Mary the Queen of Heaven

[Ronin Truth]

The reason I know this can't be true is because you're not good at it.

You may want to take up that observation with the Father. PSSST, I'd suggest you not call him a liar, he just really hates that.

 

[TER]

Erowe, do you know who the Docetists were?

 

[Terry1]

I don't see how that's relevant to the interpretation of John 6, since John 6 isn't talking about the Eucharist at all.

As far as "the real presence," do you mean to imply that I do not believe in "the real presence"? If so, would you please quote where I said that?

If you can't find any such quote, then please answer the words I actually use, rather than putting words in my mouth as straw men you can knock down.

"He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall dwell IN ME"--what part of that is so confusing? Jesus must be present in this Holy communion for this to even be possible! Yes--we are literally taking Jesus into our own bodies as He instructed and as He said to do it. I don't understand the problem here. This is why if someone does this "unworthily" that they can bring damnation upon themselves. Do you think that someone could bring damnation upon themselves by doing nothing more than not "remembering" something properly?

All you have to do is take a closer look at the word "damnation" for goodness sakes. What does that mean to you? The Holy Communion is not something one just casually does in only remembrance. In order to be damned for not doing it correctly means that you're not doing this properly "discerning the blood and body of Christ"--as in understanding that this is the Holy sacred presence of the Lord you're taking into your own body here. Otherwise--you couldn't be damned because you have a bad memory.

 

[erowe1]

And before you get to the 12, you must go through the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is true historically and sacramentally.

Unless you just define the EOC as everyone who believes in Jesus, regardless of where they go to church or whether any particular bishops are over them, then we can conclusively and indisputably prove that that's not true. And I would wager that any good Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on that.

I don't think you will find one.

Fr. John Behr is Dean and Professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary where he teaches courses in patristics, dogmatics, and scriptural exegesis. He is also a distinguished lecturer at Fordham University.

From Behr's book, Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 1: The Way to Nicea:

"[T]he bishop is not, for Ignatius, the successor to the apostles, nor are the apostles reckoned as the first bishops." (p. 82).

"For Ignatius, the position of the apostles in the work of God in Christ (cf. Magn. 7.1) is foundational for the Church at all times and in all places, in contrast to the circumscribed role of the bishop." (p. 82).

"Nor does Ignatius derive this role of the bishop from any apostolic institution, but rather legitimizes it himself by speaking prophetically." (pp. 85-86).

 

[TER]

Seems like St. Paul believed in the real Presence: (1 Corinthians 10)

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

 

[TER]

Fr. John Behr is Dean and Professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary where he teaches courses in patristics, dogmatics, and scriptural exegesis. He is also a distinguished lecturer at Fordham University.

From Behr's book, Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 1: The Way to Nicea:

"[T]he bishop is not, for Ignatius, the successor to the apostles, nor are the apostles reckoned as the first bishops." (p. 82).

"For Ignatius, the position of the apostles in the work of God in Christ (cf. Magn. 7.1) is foundational for the Church at all times and in all places, in contrast to the circumscribed role of the bishop." (p. 82).

"Nor does Ignatius derive this role of the bishop from any apostolic institution, but rather legitimizes it himself by speaking prophetically." (pp. 85-86).

Very good. I don't know of this author. Can you find others?

BTW, I have stressed that he was not one of the 12 but continued their ministry of protecting the faith and feeding the flock. Saying that at least a dozen times.

 

[TER]

Erowe, do you know who the Docetists were?

The reason I ask this has bearing to the discussion at hand. Do you know who the Docetists were and what their major heresy was?

 

[Terry1]

Seems like St. Paul believed in the real Presence: (1 Corinthians 10)

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

This is worth a thousand words and completely explains what we are trying to say here. Great catch TER!

 

[TER]

And here is St. Ignatius, an Apostolic Father, speaking the apostolic faith against the Docetists of they day which were the first great heretics of the early Church:

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 Romans 7:3)

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... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [the Docetists] 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. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Of course, some will ignore these because they consider themselves greater, more knowledgable, and more illumined than this first century Church Father and Saint, but this is offered to those who have ears to listen.

 

[erowe1]

Erowe, do you know who the Docetists were?

Yes.

 

[erowe1]

And here is St. Ignatius, an Apostolic Father, speaking the apostolic faith against the Docetists of they day which were the first great heretics of the early Church:

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 Romans 7:3)

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... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)

They [the Docetists] 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. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Of course, some will ignore these because they consider themselves greater, more knowledgable, and more illumined than this first century Church Father and Saint, but this is offered to those who have ears to listen.

Nowhere in these verses does Ignatius make any reference to Jesus's words in John 6, which is what my claim was about.

 

[erowe1]

Seems like St. Paul believed in the real Presence: (1 Corinthians 10)

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

Are you implying that I don't believe in the real presence? If so, please quote where I said that.

If you can't find such a quote, then please respond to my actual words, rather than putting words in my mouth so you can knock down your straw men.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with John 6, though, and in no possible way could Paul's words here be construed as an interpretation of what Jesus said in that chapter.

 

[erowe1]

Very good. I don't know of this author. Can you find others?

BTW, I have stressed that he was not one of the 12 but continued their ministry of protecting the faith and feeding the flock. Saying that at least a dozen times.

I would have to go to a library to find others.

 

[erowe1]

Do you know of some writing where the early saints and apostles give their interpretation of John 6, and contradict anything I said? I don't. In the case of the Apostles we can say with 100% certainty that we have nothing from them (other than the Gospel of John itself) that comments on the meaning of Jesus's words in John 6.

I assume that you can find something in Origen, but no earlier than that. And I wouldn't take Origen's views as representative of a consensus of the early saints and Apostles.

I decided to check myself on this.

As a matter of fact, at least one Father from before the time of Origen does provide his interpretation of John 6, Origen's mentor, Clement of Alexandria.

Interestingly, Clement interprets the reference to eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood in that chapter completely figuratively. I don't take Clement of Alexandria to be in any way authoritative when it comes to what the Bible means. But it is very interesting to me that, considering the claim made earlier in this thread that the earliest interpretation of John 6 by the Church Fathers and the Apostles equated those verses with the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, that claim is proven false. The earliest interpretation of those verses available to us in the extant literature of the Church Fathers interprets them figuratively.

This is in chapter 5 of Clement's work, Paedagogus, which is much too long for me to quote here. In that chapter Clement repeatedly refers to John 6:54-56 and other verses in that chapter and repeatedly insists on interpreting them figuratively.

 

[TER]

Are you implying that I don't believe in the real presence? If so, please quote where I said that.

If you can't find such a quote, then please respond to my actual words, rather than putting words in my mouth so you can knock down your straw men.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with John 6, though, and in no possible way could Paul's words here be construed as an interpretation of what Jesus said in that chapter.

I am happy you actually agree with the Church Fathers that the Holy Eucharist is the very Blood and the very Flesh of Christ. Some don't, and that is why I wrote what I did.

 

[TER]

I decided to check myself on this.

As a matter of fact, at least one Father from before the time of Origen does provide his interpretation of John 6, Origen's mentor, Clement of Alexandria.

Interestingly, Clement interprets the reference to eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood in that chapter completely figuratively. I don't take Clement of Alexandria to be in any way authoritative when it comes to what the Bible means. But it is very interesting to me that, considering the claim made earlier in this thread that the earliest interpretation of John 6 by the Church Fathers and the Apostles equated those verses with the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, that claim is proven false. The earliest interpretation of those verses available to us in the extant literature of the Church Fathers interprets them figuratively.

This is in chapter 5 of Clement's work, Paedagogus.

Well, there is St. Ignatius which I listed above, and there is St. Justin (circa 150 AD) who too was contending against the heretics of the day:

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 [being born again in Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has 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 nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (First Apology 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...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)

 

[erowe1]

I am happy you actually agree with the Church Fathers that the Holy Eucharist is the very Blood and the very Flesh of Christ. Some don't, and that is why I wrote what I did.

Perhaps some don't. I'm not sure about that.

But where the issue seems to lie in the conflicts you have with the people you're probably talking about, is not so much in the abstract idea of the real presence. It's in a bunch of ancillary doctrines that are connected to the doctrine of transubstantiation (which includes affirming much more than just the real presence), such as the idea that upon blessing the elements some kind of miracle happens where they physically become physical flesh and blood, but of a sort that has none of the physical properties of flesh and blood, right down to the molecular level, and that certain criteria must be met, such as the oversight of somebody who is either counted by some group of human beings as a bishop, or someone delegated by such a person, in order for this miracle to happen, and that without this miracle happening, nobody is able to do what John 6 talks about in eating the Bread of Life, such that these special human beings who get to oversee the Eucharist are thought to have the power to exclude others from access to Christ himself.

Obviously none of these ancillary ideas could be gotten from any of the words of either Jesus or Paul. Ignatius comes much closer to claiming these things. But in doing so he also blatantly diverges from the faith of the apostles as evidenced by their own writings.

 

[erowe1]

Well, there is St. Ignatius which I listed above, and there is St. Justin (circa 150 AD) who too was contending against the heretics of the day:

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 [being born again in Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has 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 nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (First Apology 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...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)

I see no clear allusion to John 6 in any of those passages.

If you read chapter 5 of Clement's Paedagogus, you'll see that he very explicitly refers to the verses we are talking about.

 

[TER]

Let us not forget the great St. Irenaeus who also came way before Origen:

St. Irenaeus, ca A.D. 140-202

He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying This is My body." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood nor is the bread which we break the partaking of His body... 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 us as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup 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...receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

 

[erowe1]

Let us not forget the great St. Irenaeus who also came way before Origen:

St. Irenaeus, ca A.D. 140-202

He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying This is My body." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His blood nor is the bread which we break the partaking of His body... 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 us as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup 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...receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

Once again, I see no reference to John 6 here.

The assertion you made was that, through my interpretation of John 6 (which was nothing more than pointing out exactly what it very plainly says), I was calling the apostles and earliest fathers wrong. But this can only be the case if the apostles and earliest fathers made statements about their interpretations of John 6 that contradicted what I said.

General statements about their beliefs concerning the Eucharist are something entirely different. If you can't see that, then go back to the post of mine that you quoted, and find anything I said in it at all that any of these quotes of the fathers or Paul that you've posted contradict in any way.