From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation again
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:03:50 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie) writes:

>In order to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion on
>transubstantiation, I offer some of my lecture notes from theological
>college.

Thanks John. I've added some little comments. I appreciate that the notes
are abridged.

>1. The Early Fathers

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

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

>Some of the language, however, used by
>people such as Ignatius, from the second century, was very vivid and has
>been regarded as teaching a "real presence" doctrine that later came to
>dominate the church.  He spoke of those who "abstain from thanksgiving and
>prayer because they allow not that this thanksgiving is the flesh of our
>Saviour, Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins and which the
>Father of His goodness raised up." (Epistle to the Smyrneans, chapter 6)
>Examination of the passage makes it clear that Ignatius was not so much
>concerned with arguing a doctrine of Eucharist as to refute the error that
>Jesus was not truly a human.

That may be the thrust of his epistle. But it does not explain what he
is saying in the quote: "this thanksgiving is the flesh of our saviour".
That looks like the Real presence to me. 

>The same sort of language can be found in another 2nd century write,
>Irenaeus.  It is metaphorical, making elaborate use of symbolism and
>allusion.  

But the Moore College people are clever enough to know what he actually meant, 
despite what he said? Irenaus taught that the Mass was a sacrifice,
would the Moore college people agree with that idea? I would think they
wouldn't, in which case they  need to radically reinterpret him anyway;
or they can just ignore him as a heretic.

Do they  deny that his language is more readable as supporting 
Real Presence and transubstantiation ideas than any idea of being nothing
but a beautiful and solemn play to refresh our memories.

>Justin Martyr, writing about the year 150 described the bread and wine of
>the Lord's Supper as not "ordinary food or ordinary drink; but as by the
>Word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour took flesh and blood for our
>salvation also, we are taught, the food blessed by the prayer of the word
>which we receive from Him, by which through its transformation, our blood
>and flesh is nourished, this food is the flesh and blood of Jesus who was
>made flesh".  There is nothing in Justin suggesting that a change in the
>elements of bread and wine had taken place, but it is easy to see how a
>doctrine of the "real presence" could be derived from his statements.

Of course he couldn't know transubstantiation: it hadn't been worked out yet.
But he believes in Real Presence. And what's an "element": sounds like 
Moore College are fudging and trying to claim Catholics believe a 
physical change? 

>On the other hand, Tertullian, writing from the North African church at
>the end of the second century, emphasised the symbolical nature of the
>Lord's Supper.  He claimed that the bread represented the body of Christ;
>"this is My body, that is, a figure of My body."  The same emphasis is
>found in Origen, who died around the year 254 and who said, "It was not
>that visible bread which he was holding in his hand, that God the Word
>called His body; His body was the Word ... whereof the bread to be broken
>was a symbol".  This theology seems to have dominated the Western Church
>to the end of the 4th century.  However, by the beginning of the 5th
>century, the other, more vivid language was beginning to be used more
>frequently.

So its not the "visible bread": the bread as it seems by its accidents.
This is hardly against transsubstantiation. Could you give a reference,
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.

>One writer, Theodore of Mopsuestia, went so far as to claim "Christ did
>not say this is the symbol of My body and blood, but this is my body and
>blood".  

So another explicit affirmation of it.

>This sort of emphasis was strengthened by heretical teaching,
>called Monophysitism which came across to the West from the East.
>According to this teaching, Christ's human nature was absorbed into his
>divine nature.  Such a view affected the doctrine of the Eucharist.  As
>divine nature dominated human nature, so in the sacrament natural bread
>was absorbed into the supernatural body of Christ.  

I don't see that this follows at all. You are mixing natures and bodies
surely. 

>Thus the foundation
>was laid for that mediaeval doctrine called Transubstantiation, whereby
>bread and wine underwent a change of substance.

The developers of transubstantiation knew well about Monophysitism, and
did not believe it. I think this is a ridiculous claim.

>Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, was chiefly responsible for providing the
>language of this later doctrine of Transubstantiation.  He claimed that in
>the Sacrament, a change or conversion, of the nature of the elements took
>place.  He said that the body of Christ did not exist before the
>consecration, though it did after consecration.  Despite these statements
>however, such a view did not immediately pass into the theology of the
>Western church.  For the next few centuries theology was dominated by the
>writing of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa.

So Ambrose believed it too. 

>"For what do you prepare your teeth and yourself; believe and you have
>eaten".  Again he said, "Do not prepare the throat, but the heart".
>Despite the novel ideas expressed by such people as Ambrose, the views of
>Augustine remained dominant in the Western church at least until the 12th
>century.

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). And the 
quote you give does not seem to relate to the Real Presence doctrine.
Can you give a reference? Of course the heart is more important than the
posture (though a good heart will assume a good posture).

There is a Catholic doctrine that says that if you are prevented physically`
from taking commmunion, but wish to, then it is as if you have, as far as 
the grace received. This is also true of baptism (the doctrine of 
Baptism by Intent) and confession (you are not compelled to
instantly confess as soon as you repent and form the intention to 
confess, but you should do so at the soonest reasonable and appropraite time).
[I don't know about any of the other sacraments: it seems reasonable that
you might marry by intent, but I doubt if Holy Orders could be taken
by intent.] I think the first quote
you give from Augustine might relate to this doctrine, rather than
being a denial of Real Presence.


>2. The Mediaeval Church

>But during the 9th century, Monophysitism from
>the East had seriously affected theological speculation.  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)

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.

Summary:

Based on the quotes you give, many church Fathers explicitly
speak of the Real Presence. They are vivid and correct.
I don't find Moore College's
comments on most of the passages very credible. I certainly
would be interested in more references to anyone denying it
(rather than affirming it but actually meaning something else
as Moore seem to want it).

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion