Posted on 11/12/2013 4:54:49 PM PST by Gamecock
For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD—under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine. The fact that this claim was made in Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code shows how widespread it really is. Brown did not make up this belief; he simply used it in his book.
The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine). Nicea was concerned with how Christians should articulate their beliefs about the divinity of Jesus. Thus it was the birthplace of the Nicean creed.
When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right?
This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.
Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there.
This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but by a broad and ancient consensus. Here we can agree with Bart Ehrman, “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.”[1]
This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is not just a man-made construct. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.
The same was true for the Old Testament canon. Jesus himself used and cited the Old Testament writings with no indication anywhere that there was uncertainty about which books belonged. Indeed, he held his audience accountable for knowing these books. But, in all of this, there was no Old Testament church council that officially picked them (not even Jamnia). They too were the result of ancient and widespread consensus.
In the end, we can certainly acknowledge that humans played a role in the canonical process. But, not the role that is so commonly attributed to them. Humans did not determine the canon, they responded to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon really chose itself.
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
“A very selective, and misleading, reading of St. Augustine. A good response can be found here.”
Actually, I quote from all the same sources that Catholics use to argue that Augustine believed in transubstantiation, except my quotes are fuller, while theirs is not.
As for the rest:
Tertullian – Anti-Transubstantiation
On John 6, Flesh and Blood of Christ digested through faith. No literal enjoinment to eat Christ’s flesh.
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: ‘The flesh profits nothing.’” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chpt. 37)
The bread and wine the figure of Christ’s body, against those who deny that Christ did not have a body.
“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, 4:30:3)
Clement of Alexandria — Anti-Transubstantiation
Clement on John 6 – Eating of flesh and blood figures for faith.
“And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I)
(See Augustine on John 6, “Why dost thou ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”)
The Word figuratively described by a multitude of elements, including wine.
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? Who washes, it is said, His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:11 In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I)
Wine the symbol of the sacred blood
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book II)
Ignatius – Anti-transubstantiation
Faith is the flesh of Christ
“Not that I know there is anything of this kind among you; but I put you on your guard, inasmuch as I love you greatly, and foresee the snares of the devil. Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ. Let no one of you cherish any grudge against his neighbour. Give no occasion to the Gentiles, lest by means of a few foolish men the whole multitude [of those that believe] in God be evil spoken of. For, Woe to him by whose vanity my name is blasphemed among any. Isaiah 52:5” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians)
Justin Martyr – Anti-transubstantiation
The Eucharist is bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ.
“The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory; and the very terms of the prophecy declare loudly, that the people foreknown to believe in Him were fore-known to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures, and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding. And when I hear, Trypho,” said I, “that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypo, CHAPTER LXX)
Irenaeus – Anti-Transubstantiation
Consubstantiation (Two realities at once, rather than one reality of Christ in the wine and bread).
”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.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18)
The Cup of the Covenant drank with the Apostles not the blood of Christ, but, instead, is the fruit of the vine.
“Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of [His] sons; as David says, He who has renewed the face of the earth. He [Christ] promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples [Matt 26:29], thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his [disciples] above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:33:1)
Against the misunderstanding that the bread and wine is actually flesh and blood:
“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)
Origen – Anti-Transubstantiation
Against understanding John 6 “to the letter”
“If ye are the children of the church, if ye are well embued with the mysteries of the Gospel, and if the Word made flesh dwelleth in you, acknowledge what I say, because it is of the Lord, lest, not knowing it, you may not be known by him. Acknowledge that some things written in the holy books are figures, and therefore examine and understand the things which are said, as spiritual men : for if you receive them as carnal men, they injure you. There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him who does not understand spiritually the things which are said. For if you take this according to the letter, Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, this letter killeth” — (Origen, Homily 7, on the 10th chap, of Leviticus)
The Bread and Wine are types and symbols
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
The bread and wine are images, symbols, commended as a memory to his disciples:
“But if, as these affirm, he had neither flesh nor blood, of what flesh and of what body and of what blood are the bread and cup which he delivered the images ? by these symbols he commended his memory to his disciples.” (Origen, The third Dialogue against the Marcionites)
Thanks Gamecock!
Jesus
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed"
St. Paul
The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you, is that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was being betrayed, took bread, 24 and gave thanks, and broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, given up for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.[6] 25 And so with the cup, when supper was ended, This cup, he said, is the new testament, in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, for a commemoration of me. 26 So it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. 27 And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. 28 A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; 29 he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is.[7] 30 That is why many of your number want strength and health, and not a few have died.
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]).
So Luther didn’t act infallibly when he changed the canon of Scripture that he received from the Church?
Ah it just wouldn’t be a complete thread without dragging the “Universal” Roman church, Eucharist and Apocrypha into the discussion.
What was the first book of the Bible?
I phrased that wrong. What was the first book written in the New Testament?
Does it talk about Sacred Tradition?
Here’s from the last time we discussed this:
Does Christ eat himself?
Check your chronology. It is not your friend:
1) He gives thanks, breaks the bread, declares it is His body: “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.(1Co 11:24)
2) After “he had supped,” He offers the cup, which He calls His blood: “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 ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Co 11:25)
3) After calling it the blood of the covenant, with the cup still in hand, He calls it “this fruit of the vine” which He would not drink AGAIN until reunited with the Apostles in heaven, either indicating He was about to drink it, or had just drank it: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
(Mat 26:28-29)
If saying that the Lord’s Supper is the flesh and blood of Christ is the same as transubstantiation, then what does...
1) So, what does Augustine mean when the Eucharist is described as a thing which signifies a spiritual reality of Christ’s presence, and that Christ isn’t actually consumed?
2) What does Augustine mean when he straight out compares the saying “Christ is risen today!” in the yearly celebration of Christ’s resurrection, with the phrase “This is my body, this is my blood?” Is Christ actually risen anew every year? Did Augustine have a stroke right then and get confused to compare the two?
3) What does Augustine mean when he straight out explains that to eat the flesh and blood of Christ is unlawful, and therefore we ought to understand the phrase spiritually, to cherish Christ’s memory in our hearts, and to ruminate on his Word?
4) What does Augustine mean when He explains that we don’t need to eat Christ with teeth and stomach, but have already eaten Him when we believe? Does that not get a single peep out of you?
5) What does Augustine mean when he says that the Eucharist is the mystery “that means you,” that it is the Christian who is placed on the altar, and not just Jesus Christ? And that the point of the Eucharist is to memorialize Christ, and focus our hearts on what is above, and cherish unity with each other?
Another gem from that same thread:
Silly Papist: The Eucharist is transubstantiated into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ which is then eaten for eternal life. I would invite you, however, to read carefully as much of this stuff as you can, and you will find it being affirmed that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ.
Tertullian: “we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.”
Silly Papist: “No! If we do not literally eat Jesus Christ’s body, we have no life in us.”
Tertullian: “Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,”
Silly Papist: “The s-s-sacraments are outward symbols for what is REALLY Jesus Christ and Tertullian is wrong! We must EAT Christ with our teeth and digest him with the stomach!”
Augustine: “Why ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.”
Silly Papist: “The Pope is supreme! S-s-stop your Protestant lies!”
Clement of Alexandria: “ Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.””
Silly Papist: “Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep” (His heart stopped!)
Origen: “There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him who does not understand spiritually the things which are said. For if you take this according to the letter, ‘Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ this letter killeth”
This is the beauty of debating with the same people over and over again on this same subject, when they come into perfectly good threads to thump their chests where they were not asked. You build up lots of posts and at some point you reach critical mass and don’t need to write your own posts anymore, since the Catholics never change things up at all.
Those three topics seem to literally be all these buggers talk about! (Well, Mary comes up a lot too, but they usually insert those other three into off-topic threads). Would be nice to get a Catholic to last for more than 10 seconds in a debate about how one is actually SAVED. It’s weird that they’re more concerned over their CHURCH instead of their eternal salvation.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." -- Jesus.
Christ's Church is the barque of salvation. The two are inseparable.
********************************************
From Christ's statement, the following conclusions necessarily follow.
Christ's Church is visible.
Christ's Church teaches with His Authority. (He could have said, "if he will not listen to Me.")
The doctrine of Christ's Church must be unified, otherwise it would not be able to settle intra-Christian disputes.
“Christ’s Church is the barque of salvation. The two are inseparable.”
The real question is, WHO is Christ’s church? And, what is the rule of our faith which defines us? Is it the Eastern Orthodox, the other guys who claim to be THE Holy and Apostolic church of God on Earth, who view you guys as the apostates? Is it Rome, and its ever changing doctrines and Koran kissing Popes? Is it Augustine, that man of grace? Is it John Chrysostom, that man of faith-only justification? Is it the Reformed? Is it the Baptists? Is it the Methodists? Is it the Presbyterians? How do we judge these things?
I say, with Cyril of Jerusalem, it is by the mediation of the Holy Scripture only:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
That would support the liberal commentary found in the NAB.
Now if the insurgents in Iraq were so predictable, the war would have been short.
Cyril was a wise man. Pointed to the Word of God as authoritative, and did so with extreme humility.
“When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.
“For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, ‘Let’s get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.’ I would say, ‘Thank you for nothing! We knew it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon.” Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D.
The Council of Nicea did not decide the final settled Canon of the bible.
The Council of Carthage in 397 settled the canon from the various readings that were being used by the various Christian communities scattered throughout antiquity.
The bible did not write itself: absurd premise.
The proper canon was settled without question until Luther and the Protestant reformers in the 1500’s started declaring certain books as uninspired because they did not fit with their theology. Lutheran bibles to this day contain the word “only” that Luther added to St. Paul when discussing justification by Faith. Bibles previous to that time for 1500 years did not include only.
Why are the protestant reformers’ versions of the canon more “inspired” than the early Doctors of the Church, including Augustine, Jerome etc. ? The answer; is they weren’t.
Why is Luther infallible and St. Jerome is NOT? Not because the bible says so, because it doesn’t.
It took 16 replies ... all covered up and over with words.
Of course it was the Universal Church that progressively came to an overall consensus on which books were Scripture (and which means Scripture materially provides for), but the issue is what how were these books and thus a canon established.
Was it necessary for an infallible council to infallibly define the canon before believers could be sure writings were of God, and thus dissent could not be allowed? And when did this take place Likewise was it only those it affirmed were men of God that had authority?
Or were both writings of God and men of God essentially established as being so due to their Heavenly qualities and attestations, in conformity with what had prior been established, which the magisterium is to affirm, but sometimes such can be of God even if the magisterium does not recognize them as being so? Or can the stewards of Scripture err in affirming what is of God?
Also, was there was a complete apostolic tradition that delineated what books made up a complete canon, or was the Lord and His apostles affirmation of many of the OT books part of the attestive basis for a general consensus that became tradition, and which became the established canon due to their qualities and the supernatural attestation given these writings?
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.