From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation again
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:05:10 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

Crikey!  I come back from holidays (and get the news working again after
several days) to find nearly 300 lines of postings from Rick.  This is an
attempt to deal with some of it.

Here's some stuff from my only reference books on the suject:

From Henry Bettenson (ed.), Documents of the Christian Church (2nd edition),
Oxford: 1986, page 147:

_A Note on the Development of Eucharistic Doctrine, ninth to twelfth
centuries_.  The doctrine of the Eucharist was not a subject of controversy
in the first centuries, and therefore the need for precise formulation did
not arise.  The tendency to advance from the assertion of the real
presence of Christ's flesh and blood to a precise theory of the mode of
this presence in the elements was more marked in the East than in the
West, and most distinct in the De Fide Orthodoxa of John of Damascus, c.
750.  In the West the influence of Augustine, of whom, `obscure though his
view of the Eucharist undoubtedly is, it is at any rate certain that he
did not believe in transubstantiation' (Gore, Dissertations, 232), was for
many centuries predominant, and during that period the Western writers are
on the whole content to speak of the consecrated elements as signs.

Bettenson goes on to describe the ninth century controversy between
Paschasius Radbertus (a supporter of real presence) and Rabanus Maurus and
Ratramnus (opponents of real presence).  Berengar is again mentioned
here.  Peter Lombard maintained the `substantial' presence of Christ's
body, but repudiated the assertion contained in Berengar's forced
statement that Christ's body is broken in the breaking of the bread.

Now, to deal with some specific points that arise in what Rick wrote:

I wrote:
>>By the 11th
>>century a doctrine of changed substance was being widely taught in the
>>following crude terms: "that the bread and wine placed on the altar are
>>after consecration, not only a sacrament but also the true body and blood
>>of our Lord Jesus Christ and that these are sensibly [i.e. with our
>>senses] handled and broken by the hands of the priests and crushed by the
>>teeth of the faithful, not sacramentally but in reality." (Berengar at a
>>Council in Rome, 1059)

Rick replied:
>This is just NOT "crude transsubstantiation", and Moore are being slack
>if they present as such. It also has nothing to do with Monophysitism
>either. And as for "being taught", Berengar was immediately stopped from
>teaching this idea, so in what sense was it "being taught"?. Why do they
>do this: every element is wrong? Earlier on Monophysitism is accused
>of causing an over-spiritualizing of matter: here it is accused of 
>causing an over-materializing of spirit; I don't think they can have 
>it both ways.

Hold on there!  You've got it all upside down.  Berengar OPPOSED the real
presence doctrine.  He was forced to recant in the words quoted above, so
that those were accepted by the council as orthodox.

I wrote:
>>The language of early Christian writers suggests that the Lord's Supper is
>>a fellowship meal of thanksgiving.  

Rick replied:
>Yes, but not only. And I should make the point that the Catholics also
>beleive it to be symbolic, but again, not only.

That's interesting.  I'm not sure that I understand this.  What do you
mean by "symbolic, but not only"?

>And what's an "element":

In the context of the Lord's Supper, the elements are bread and wine.

>Could you give a reference, [about Origen]
>I would be interested in reading more in context: I would just
>make the point that he is talking about the Last Supper and doesn't
>seem to be talking about his understanding of the Eucahrist, so
>I don't think this is evidence against Real Presence on the face of it.

Sorry, that's all I have.  I don't know where the quote is from.

I'm not sure that I'm understanding you correctly, but are you saying
that it is possible to have different views about the Last Supper and
the Eucharist?

>>Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, was chiefly responsible for providing the
>>language of this later doctrine of Transubstantiation.

>So Ambrose believed it too. 

Yes, Ambrose certainly believed and taught a real presence doctrine.

>But you know that Augustine was converted after hearing Ambrose preach,
>and that St Ambrose was his hero (both were made Bishops against their
>wills, so they have rather similar careers in a way too).

Yes, I did know that.  That does not mean, though, that Augustine agreed
with everything that Ambrose taught.  Augustine was one of the greats in
the history of theology - Ambrose is a comparative lightweight.

[Description of baptism by intent, etc.]
>I think the first quote
>you give from Augustine might relate to this doctrine, rather than
>being a denial of Real Presence.

And I think that you are wrong.  The quote was, "For what do you prepare
your teeth and yourself; believe and you have eaten."  It seems to me that
he is talking about actually eating, otherwise, why mention teeth?

Doesn't the doctrine of intent undermine the whole thing anyway?
Transubstantiation says that there is an objective change in the elements,
in that their substance changes.  (Note objective, not visible - I do not
claim that transubstantiation teaches a physical change.)  Yet intent
seems to say that you can get the benefits without the physical elements.
That appears to me to be a contradiction, or at least they sit uneasily
together.

Another point that came up in all this is the question of the worthiness
or otherwise of priest and recipient.  In regard to the Donatist
controversy, Augustine affirmed that the unworthiness of the priest didn't
matter to the validity of the sacrament.  Rather, it was the recipient who
determined whether the sacrament was valid.  Admittedly, this was
specifically spoken in the context of baptism, but he appears to use the
general language of sacraments rather than the specific language of
baptism.  This appears to me to indicate that he did not think in terms of
objective change in the elements.

>Tertullan ended up a heretic (apart from many strange views
>he thought that if you left the church you had to be 
>rebaptised if you wanted to rejoin it, other wise you 
>would not be saved). So his views, especially later,
>do not reflect standard Christian tradition.

Careful, there.  You look like you're throwing out anything that
Tertullian ever said, because he later became a heretic.  That's not a
valid approach.  He said some things that have been universally accepted
as orthodox.  You can only worry about the things in which he was accused
of heresy.  As far as I know, he wasn't accused of heresy in this area.

>Also, if everyone thought it was merely symbolic, why did
>not Christians respond to the often-heard claims of 
>canabalism during services "no, its just symbolic",
>at which the fuss would have died down? (Or at least the
>persecutors would have looked for something less silly.)

Do we have any record of the responses?  I have heard of the claims of
cannibalism, and the only quote I can find is a brief one from
Athenagoras, and another in Eusebius, quoted in Bettenson.  Neither
contains any response at all, but they were presumably written for
Christians.

Finally, some general comments.

Firstly, I never meant to say that you cannot find figures in the early
church who did not write relatively clearly of real presence.  That would
be folly, for there are several.  I did say, and stand by it, that not
everyone believed and taught a real presence doctrine.  You won't find any
clear denunciations of it apart from the one of Tertullian.  Augustine
comes close, but it's not particularly clear in what he says, despite what
O'Connor may imply (it appears that he doesn't say that Augustine taught
transubstantiation, but that it might be inferred from the silence of
others).  A lot of the references speak of "symbol", which would seem to
mean that real presence is not being taught.  Cyril of Jerusalem appears
to be using "figure" in a rather strange way!.

It is instructive to read the Didache, particularly the sections about the
approved form of thanksgiving at the Eucharist (chapters 9 and 10).  There
are no words of institution used.  The bread is used as a symbol of the
scattered people of God.  It is only in chapter 14 that there is another
mention of the breaking of bread.  It is here that it is called a
sacrifice, and even then it is unclear precisely what is meant.  It is
directly drawing from Malachi, which does not help greatly in identifying
the meaning.  The language of sacrifice is fairly loose in the New
Testament.  Paul can speak of offering ourselves as a living sacrifice
(Rom 12:1-2), and the writer to the Hebrews speaks of praise as a
sacrifice (Heb 13:15).

I could probably ramble on for a lot longer, but that's enough for now.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA