includes the unconsecrated bread and wine. If I ever said that, I was wrong. But before we proceed, can you just show me where I ever said the “Oblation of the Eucharist” only includes the unconsecrated bread and wine
I do stand corrected and although you are constantly saying “Irenaeus says” when Irenaeus actually never says what you claim he said, I do apologize. I should have wrote
“I find it interesting that Timothy K has admitted that the consecrated bread and wine are referred to as the Eucharist in the early Church but then insists that the “Oblation of the Eucharist” includes the unconsecrated bread and wine but not the consecrated bread and wine..”
Now Timothy K are you ever going to tell us your definition of the word Eucharist in the statement from Irenaeus
” is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Timothy P asked,
Sure! No problem. I am happy to do it. I thought you’d never ask.
First, Irenæus refers to the oblation of the bread and cup of blessing prior the consecration as “the Eucharist,” as is plainly evident from the passages which I have provided. For example, here in Fragment 37 he plainly identifies the unconsecrated bread and wine as the Eucharist:
There is more evidence than just this, but you have already conceded that the bread and cup of blessing here are unconsecrated bread and wine, and Irenæus called it “the oblation of the Eucharist.” That oblation of the Eucharist is not only bread and wine, but obviously includes thanks and praise for God’s creation. I don’t say this often, but this is in accordance with your own catechism, which is why I was so surprised that you objected to my identifying “the oblation of the Eucharist” as an oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine. It’s pretty obvious from Irenæus that he believed the unconsecrated bread and wine was the Eucharist once it had been set aside as an offering for the poor (not TO the poor, as you have occasionally represented my words), and the catechism represents Irenæus as understanding exactly that point (1350, 1358).
Second, Irenæus refers to the consecrated bread and wine as the Eucharist as well, for the people do not eat it until after the Holy Spirit is invoked (Fragment 37), and he plainly refers to people eating “the Eucharist” during the memorial meal:
Your first mistake, Timothy P, is that you ignore the totality of what Irenæus actually said and wrote about the Eucharist, and assume that Irenæus could only have referred to the Eucharist in one singular way throughout the paragraph; Irenæus clearly refers to it as “the Eucharist” from the moment it is set aside in Church as an offering in accordance with Philippians 4:18 (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV,Chapter 18.4), until the time it is received by the believer (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV,Chapter 18.5). This is not rocket science. It’s the Eucharist the whole time.
So the only remaining question is when does he call it “the oblation of the Eucharist” or call it “the oblation of the new covenant”?
You have offered Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17 as evidence that he calls the consecrated bread the oblation of the new covenant:
All you’ve got here is Irenæus acknowledging that Jesus instituted the oblation of the new covenant at the Last Supper. I agree. But when he actually defines the content of that oblation, he goes right back to the oblation being the first fruits of the harvest: “giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things [which Timothy P knows is unconsecrated bread] … which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament…”. Even your own catechism understands that this is still a reference to unconsecrated bread: “The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator’s gifts into the hands of Christ … . (1350) From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need. (1351).”
Yep, still talking about unconsecrated bread. Layne has attempted to show from Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 17.6 that in the Eucharist is offered to God “His own” Son, but all that paragraph proves is that the offerings of unconsecrated bread and wine with thanks and praise in Jesus’ name are the fulfillment of the Malachi 1:11 prophecy that the sacrifices of the Gentiles would glorify God’s name. But the Son is the Father’s, and therefore the Son’s name is the Father’s name. And once that’s clear, Irenæus goes right on in the next chapter explaining that the oblation of the new covenant is setting aside the food for the poor in accordance with Philippians 4:18, Proverbs 19:17, Matthew 25:34, etc…..
You have also cited paragraph 5 of Against Heresies IV.18, “But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion,” as if that proves that the Eucharistic oblation of the new covenant is Christ’s body and blood offered in the Lord’s Supper, but Irenæus just goes right on talking about how the oblation of the Covenant is setting aside food for the poor:
But where’s the mass? Where is the offering of consecrated bread, and Christ’s Body and Blood? Maybe we can find it in Book V!
In Book V, Chapter 2 Irenæus refers to the Eucharist as consecrated bread and wine that is made the body and blood of Christ. Perhaps here Irenæus will show that the consecrated bread is the oblation of the new covenant:
Nope. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics, Irenæus makes no mention of the Eucharist being offered once it is made into His body and blood. Maybe in the next paragraph he will?
Nope. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics, he makes no mention of the Eucharist being offered once it is made into His body and blood. Maybe in Fragment 37 he will?
So what is the oblation of the New Covenant? The prayers of the saints (Revelation 5:8, 8:3), “our bodies” (Romans 12:1), “the fruit of our lips” (Hebrews 13:15). “[T]hose oblations are not according to the law …but they are according to the Spirit” because “the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual.” Yes, that’s right: the Eucharistic oblation of the new covenant, the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, is praises, prayer, the fruit of our lips and unconsecrated bread and wine in accordance with Philippians 4:18. Yep. “For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing [which even Timothy P acknowledges is unconsecrated bread and wine], giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment [still talking about unconsecrated bread and wine].”
And then, once the oblation is complete, the Holy Spirit is invoked, and instead of offering Christ’s body and blood to the Father for the Salvation of the World like a good Roman Catholic priest, Irenæus accidentally just exhibits (apophene) the consecrated bread and wine to the people of God and feeds it to them. Missing a pretty important step there! He forgot to offer the transubstantiated bread and wine to the father for the forgiveness of the sins of the world! And then, after leaving out the actual sacrifice of the Mass, Irneæus has the temerity to say his Mass-less sacrifice of praise, prayer, gratitude, and unconsecrated bread and wine is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11! He obviously must be a heretic [Protestant] for getting that so wrong. 🙂
Well, I referred above to your first mistake. But there is another one that compounds your error: you completely overlook the context in which Irenæus is writing. Did you notice how often he makes reference to the bread and wine being part of creation, and the Father being the Creator of creation? And Jesus being the Son of the Creator?
Well, there is a simple reason that he makes so many reference to the bread and wine being part of creation, and the Father being the Creator of creation, and Jesus being the Son of the Creator, and that we offer to Him the fruits of His own creation. The heretics against whom he was arguing did not believe Jesus was the Son of the Creator God, but that He was only the Son of the Father (who was spirit), Who ostensibly had not created the world. Thus, they argued that Jesus had not come to His own creation (for flesh and spirit cannot be joined), and that He had neither flesh nor blood. They thought He was just a phantom (spirit), without a body (flesh). And since we are part of creation, Jesus (spirit) had not really come to save our mortal bodies (flesh) at all, and that there would be no resurrection of the body (the flesh). The resurrection was spiritual only. To Irenæus, this made no sense at all, and was horribly inconsistent. Even the heretics, after the model instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, offered to the Father the fruits of creation, but in this they were terribly inconsistent, for they were offering to the Father god the fruits of the creator god, as if the Father was covetous of the Creator god’s possessions. That is why Irenæus wrote,
How, indeed could they be consistent in their offering of unconsecrated bread to the Father to whom it did not belong, and in eating of the consecrated bread and wine which was ostensibly the body and blood of a savior who had not actually taken on on a body with blood? Prior to the consecration they were offering the fruits of creation to someone who had not created the world, and then after consecrating the fruits of creation, they were referring to the consecrated fruits of creation as the body and blood of Jesus who was ostensibly neither the Lord of creation nor the Son of the Creator nor even possessed of a body and blood. At the same time they were maintaining that the flesh (which is nourished by Christ’s body and blood) will still go to corruption and not be resurrected, even after eating Christ’s body and blood:
Note well how Irenæus handles the liturgy: he proceeds directly from the anaphora (“the bread over which thanks have been given”) to the epiclesis (“is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood”), without skipping a beat. Just for the record, Roman Catholics do not teach that the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood simply by the thanks that is offered over them, and neither did Irenæus. Roman Catholics teach, rather, that the bread and wine become the body and blood at the invocation of the Holy Spirit (as did Irenæus, but only antitypically so (Fragment 37)). This is important here, not only because Roman Catholics will be tempted to read transubstantiation into the anaphora of Book IV, Chapter 18.4 to make their point on the Eucharistic oblation of transubstantiated bread, but also because Irenæus is about to speak of the Eucharist in exactly the same way and in exactly the same order—the thank offering as an oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine, and then the consecration at which time the bread becomes the body and blood of Christ but is not offered to God but rather exhibited to, and received by, men. In both cases—among the heretis and among the Christians—there is an offering of unconsecrated bread to God, and then the consumption of consecrated bread by men, but in both cases what is missing in either case is the offering of consecrated bread to God.
The significant difference between Irenæus’ position and that of the heretics was that only Christians were entirely consistent. Irenæus believed that Christians offer to God the unconsecrated first-fruits of His creation as a thank offering, the Eucharistic oblation of the New Covenant and then once the bread and wine are consecrated, they are exhibited to and fed to the believers who obtain eternal life in exactly the same way that the bread and wine become heavenly when they are set aside for the poor in the church of God:
Here Irenæus has as fluidly transitioned from calling unconsecrated bread “the Eucharist” to calling consecrated bread “the Eucharist,” just as he did when speaking of the heretics’ exact same liturgy. Because Roman Catholics have been fooled by the Latin translator’s error, they think the phrase “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” must refer to consecrated bread, and even when they are shown the corrected version based on the Greek, they cannot imagine that unconsecrated bread could have a heavenly reality simply by being set aside in the Church even though that’s exactly what Irenæus wrote! What is more, because they cannot imagine that Irenæus could possibly refer to both the unconsecrated bread and the consecrated bread as “the Eucharist” (he clearly does!) they assume that Irenæus was teaching that our “hope of the resurrection to eternity” is by ingesting the heavenly reality of transubstantiated bread—a conclusion at which they arrive only by ignoring the actual greek as well as the context of the heresies against which Irenæus was writing, and by assuming—though Irenæus nowhere even suggests it—that Irenæus must have believed the Eucharistic oblation of the New Covenant was transubstantiated bread.
Irenæus believed his position on the Eucharist was entirely consistent, not because he thought the minister could change the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood by drawing down to it the heavenly reality of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity, but rather because in the Eucharistic liturgy we offer the first fruits of creation as a thank offering to the Father who is actually the Creator (showing that we are consistent in our worship of the Father and Creator God), then after the invocation of the Holy Spirit we call “the cup (which is a part of the creation)” … and the bread (also a part of the creation)” His blood and His body (showing that we are consistent in our belief that Jesus became part of creation, flesh and blood, and was not spirit only), and then after this, those who partake of the Eucharist “are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity” (showing that we are consistent in our belief that the bodies of the dead with rise, not their spirits only). That’s it. No transubstantiation. No real presence. No mass sacrifice. Just offering unconsecrated bread and wine, and then eating consecrated bread and wine. Not a mass sacrifice to be found.
All of this, of course, is lost on the Roman Catholic because he obstinately refuses to examine—much less to understand!—the context in which Irenæus was writing and thus to see why Irenæus thought his opinion on the Eucharist was so consistent, and why “our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.” Our bodies do not become incorruptible by eating “the heavenly reality” of transubstantiated bread. Our bodies become incorruptible when they receive the Eucharist in the same way that the bread takes on a heavenly reality by being set aside in the church of God: when it is received “in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.4). Just read Irenæus in his original context without the Latin corruptions and what you find is an entirely Protestant liturgy exactly where you would expect to find it: in the early church.
Timothy P, if you can’t show me an explicit reference in Irenæus to offering the Body and Blood of Christ as the Eucharistic oblation of the new covenant (and you can’t), it’s probably time you moved on to something else.
Tim
Timothy K
Thanks for that detailed discussion and I appreciate your bringing up the verses from Irenaeus that clearly display his belief in the real presence., but after reading your piece I am even more confused. Maybe Kevin can help me. You mention
“Here Irenæus has as fluidly transitioned from calling unconsecrated bread “the Eucharist” to calling consecrated bread “the Eucharist,” just as he did when speaking of the heretics’ exact same liturgy”
So Kevin, in the quote
“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the church of God [which the Latin translator bungled into “when it receives the invocation of God”), is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.5)
where Irenaeus says “is no longer common bread , but the Eucharist” does Irenaeus mean the unconsecrated bread or the consecrated bread?
Timothy K writes
“Timothy P, if you can’t show me an explicit reference in Irenæus to offering the Body and Blood of Christ as the Eucharistic oblation of the new covenant (and you can’t), it’s probably time you moved on to something else”
Now I think we all agree that the offering of the unconsecrated bread, our praise and thanksgiving, ourselves as living sacrifices are part of the “Eucharistic oblation of the new covenant.” I just don’t see where Irenaeus says that the consecrated bread and wine are not part of the Eucharistic oblation of the new covenant, especially when we read
“5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent;” Malachi 1:10-11 —””
And we read from fragment 37
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. ”
Irenaeus calls the consecrated bread and wine a sacrifice after invoking the Holy Spirit. And just to be sure there can be no confusion, he says the bread is the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ”.
How simple can you get?
Timothy P asked,
He obviously means unconsecrated bread. In Irenæus, it becomes “no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” just by bring set aside for the needy. That’s pretty obvious. The holy spirit is not invoked until much later in the liturgy. In the Roman Catholic liturgy, this would be akin to the bringing forward of the gifts. It’s already “no longer common” but “heavenly” way before the consecration.
Anyway, I asked you,
To which you responded,
That is a concession, Timothy P, and I thank you for it. You are unable to find ANYWHERE in Irenæus where he says that the consecrated bread and wine are the oblation of the new covenant. After all, in Fragment 37, he says the oblation of the new covenant is over before the Holy Spirit is even invoked. How simple can you get.
You continued,
And just to be clear, the invocation of the Holy Spirit takes place after the oblation of the new covenant is over, and he calls them “antitypes” which are figures of Christ’s body and blood. By the figures of bread and wine the sacrifice of Christ is exhibited by the Holy Spirit.
I asked you to provide an explicit statement from Irenæus indicating that the consecrated bread and wine are offered to the Father as the oblation of the new covenant and you have just conceded that you can’t find one.
Exactly.
Tim
Timothy P, this is a patern. Tim explains things so clearly and then you ask if I can explain. I can’t explain any clearer than he. It’s very simple. The oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine takes place. That oblation is spiritual from the altar of our hearts, it is not CARNAL. Then the Spirit is invoked and the symbols ( bread and wine) of the body and blood are exhibited to men and we eat and our faith is strengthened because we commemorate the cross and remember his sacrifice. The Spirit brings to mind the Word and to the heart increase in faith. Timothy P, this is the last time I will say this to you. Jesus isn’t sacrificed again nor is the sacrifice continued. The whole book of Hebrews is about the eternal value in the one finished sacrifice. Believe in the finished work of Jesus and run from that Mass as far as you can. Buy a book by John Murray Redemption Accomplished and applied. All the best
Thank you Kevin for proving my point. Now Kevin after reading Timothy K’s long discussion I asked you a very simple question. I wrote
“So Kevin, in the quote
“But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the church of God [which the Latin translator bungled into “when it receives the invocation of God”), is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18.5)
where Irenaeus says “is no longer common bread , but the Eucharist” does Irenaeus mean the unconsecrated bread or the consecrated bread?”
Now you don’t actually answer the question but you do say “The oblation of unconsecrated bread and wine takes place”. Now Timothy K finally says
“He obviously means unconsecrated bread. In Irenæus, it becomes “no longer common bread, but the Eucharist” just by bring set aside for the needy. That’s pretty obvious”
So let’s make the substitution
But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.” Mark 4:28
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it is set aside in the Church of God , is no longer common bread, but the “unconsecrated bread and wine”, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the “unconsecrated bread and wine”, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
Now I don’t know anyone who believes we receive eternal life from receiving unconsecrated bread and wine. And we don’t receive unconsecrated bread and wine, we offer it.
Timothy P, I think you’ve completely missed the point. Irenæus calls the unconsecrated bread and wine “the Eucharist” when it is set aside in the church of God, and he calls the consecrated bread and wine “the Eucharist” as well.
Here is what I wrote:
When that’s the case, your attempt to make substitutions falls apart.
Tim
TIMOTHY P.–
You said:
And Layne maybe you can help me understand what this great disagreement is Timothy K believes we have.
No problem. TIM K. is confused about our beliefs based on his assumption that Irenaeus said the oblation/sacrifice terminates or ceases before the consecration. He is wrong. And we will all see why once he posts our responses, but not until he has crafted a sly response to counter them.
–Layne
That’s rich, Layne! I have not assumed that Irenaeus said the oblation terminates or ceases before the consecration. Irenæus actually says that.
You have maintained that “when we have completed the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit” must really mean “only after the Holy Spirit is invoked is the oblation completed”. And you continue to maintain that Irenæus said the common bread of the oblation changes from earthly to heavenly by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, even after being shown that Irenæus did not say “when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly”.
There is simply nothing Irenæus can say that you cannot turn into its exact opposite—even after you know that the Latin translation is wrong. That’s why every single comment of yours is subject to moderation.
Have a good weekend,
Tim
TIM K. said “Oh, goodness, now that’s just silly. You just changed “completed” to “just getting started”!
That’s ludicrous and you know it. I figured you would come up with a sly spin on things and I was right. You are a slick one, Tim K., but your deception doesn’t fool me. Your responses are designed to make those of us who disagree with you look stupid.
I should have known better.
Thanks, but no thanks, Tim K.
Layne
No, I do not “know” it is ludicrous, Layne. You went through some Olympic qualifying grammatical and metephorical gymnastics to get to
You turned “when we have completed the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit” into “when all the ingredients are ready to cook it into an oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit.” Yes, that is exactly what you did, and it does not take a rocket scientist to see what you were attempting to do.
Pointing out your sleight of keyboard is hardly “deceptive.”
Tim
What is also worth pointing out, Layne, is that you acted indignant when I pointed out that you, “LAYNE,” are simply another manifestation of “BOB,” returning under a different name.
Here was “BOB’s” take when I expounded upon fragment 37 and the meaning of “τελεσαντες” in 2015:
And here is “LAYNE’s take on exactly the same point:
Not much has changed in 2 years, Bob.
Back in 2015, you were arguing that “the invocation of God” is what makes the bread heavenly, and today more than two years later, even after it has been shown to you that Irenæus did not really say “when it receives the invocation of God”, you’re still arguing that according to Irenæus the oblation changes from earthly to heavenly by the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
You were a troll when you were BOB. You are still a troll as LAYNE. Don’t take that wrong, Layne. I actually like you (and BOB). But there’s no denying that you’re a troll, and trolls have to be moderated.
Have a good weekend.
Tim
Totally agree Layne. And the name calling is so typical of these exCatholic blogs when their system of belief is challenged. I understand however the pressure that Timothy K is under. It must be very upsetting to spend so much of your life attacking something you hate and then be shown that you are wrong. I just find it fascinating that Timothy K believes the Eucharist, ie the consecrated bread and wine are not part of what he describes as the “Eucharistic oblation of the New Covenant”. By the way, I asked Timothy K
Timothy P
“I find this quote from Irenaeus interesting in his rewording on the words of Malachi. Maybe Timothy K or Kevin could comment.
“I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], -11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
Very interesting,”
To which Timothy K responded
Timothy F. Kauffman
September 14, 2017 at 1:14 pm
Not sure what your point is. What do you think he changed?
Tim
I find that verse fascinating in that in Irenaeus rewording the passage from Malachi he identifies the pure sacrifice as what or who? “And His name is glorified among the Gentiles”. Irenaeus then goes on identifying Christ as HIS OWN repeatedly before returning to identifying the unconsecrated elements as HIS OWN in the next chapter although there were no chapters in the original Greek. Now I had heard that verse from Malachi,
“My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent;” Malachi 1:10
and I had always assumed the My name and the Lord Omnipotent referred to God the Father but Irenaeus twists the verse where it is obvious that Irenaeus believed the pure sacrifice is the Son. In essence , what Irenaeus says is
” indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; JESUS CHRIST.
Fits in nicely with Irenaeus’s comment
“And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. ”
It’s also interesting Irenaeus switching from the term Oblation, ie Offering ie offertory to the word sacrifice after “we invoke the Holy Spirit”. I really don’t know how Irenaeus could have made it any clearer. In fact he identifies the sacrifice ” sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ”
Timothy P wrote,
What I believe is immaterial. We are talking about what Irenæus believed. Irenæus did not believe the consecrated bread and wine were part of what he describes as the “Eucharistic oblation of the New Covenant.” That, after all, is what we were talking about, and that is the sum of your problem with Irenæus: he never actually says what you need him to say.
As for Against Heresies Book IV.17.6 referring to “His Own,” the proper equation is “Jesus’ Name = the Father’s Name”, for he says, “the name of the Son belongs to the Father”. Based on this, Irenæus’s interpretation of Malachi 1:11 was:
Based on the identification of Jesus with the Father, and the unconsecrated elements being offered in the Name of Jesus, the actual equation would be:
As for Irenæus’ switching from offering the oblation of the new covenant to exhibiting the sacrifice of Christ, there’s nothing there that is not commonly acknowledged. Of course he exhibits the sacrifice of Christ under the figures of bread and wine. No protestant would disagree. What is missing is actually offering the sacrifice to God.
In any case it is very interesting that you have emphasized that Irenæus switches from offering an oblation (prosphoran, προσφοραν) of unconsecrated bread before the invocation of the Holy Spirit, to exhibiting the consecrated bread as a sacrifice (θυσιαν, thusian) after the invocation of the Holy Spirit. In this comment you made that connection, insisting that because Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” after the consecration, then Irenæus must have believed that offering “these oblations” in memory of Christ shows that he included the exhibited sacrifice (θυσιαν, thusian) as part of the offering (prosphoran, προσφοραν) of the oblation of the new covenant. But here is your problem: Irenæus uses oblation (prosphoran, προσφοραν) to refer to the offering of unconsecrated bread (what you call the offering or offertory of unconsecrated bread), and uses sacrifice (θυσιαν, thusian) to refer to consecrated bread, and then he returns to the oblation of unconsecrated bread when he says “those who perform these oblations:
Which oblations would those be? I’ll let Timothy P answer: “Oblation, ie Offering ie offertory”. Yep, the unconsecrated bread. Irenæus believed Jesus had instituted an oblation of unconsecrated bread as the oblation of the new covenant at the Last Supper.
I really don’t know how Irenaeus could have made it any clearer. The bread was considered part of the oblation of the new covenant only when it was still unconsecrated. After it is consecrated, he calls it a sacrifice, but only after the oblation of the new covenant has already been completed. Then when he says “Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord,” he uses the term that referred to the unconsecrated bread (your words: Oblation, ie Offering ie offertory), showing that he does not include the consecrated bread in the oblation of the new covenant. In fact this is precisely Irenæus position. He says here:
Which is exactly what he said in Against Heresies:
Yep, in both places he’s talking about the “Oblation, ie Offering ie offertory” which as you now know, is the unconsecrated bread.
Now can you please provide an explicit reference in Irenæus to actually offering the consecrated bread as part of the oblation of the new covenant? That’s really what you’re arguing for, but it is very difficult for you to argue without any evidence to support your position. This is why it is so much easier to be protestant than Roman Catholic. I can just let the early church fathers speak for themselves without having to import late 4th century novelties into their words.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy K writes
” That’s really what you’re arguing for, but it is very difficult for you to argue without any evidence to support your position. This is why it is so much easier to be protestant than Roman Catholic. I can just let the early church fathers speak for themselves without having to import late 4th century novelties into their words.”
It sure doesn’t seem like it’s been easier for you from my perspective. After the longest post I think I have ever seen from you trying to defend your position Kevin still did not know what you understood Irenaeus to mean when he wrote “is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist”.
Well it’s pretty obvious from Irenæus that he calls it the Eucharist both before and after the consecration.
What do you mean Kevin didn’t understand. I understand perfectly.
” You were a troll when you were Bob. You are still a troll as Layne Don’t take this wrong” how is this helpful Tim to call people names? You have dismissed me because you say you have corrected me so many times privately. Can you take correction? Calling people a troll isn’t right. How is he supposed to take it. In general the term troll is used allot on on blogs, and the hypocrisy the accusation comes from people who blog consistently also. K
Kevin,
An internet troll is a specific term defined here:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll’s amusement.
It’s not name-calling. It’s simply a mode of behavior.
Thanks
Tim
Bravo Kevin!!!!
Timothy P, you and Layne and Bob and Mark and Rocky for over 2 years have been shown the truth of the gospel and of the fathers of the early church. The Roman Catholic mass isn’t practiced in the early church, it is an abomination to God. Yet after 2 years here you choose the mass as your mode of salvation. So Tim is right, the only logical reason for you( all) to keep coming back is your amusement. Of course I think I can faithfully say from the Protestants who participate here, our prayer is your salvation by repenting of your religion and embracing the gospel of scripture. Scripture says you must lose your life to find it. Mathew 10:39. Those like Tim and others who have left the religion of their youth and found the gospel have peace and assurance, something your religion and it’s mass can never give you. All the best
OK, thanks for providing that. I do believe with Timothy P and Layne it’s beyond the context of the passage. It’s like a broken record, and certainly it can be viewed as provoking into an emotional response. It’s amazing to me that after the utter clarity you have provided here on Iranaeus that they want to maintain their mass. Amazing. You once said that you don’t consider Roman Catholics brothers in Christ. I agree, and that changes everything, whether the Christian church will approach them as fellow laborers in Christ or in need of the gospel. There is no question in my mind. K
Timothy K , you and I obviously see things differently. After calling Layne and I Trolls, and Kevin objecting you produce a very insulting definition of an internet troll and then write
“It’s not name-calling. It’s simply a mode of behavior.”
And then Kevin responds
“OK, thanks for providing that”
Sometimes I think you guys are totally oblivious to reality. But even though I am the one being called a troll, I am still having a good laugh over that exchange
a passion for wielding the sword of truth in defense of the faith, and refuting the errors
Actually I was going to describe Layne and I as having “a passion for wielding the sword of truth in defense of the faith, and refuting the errors”. Sounds familiar. It appears as a description of Timothy K on the “About This Blog ” post and I couldn’t help but wonder if Timothy K wrote that or Kevin? Obviously we all believe that that is what we are doing.
Kevin certainly does not appear to be an internet troll. He is just the average Protestant with preconceived predjudices against what he perceives to be Catholicity. It is the common error of so many Protestants. It would be practically useless to try to explain Catholic truth to such ones as these because of the deep rooted predjudices. This kind is only cast out by fasting and prayer …. by a true Catholic, not outside the Church by associations with Infidel groups such as the “Society of Saint Pius X”… Kevin, why don’t you point out to Timothy how he claims to be Catholic but denies the doctrine of Infallibility since his group does not one the man they call Pope.
Good luck.
Typo: should say his group does not “obey” the man they call Pope.
OLR, you aren’t catholic, you are Roman Catholic. It is Roman Catholicism that excommunicated itself from Christ’s church erecting a leader that is meticulously described in scripture, who usurp the seat of Christ, who makes his own laws, preaches his own gospel, and leads the worship of his own idol. It’s no mistake you can find men in leadership positions in Catholic schools who don’t know any scripture. Your leader wants to keep it that way. Have you ever considered the fact that your leader and his religion says you can’t understand the bible and therefore let him interpret it for you. He doesn’t want you to know the ” Catholic truth”
” Kevin, Why don’t you point out to Timothy how he claims to be Catholic but denies the doctrine of infallibility since his group does not one the man they call pope” OLR, this is hard to get through the Roman Catholic mind, but scripture and history prove that Roman Catholicism isn’t part of the Catholic church. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ. Peter calls those members priests of God. We are a royal priesthood. And as Spurgeon said, that when a man comes to us wearing funny garb saying I am a priest, the poorest child of God should say stand off sir , I am a priest . I do not know what you are , since the only mention of vestments in the bible is with the kingdom of Baal. God calls every believer priests, God’s cleras clergy. Our trust is in the only head Jesus Christ. So the fact that any Protestant would reject your leader as the person they have to be in communion with to be a part of the Catholic Church we reject. We believe the pope is antichrist. The only head to whom I submit is Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said, ” if someone comes to YOU and says I am the Christ , don’t believe him ” We believe the true church was built on the confession of Peter. Incidentally the majority of early fathers believe that. We understand that you belong to a human institution that’s becomes more human everyday. Look at the banner over the Basilica to prove it.
Timothy P, ” obviously we all believe that is what we are doing” Except you are on a site that is using the sword of truth to defend the Christian faith and refute the errors of the religion in which you sit. I sit in amazement that you and Bob can never answer the one question Tim has some asked you a thousand times : where is the sacrifice of Jesus body blood soul and divinity in the Lord’s supper? It ain’t there. The supper was a meal at a table offering spiritual sacrifices from the heart, not the re offering of Jesus for sins. What breaks my heart is I know many people like you and Bob who think the mass will accomplish your salvation, and it will only keep men from eternal life according to my studies of scripture. And as we see clearly in Iranaeus a Protestant service of offering thanks and praise and the Spirit being invoked and symbols being eaten. But we understand you need there to be a propitious sacrifice of Jesus in the supper because your church call it the work of the people to earn the increases of your salvation. But scripture says salvation is a gift, it can’t be earned and it isn’t deserved.
Kevin writes
I sit in amazement that you and Bob can never answer the one question Tim has some asked you a thousand times : where is the sacrifice of Jesus body blood soul and divinity in the Lord’s supper?
Actually Kevin, Timothy K has helped me answer that question when he pointed out that the oblation, ie offering is finished before the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood are created after the Holy Spirit is invoked. Read carefully
“For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. ”
Now Timothy K commented about this verse
“As for Irenæus’ switching from offering the oblation of the new covenant to exhibiting the sacrifice of Christ, there’s nothing there that is not commonly acknowledged. Of course he exhibits the sacrifice of Christ under the figures of bread and wine. No protestant would disagree. What is missing is actually offering the sacrifice to God. ”
Now Irenaeus does not write “he exhibits the sacrifice of Christ under the figures of bread and wine”. Irenaeus writes
“we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ”. Did you notice that Kevin? The bread- the body of Christ? The cup-the blood of Christ. And it’s not the Body and Blood of Christ until after the consecration, right?
And Timothy K writes “What is missing is actually offering the sacrifice to God. “. Kevin, who would you be offering a sacrifice to other then God?????? And by the way Kevin, you do understand don’t you that a sacrifice is an oblation?
Now we can start debating the meaning of antitype again but let me ask you a question Kevin, Irenaeus writes
“in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. ”
Kevin, when you receive your symbolic bread, do you receive remission of sins? I thought it was your belief that the remission of your sins occurred when you believed?
” Kevin, when you receive symbolic bread, do you receive remission of sins.” Yes, because I believe those symbols represent the cross and the words of Jesus in which I believe. God has called me to a SPIRITUAL relationship with Christ. We are incorporated into his body thru the Spirit not the flesh. ” For by grace you have been saved through faith” Ephesians 2: 8.
It says that the sacrifice is exhibited not sacrificed. Have you been to an exhibit of art. It is shown to us through the bread and the cup. And we eat the bread and drink the wine. Paul says ” as often as you eat this BREAD” What part of bread is confusing? Paul says eat the Bread. What part of exhibit are you and having problem with? It’s time to repent of your goodness and believe in the gospel of scripture 1 Corinthians 15. It’s time to stop lying to yourself. The issue isn’t whether a sacrifice is an oblation, it is what is being sacrificed. Nowhere does Iranaeus teach Jesus is sacrificed, nowhere. Again you failed to answer the question. Everytime you actually are asked where is the sacrifice of Jesus body blood soul divinity you change the tune. Hebrews 10:14 “for by ONE offering He perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” once, never to be repeated or continued. One sacrifice perfected true believers. Ephesians 1:7 says we have redemption not will have. Your church fatally confuses the in is with the for us, just like you confuse exhibit with sacrifice.
Timothy, I never did hear back from Brian about engaging you and he in a debate on the Scriptural and early Father’s belief in the real presence. I hope you are working your self back into the Catholic church. I can clearly understand why belief in the real presence is so hard to accept but when you look at the Scriptural and early Church evidence the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the orthodox view that there really is no debate. In contrast, belief that Christ established a Church with teaching authority is so reasonable if He desired the Unity he prayed for in the Scriptures. The belief that Church unity is possible based on Sola Scriptura is really totally irrational. Last Sunday the priest at mass said happiness is service, not dominance. The belief in Sola Scriptura is really the acceptance of Sola Individualitica, the emphasis is on “I” , not the teaching authority of Christ’s Church. It’s time to swallow your pride Tim and I know it’s so hard to do given the time you have spent fighting against the Catholic church. Time to come home.
Hi Tim, i couldnt remember which article of yours adressed a Roman Catholic saying Protestants arent incarnational? Its interesting to me why Protestants care since Christians are incorporated into the body of Christ only thru the Spirit, being called to a spiritual relationship with him. We arent in fusion with Christ’s flesh, yet this evil religion in its synagogue calls its people to eat Christ’s flesh to be saved. Clearly scripture teaches we are saved forever by believing the gospel John 5:25, Romans 10:9,10 etc. Salvation is a Supernatural operation of the Spirit which includes raising our bodies with a glorified imperishable body. Catholics are in a human revovation project that somehow involves eating his physical flesh where Christians believe salvation thru glorification is by faith in Christ including a glorified body someday. Can you shed any opinion you have on any of this if you want? We arent fused with Christ’s flesh, we are in union with him thru the Spirit and members if his body ( the church) thru the Spirit? Would you agree? The reason i ask you were an RC and now you’re saved Protestant. Thx Tim hope u r well. K
Hi, Kevin!
I mention Rome’s incarnational heebie jeebies here:
https://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/12/07/novel-antiquity/
and here:
https://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/12/14/a-significant-turning-point/
Indeed, our fleshly members are His, for we are his
In fact, the early writers interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:29 through the lens of these verses, concluding that the judgment upon those that drink unworthily is because they did not come together with love toward their brethren, each one a member of Christ’s body.
For example, Augustine Sermon 272:
Thx Tim, excellent
Tim, can i ask you one more question in regard to this topic. Im trying to really get this down. Here is what Dr Horton said to Called to Confusion Brian in a debate. Can you tell me if you agree with this? Horton on How are we members of Christ’s mystical body? ” we bear witness to the redemption that Christ has wrought. Yet we are co workers with Christ because we are proclaiming him. The difficulty is that sarx and soma are sometimes confused. We are not made one flesh with Christ , we are made one with Christ thru the Spirit . He is the firstborn from the dead. We have an organic covenantal relationship but there is not a fusion between the believer and Christ.”
This is just fallacious, if you are going to metaphorize the usage of Ignatius language shouldn’t this same standard or methodology applied to the bible.