Do what you want. I suggest chill out.
Why not show a devotional once in awhile.
Freeper Cheers!
Posted on 01/07/2012 6:00:19 PM PST by rzman21
<”My Southern Baptist friends are among the very most knowledgeable about what Scripture says of all of my friends. They also have the least understanding of what Scripture means. An example:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “>
Southern Baptists understand that passage in the same way that Stephen understood those words as he was being stoned,”Father lay not this sin against them”. Or the way Christ asked his father ,”Forgive them for they know not what they are doing...” In both instances, they had “forgiven” their enemies and asked God to seal that forgiveness.
The southern Baptists I know and I’m one as well, also understand the Catholic view, that Christ’s admonition to “receive the Holy Spirit” and to “forgive or retain sins” gives the Catholic clergy divine authority to pronounce parishioners’ sins “forgiven or retained”. Many understand it, but they don’t always agree with the Catholic interpretation of that passage. As for me, it would depend on the spiritual condition of the clergyman doing the “pronouncing”.
Southern Baptists see the passage of “retention or forgiveness” as a the responsibility of each individual member; for as we interact with the world daily we endure the slights and personal hurts of others. Christ has admonished all of us to “love our enemies and to do good to those who have persecuted us”, and many other exhortations in maintaining a Christian testimonoy of the glory of God. I do differ with them in that I believe that Clergy of all faiths, having a divine calling to declare the gospel, do have divine authority in the matter of discipline and “retaining or forgiveness” of sins. Even Christ, when forgiving the lepers and healing their lesions, told them to show themselves to the priests so that they might be declared “clean” and fit to be among the people. The Baptist churches I have been a part of generally had good process for restoring an erring member to the faith with the pastor and elders praying with such an one with the one asking forgiveness of God and any others he may have wronged. The Catholics have their own process as well which I DO UNDERSTAND is more involved then just stereotypically confessing in a booth and the priest just gives you absolution.
So I do challenge you on your notion that Southern Baptists have more knowledge of scripture but understand least what it says...I’m not sure of what your metrics are?
So Catholic ignorance of scripture makes them more understanding of what little scripture they do know as compared to many SBC’s encyclopedic knowledge of scripture?
You know it was the broad study of the Bible and comparing what it teaches do that of the excesses of the Catholic church doctrine and practices by the 15th century that lead to the great schism, right? The established church indeed had great divine authority to preach the gospel and “forgive or retain”. Yet wolves entered into church leadership who over the centuries had abused abused and debased that authority to the point that even littlest ones up even until this present day were being sexually molested and others left spiritually for dead under the aegis of this so called church of Christ. Looking over history and the Bible, Narses, could you not have expected God to move to humble Roman Catholicism and to graft in “off shoot branches” so that the work of Christ might continue upon the Earth?
Yet, the whole of Christendom, is now under attack and committed christians from all Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant persuasions may find themselves more and more as “strange bedfellows” needing to co-operate with each other. For the evil ones of this world have attempted to infiltrate the upper leadership positions of these various branches of faith to lead the laity astray at the same time of the neo Muslim ascendancy would destroy western society and democracy. I pray Christ that he will raise up bold new uncorrupted men of faith from all traditional faith persuasions who will lead those who have left that house of Harlotry, that all nations have become drunk with! I mean not the Catholic church, or Protestant, or Orthodox per se, but rather drunk with that spirit of religiosity that has no power, (and is morally situational and not biblically transcendent in its root doctrine) which has taken root in the hearts of the leaderships of these three branches.
Christ’s true church are those spirit filled believers who come from every tribe, tongue, nation. No matter what faith persuasion...across time and dimension. They are all his that does the “will of his Father in heaven”...they are his “brother, mother, sister and father”.
They (denominationally) overall hold to common core truths (apostle’s creed, etc.), while largely allowing limited variation in other matters, yet overall manifest a remarkable informal spiritual unity, manifest in manifold ways. And testify to greater commitment and unity in moral views and certain core teachings than their Catholic counterparts.
“the locusts have no king, Yet all of them go out in ranks” (Prov. 30:27).
( Yet Christians have their collective king which is Christ via the Holy Spirit which perfects instinctive behavior and the desire to live penitently)
Unfortunately, creationists do not seem to be receiving the same consideration. Catholic publications, programs, and public figures are at war against them.
Also you are looking at this problem from the wrong end. The issue here is not "evolution" but the facticity of the Biblical narrative, howsoever much that narrative violates the rules of nature. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to shunt science aside when it comes to the virgin birth while rejecting creationism because of what science says. All miracles are equally "impossible." Yet Genesis 1-11 is routinely treated as if the events it describes are uniquely impossible in a way no other miracles are.
For the devout Catholic, there is no valid reason for leaving the Catholic church, ergo, they must be heretics, haters, anti's, whatever and and an agenda or personal grudge against the church.
They remind me of evolutionists who simply cannot comprehend that not everyone believes like they do, that looking at the evidence can come to another (and legitimate at that) conclusion.
For all the scurrilous accusations thrown at the reformers, for example, what is frequently ignored is the fact that many of them were extremely well acquainted with Catholicism, as in the case of Luther who was a Catholic priest.
Do what you want. I suggest chill out.
Why not show a devotional once in awhile.
Freeper Cheers!
Interesting posts from both sides.
Discuss is good...ranting and name calling is not
Enjoy lurking these threads when there is substantive debate going on.
upon those who bow before Thy majesty;
that they who are refreshed by Thy divine gift may ever be sustained by heavenly aid,
through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who livest and reignest,
with You Almighty Father,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God; for ever and ever.
Amen.
On the contrary, I DO understand what the Gnostics believed and the main issue the ECFs disputed with them about was that Jesus, God incarnate, was flesh and blood. They used the facts that bread and wine symbolized the real flesh and blood of Christ to demonstrate His reality. The doctrine of transubstantiation - which took many centuries to develop - is a close cousin to Gnostic theology because both claim that "things are not what they appear". The very definition of Transubstantiation is that the "elements" remain under the appearance of bread and wine, but are miraculously changed by the prayer of consecration into the actual body and blood of Christ. That alone should show that this would be totally in line with what Gnosticism taught because they believed that Jesus did not have flesh and blood but only "appeared" that way. As it was, at that time both the Orthodox and Gnostic view was in the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. The difference was that the Gnostics refused the physical Jesus existed. Irenaeus said:
"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view".(Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)
Tertullian also said: "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
But, as I have explained before, the larger problem with teaching the elements become the flesh and blood of Christ is the associated teaching that the Eucharist is sacrificial and salvific. Jesus taught that believing in Him was receiving Him. To believe on Him is eating His flesh and drinking His blood because that is what saves. The incorrect view, IMO, is to teach that one MUST regularly receive these elements in the Mass in order to be infused with partial grace.
Rather than teach what Jesus did that those who believe on Him HAVE eternal life and the observance of the Last Supper communal service was for "remembrance of me", the Catholic AND Orthodox Churches insist that faith is not enough to ensure eternal life in Heaven with God. To require "works", either refraining from sin, obedience to the "commandments of Christ", participation in the "sacraments", prayer, giving or every other good deed in order to merit everlasting life flies in the face of the very meaning of "grace". We are not saved according to our works, but by grace through faith. Assembling with other believers and participating in the breaking of bread - the Communion/Lord's Supper - is identifying with Christ. It is an outward sign of an inward reality of having already received Christ as Savior. When Paul speak of partaking in an "unworthy manner", I know there are many different version of what he meant but I think at least one of those meanings would be someone who participates in the observance, eats the bread offered and drinks the wine, but who has not accepted Christ as Savior. That must come before the observance just as baptism should come after one has received Christ.
I know we may not agree on the doctrine, but I appreciate your kind reply. God bless you as you seek to always walk with him.
The Anvil? God’s Word.
Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime:
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”
And so, thought I, the anvil of God’s word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed . . . the hammer’s gone.
(Author unknown)
Nice Words!
We can also see that Saint Justyn Martyr was using similar language to try and explain the mystery and miracle of the real presence by using the word transmutation
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvi.html
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία1 Literally, thanksgiving 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.
Now , lets look at Saint Irenaues
In your quote of Saint Irenaues he is speaking of those who deny that Christ is the Son of God while still trying to believe the Eucharist is Christ. Saint Irenaues is not saying the Eucharist is not literally Christ but correcting the error of those who deny Christ is the Son of God and telling them they are not in harmony with Church teaching
Here is what Saint Irenaues believed...
"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
Now lets look at Tertullian.
It seems you did not read what I posted you in post 169 since there was a whole section regarding the quote you posted.
Here it is again.
THE TRUTH ABOUT TERTULLIAN ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST
See quotations from Tertullian in This is My Body: Eucharist in the Early Fathers
Just from this evidence we see the following from Tertullian --
(1) The Eucharist is REALLY the body and blood of Christ (we shall deal exhaustively with the term "figure" below)
(2) The "Body of the Lord" and not mere "bread" was RESERVED for later
(3) The Mass or Eucharistic service was called a SACRIFICE
(4) The Mass was OFFERED for our DEPARTED loved ones
Question: Can Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or any of the Reformers say "AMEN" to each of these points? NO! Catholics and Orthodox can! Again, the point is not whether Tertullian used the specific term transubstantiation but whether the Catholic position is compatible with his statements on the Eucharist. Indeed, it is!
Now we get into what Schaff says regarding Tertullian. You left a bit out in the following paragraphs which is all misleading.
DG> Schaff, "Tertullian makes the words of institution: Hoc est corpus meum, equivalent to : figura corporis mei, to prove, in opposition to Marcion's docetism, the reality of the body of Jesus--a mere phantom being capable of no emblematic representation. This involves at all events, an ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION between the consecrated elements and body and blood of Christ in the Supper."
No, we shall get to this below. J.N.D. Kelly says Tertullian accepted the essential EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood. For clarity and some context, here is what the passage in question reads:
"Having taken bread and having distributed 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 was in truth a body. Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure. Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain! Marcion did not understand how ancient is that figure of the Body of Christ, who said Himself through Jeremias: 'They have devised a device against Me, saying, "Come, let us throw wood onto his bread,"' -- the cross, of course, upon His Body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:40:3, from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1, pg 141)
DG> "..the Zwinglian view, which puts the figure in the predicate, appears also in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. I. 14, in the words: "Panem qui ipsum corpus suum representat". The two interpretations are only grammatical modifications of the same symbolical theory."
That is Schaff's (and Zwingli's) wrong conclusion that ignores other statements from Tertullian. In addition, you misquoted that footnote. Here is what the whole section reads in context. First, on page 241 after Schaff warns us that "it is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject" -- Schaff then becomes unhistorical himself when he writes --
"A different view, approaching nearer the Calvinistic or Reformed, we meet with among the African fathers. Tertullian makes the words of institution: -Hoc est corpus meum- ["This is My Body"], equivalent to: -figura corporis mei- ["the figure of My Body"], to prove, in opposition to Marcion's docetism, the reality of the body of Jesus -- a mere phantom being capable of no emblematic representation [3]. This involves, at all events, an essential distinction between the consecrated elements and the body and blood of Christ in the Supper. Yet Tertullian must NOT be understood as teaching a MERELY symbolical presence of Christ; for in other places he speaks, according to his GENERAL REALISTIC turn, in almost MATERIALISTIC language of an EATING of the body of Christ, and extends the participation even to the body of the receiver." [4] (Schaff, volume 2, page 243)
So you left out the final sentence which clarifies his view. Generally, Tertullian used very realistic and materialistic language concerning the Eucharist. We will see much more on this later from Darwell Stone.
That's it -- that is the whole "scholarly" discussion on Tertullian in the body of the text from Schaff. There was also a footnote #3 which you misquoted at the bottom of the page concerning Oecolampadius and Zwingli -- again, Schaff is "unhistorical" --
"Adv. Marc. IV. 40; and likewise III.19. This interpretation is plainly very near that of Oecolampadius, who puts the figure in the predicate, and who attached no small weight to Tertullian's authority. But the Zwinglian view, which puts the figure in the -esti-, instead of the predicate, appears also in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. I. 14, in the words: '-Panem qui ipsum corpus suum repraesentat-' [translation and full discussion by Stone below: "makes present His very body"]. The two interpretations are only grammatical modifications of the same symbolical theory." (Schaff, footnote #3, pg 243)
So, David, looking at how you misquoted this above, you mixed up the views of Protestants Oecolampadius and Zwingli. But I realize when one is desperate to refute the Catholic position, people tend to get sloppy.
And I would say to the above -- SO WHAT? Both Oecolampadius and Zwingli were considered heretics by the historic Christian Church -- the Catholic Church -- at the time of the Reformation, heretics who held to a purely "symbolical" view of the Eucharist based on a misreading of a couple of statements from Tertullian. Even Luther denounced Zwingli.
You then left out the next footnote #4 which gave the evidence for Tertullian's "REALISTIC" and "MATERIALISTIC" language concerning the Eucharist. Footnote #4 from Schaff which you ignored reads --
"De Resur. Carnis, c.8. 'Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur' [see translation by Jurgens above: "The flesh FEEDS on the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God" -- nothing "symbolic" about that].
"De Pudic. c. 9, he refers the fatted calf, in the parable of the prodigal son, to the Lord's Supper, and says: 'Opimitate Dominici corporis vescitur, eucharistia scilicet' [translation by J.N.D. Kelly below: "FEEDS on the richness of the LORD'S BODY, that is, on the Eucharist" -- not very symbolic there either].
"De Orat. c. 6: 'Quod et corpus Christi in pane censetur,' which should probably be translated: is to be understood by the bread (not contained in the bread)." (footnote #4, pg 243-244)
That is it from Schaff on Tertullian. Next I want to quote two more Protestant scholars, J.N.D. Kelly and Darwell Stone, against Schaff to demonstrate his (and Zwingli's) misunderstanding of Tertullian.
PROGRESS IN EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE from Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES
"In the third century the early Christian identification of the eucharistic bread and wine with the Lord's body and blood continued unchanged, although a difference of approach can be detected in East and West. The outline, too, of a more considered theology of the eucharistic sacrifice begins to appear [I'll cover Sacrifice later]. In the West the equation of the consecrated elements with the body and blood was quite straightforward, although the fact that the presence is sacramental was never forgotten. Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes [E.g. de orat. 19; de idol. 7] the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks [De pud. 9], 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the eucharist.' The REALISM of his theology comes to light in the argument [De res. carn. 8], based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the eucharist 'the flesh feeds on Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's BODY and BLOOD are as REAL as the baptismal WATER." (Kelly, pg 211)
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)
Darwell Stone on Tertullian from A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in Tertullian... Tertullian more than once uses like language with explicit reference to the Eucharist. He asserts our Lord's intention to have been to show that bread was 'the figure (figura) of His body' : he explains the words 'This is My body' as meaning 'This is the figure (figura) of My body'; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord's body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread 'makes present (repraesentat) His very body' [Adv Marc i,14].
"The consideration of this type of phraseology must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words 'symbol' [in Clement of Alexandria] and 'figure' (figura) [in Tertullian]; (b) the meaning of the word translated 'makes present' (repraesentat); (c) the relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the same writers." [something which Schaff did not address] (Stone, volume 1, page 29)
FIGURA IN TERTULLIAN -- "This is the FIGURE of My body"
After Stone points out the different meanings, associations and tendencies of the words "symbol" and "figure" even in present language and cultures, he goes on to say
"As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning 'symbol' would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness.
'What we nowadays,' he writes, 'understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time "symbol" denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies...What we now call "symbol" is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.' [HISTORY OF DOGMA, ii,144; iv,289]
"...Still more explicit indications of the meaning of such terms [as symbol or figure] in the phraseology of Tertullian may be shown by an examination of his language elsewhere and by a comparison of other known uses of the word 'figura.'
"In describing the Incarnation Tertullian uses the phrase 'caro FIGURATUS' to denote that our Lord received in the womb of His Virgin Mother not only the appearance but also the REALITY of flesh [Apol 21; cf. Adv Marc iv,21]. He says that our Lord made known to the Apostles 'the form (FIGURA) of His voice' [Scorp 12]. He uses the word 'figura' in the sense of a main point in, or head of, a discussion [Adv Marc ii,21]. Elsewhere he denotes by it the prophetic anticipation of an event afterwards to be fulfilled [De Monog 6 -- the Latin is provided in note]." (Stone, vol 1, pg 30,31)
Stone goes on to give further examples of "figura" --
(1) In one of Seneca's letters it is the equivalent of the Greek word -idea- as used in Platonic philosophy (Ep lxv,7 Latin given).
(2) The translation of Phil 2:6 "being in the FORM of God" in the old Latin version becomes "in FIGURA Dei constitutus"
(3) After Tertullian, a Roman council spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being "of one Godhead, one power, one FIGURA, one essence" (Council of 370 A.D.)
(4) a Gallican version of the Nicene Creed translated "was made flesh and became man" by "corpus atque FIGURAM hominis suscepit"
"A scholar of great authority as to the meaning of early Latin documents has inferred from these facts that in Tertullian 'figura' is equivalent not to -schema- but to -charakter- [see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, vii,596], that is, it would approach more nearly to 'ACTUAL and distinctive NATURE' than to 'symbol' or 'figure' in the modern sense of those terms.
"The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning 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." (Stone, vol 1, pg 31)
REPRAESENTAT -- "by which He MAKES PRESENT His very body"
Next Stone analyzes the uses of the word -repraesentat- in Tertullian which occurs in the phrase "by which He makes present His very body" in which Tertullian is describing the use of material things in the ministries of grace as an argument against the view of Marcion that matter is essentially evil. The passage reads as follows --
"Even up to the present time has not disdained the water which is the Creator's work, by which He washes His own people, or the oil whereby He anoints them, or the mixture of milk and honey with which He feeds them as infants, or the bread by which He makes present (repraesentat) His very body, requiring even in His own Sacraments the 'beggarly elements' (mendicitatibus) of the Creator." (Tertullian, Adv Marc i,14)
Stone goes on to explain that according to the context in which the word -repraesentat- is used "it may denote that the presence is actual or that it is only to the mind." Stone proceeds to give 21 examples of the use of -repraesentat- in Tertullian and concludes --
"Consequently an examination of the usage of Tertullian in other places does not decisively determine whether the phrase 'the bread by which He makes present His very body' means that the 'very body' is actually present in the element of bread or that by means of the bread it is depicted or represented to the mind and soul." (Stone, volume 1, page 33)
Stone then says that it is therefore important to inquire what is Tertullian's teaching about the Sacraments in general, and about the Eucharist in particular, in other passages than those where the words "figura" and "repraesentat" are used. And this other phraseology of his falls under the third kind distinguished by Stone in the Ante-Nicene Fathers where the bread and wine of the Eucharist are described as the body and blood of Christ.
Tertullian on the Sacraments and Real Presence
St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus are then cited extensively for this literal view of the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. Stone continues concerning Tertullian's view of the Eucharist and Sacraments --
"A very imperfect idea of the Eucharistic doctrine of Tertullian would be given if attention were confined to those passages in his writings in which he describes the Eucharist as the 'figura' of the body of Christ and the means by which our Lord 'makes His body present.' To understand it rightly, it must be viewed in the general setting of sacramental principle which Tertullian emphasizes. In his eyes the Incarnation has introduced new aspects of the relation of man to God. The human flesh which the Lord then took is an abiding reality. 'That same Person who suffered,' he declares, 'will come from heaven; that same Person who was raised from the dead will appear to all. And they who pierced Him will see and recognize the very flesh against which they raged' [De carn Christi, 24]. With this Christ, thus retaining His human body and blood, Christians are closely united. The baptised are clothed with Christ; in them Christ lives [De fug 10; De poen 10]. By the daily reception of the bread of life there is continuance in Christ and abiding union in His body [De orat 6]. Before the Incarnation the flesh was far off from God, 'not yet worthy of the gift of salvation, not yet fitted for the duty of holiness'; but Christ's work, accomplished in the flesh, has changed all that [De pud 6]. Since the Incarnation Sacraments have become necessary and effectual [De Bapt 11,13]; and that which in the ordinances of the Church touches the flesh benefits the soul [De carn res 8].
"It is in harmony with these general sacramental principles that Tertullian not only calls the Eucharist 'the holy thing' [De spectac 25], but also often and naturally refers to it as the body of Christ." (Stone, vol 1, pg 36-37)
Stone then gives six clear examples of Tertullian's literal view --
(1) It is a matter of anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment of the bread should fall to the ground (De cor 3).
(2) It was the Lord's body which the disciples received at the Last Supper (Adv Marc iv,40).
(3) It is the Lord's body which the communicant receives in the Church or reserves for his Communion at home (De orat 19).
(4) It is the Lord's body with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist (De pud 9).
(5) It is Christ's body and blood with which "the flesh is clothed, so that the soul also may be made fat by God" (De carn res 8).
(6) Even in unworthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men outrage and offend (De idol 7).
Stone concludes on Tertullian --
"The writings of Tertullian certainly bear witness to his belief that the Eucharistic food is a special means of union with the Manhood of Christ, and that in some sense it is His body and His blood. When we view the complexity and varying elements of his language, perhaps we are wise if we are not too positive as to what further definitions he might have made if he had explained more precisely what his exact meaning was." (Stone, volume 1, page 37)
So to characterize Tertullian's view as purely "symbolical" (which Schaff seems to do in volume 2, pg 244,246; volume 3, pg 492) is misleading and simplistic to the point of error. It is completely false to ascribe the purely figurative views of the Protestant heretics Zwingli or Oecolampadius to Tertullian (which Schaff does -- see volume 2, pg 243, footnote #3). It is also "unhistorical" as Schaff himself admits (volume 2, pg 241).
You Said..."I know we may not agree on the doctrine"
Dear sister, I have witnessed Eucharistic miracles and had many prayers answered through Eucharistic Adoration so I know without a doubt that HE is truly present in The Most Blessed Sacrament. The Eucharist sustains me beyond anything like when I was a protestant with just a belief in Him.
I literally feel the depth of His love in The Eucharist that has changed me and transforms me in my love and compassion for others.
You should try attending Eucharistic Adoration with an open heart -Protestants are welcome at Adoration. I can tell you what Catholic Churches in your area have perpetual Adoration if you want to freepmail me.
God Bless you as well
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.