Folks online, who wish to rewrite church history to turn church fathers into symbol only affirming and real presence denying teachers, love to use articles like this that purport to set the record straight:
https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
The writing claimed at the start: “This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma.”
Then it added, “Within these writings are clear references to the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist being symbolical, and the words, ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood’ spoken by Jesus in the bread of life discourse as being metaphorical.”
The rebuttal to what it claimed on Ignatius is dealt with here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers.html
This response here will be in regards to the article’s claim on mid-second century apologist and martyr Justin.
The article claimed: “Earlier in his apology Justin defended against accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood. Here, in his description of the eucharist, he is making it clear that Christians do not partake of flesh and blood in any carnal way, but rather bread and wine mixed with water: ‘to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water.’ Justin then asserted that though Christians partake of bread and wine, it is not common bread or common wine, but that the bread and wine are connected to Christ who became incarnate and was sacrificed at Calvary for those who believe.”
What Justin said was: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior having been made flesh by the Word of God.”
The bread and wine, according to Justin, didn’t just connect us to Christ but are received as Christ our Savior who is God made flesh. But that’s not all the early fathers and martyr said. He said the “food” (bread and wine) “is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
The reason why the food isn’t common bread and wine is because we receive the person of Christ and His flesh and blood that come with His presence, as a simple reading of Justin here shows.
But this is what the article said on that, “This food, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water, which by transmutation nourishes the body, is what the Christians call the flesh and blood of Christ. Justin therefore, refutes the accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood.”
Except Justin didn’t just state the food is what Christians called the flesh and blood of Christ, but that the food itself is the flesh and blood of Christ. He wasn’t refuting Eucharistic real presence at all. The context wasn’t even dealing with refutations against accusations that Christians engaged in cannibalism (common strawman those like the author of the article likes to throw out apparently). The article manufactured that “context” of Justin refuting any idea of Eucharistic real presence (with the strawman of carnal eating and drinking cannibalistic charge) to chapter 66. This is spin, not offering actual context.
To dance around what Justin said in chapter 66, it quoted him in an earlier chapter when the Eucharist wasn’t the context: 
“And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.” (ibid, 26)
The article commented: “To put it in context, Justin first referred to the eating of human flesh a shameful deed; then he explained that the Eucharist celebration does not involve consuming human flesh in any way.”
That’s simply not being honest with either chapters 26 and 66.
Chapter 26 was in no way, shape or form dealing with the Eucharist, much less argue against any suggestions of Eucharistic real presence, but pagans, idolaters and heretics (none of whom would have any use for Eucharistic real presence:
“And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: — Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.”
And as pointed out earlier, Justin said nothing in chapter 66 about not eating and drinking human flesh and blood in the cannibalistic way described in chapter 26 (as if humans are cut up and cooked to be eaten). He said in chapter 66 that bread and wine are received as Christ our Savior and the food IS the flesh and blood of Christ.
Furthermore we read in the article: “The bread and wine mixed with water are symbolically the body and blood of Christ.”
That’s the exact opposite of what Justin said the bread and wine mixed with water are. Again, he said the bread and wine we received aren’t common bread and wine since we received bread and wine as Christ our Savior:
“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.”
And again, let’s be reminded that Justin followed by saying such food (bread and wine) is the flesh and blood of Christ:
“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.”
The church father nowhere hinted or said that the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ.
The article added: “The accusation that Christians ate human flesh was used to persecute Christians, while others who may have actually done that were not persecuted. The purpose of Justin’s explanation of the Eucharist was to counter the accusation that Christians ate human flesh.”
Except that the article is mixing two different contexts of chapter 26 and 66. And Christ was not just fully human but fully God. Nor does any form of Eucharistic real presence means cannibalism of people as we would think of.
If Justin had wanted to say the Eucharist does not involve partaking of Christ’s flesh and blood, he wouldn’t have said the food we receive as bread and wine is the flesh and blood of Christ. He didn’t say anything in the chapter where he said he meant symbolically or that he was describing the Eucharist to deny real presence (which the article conflates with eating human flesh in a carnal way that Christians then were charged with).
It is like saying the Lutheran Confessions deny Eucharistic real presence just because carnal, cannibalistic eating is denied to those who make that charge against Lutherans.
Consider what the Lutheran Solid of Declaration of the Formula of Concord said on the supper: “whereby we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the gross [and] carnal presence which is ascribed to and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against our manifold public protestations.”
By the logic of the article on Justin, that must mean Lutheran Confessions deny real presence because the confessions deny cannibalistic, carnal eating human flesh! Here, the denials of the charges of cannibalism actually directly dealt with the Eucharist.
Justin wasn’t dealing with the Eucharist in chapter 26 in regards to denying Christians eat human flesh in a carnal way as pagans do and he wasn’t dealing with that accusation and his denial of it when he discussed the Eucharist and said it is received as Christ our Savior and IS the flesh and blood of Christ.
Then the article offers two quotes from Dialogue with Trypho claiming that Justin directly refuted real presence (ironic since the article claimed it didn’t exist in those early centuries).
We will deal with this quote first:
“They [the words of Isaiah] are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water[shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counselors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,–the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not. 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.”
The article claimed on this quote: “Justin explicitly stated that bread (not the flesh) is given by Christ in remembrance of His flesh, and that the cup is in remembrance of – not is – His own blood. If Justin believed in transubstantiation i.e. the real presence, he would have certainly stated it here, instead he refutes it.”
First off, real presence doesn’t necessitate transubstantiation.
Secondly, Ignatius and Justin (the latter in First Apology Chapter 66 as we have noted) DID say the Eucharist IS the flesh and blood of Christ, yet the article manages to spin their statements to mean the exact opposite. So it would not have mattered if Justin said it here or not. By the article’s logic, both fathers affirmed real presence for stating elsewhere that the Eucharistic bread and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ, and his arguments in regards to those writings as really meaning symbolic only are defeated.
Thirdly, what Justin said here is a paraphrase of what Christ said, which did include “This is My body,” without stating his position so it smacks of desperation that the article accused others of to claim Justin was arguing for the symbolic only view of the Eucharist. If we take the article to its logical conclusion, it would be saying Justin denied Christ’s words since he didn’t quote them fully to include “This is My body.”
And finally, the article presented a false dichotomy between seeing the Eucharist as a remembrance of what Christ did for us and as real presence of Christ’s body and blood.
That is particularly true of what it did with the other quote from Dialogue with Trypho (chapter 41).
The article claimed: “Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the Eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies. In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the Eucharist as he did in his first apology. To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church.”
So according to the article, Justin held to Old Testament types are symbols of another symbol of Christ (the Eucharist according to the article). That is the implication.
The article accurately quoted chapter 41 (with a key omission which we will get to) as saying:
“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.”
In regards to this quote, the article stated:
“This is the very definition of the Eucharist – a celebration of the remembrance of the Lord’s passion in which Christians offer thanks and prayer. The offering of fine flour was part of what the cleansed leper was required to offer. Justin tells Trypho that this offering was a type of the bread of the Eucharist. He goes on to explain what the bread of the Eucharist represents, thus by similarity, what the fine flour presented by the leper represented.
“The bread represents what Jesus offered in the past, that is, His suffering flesh, which He endured for the sake of those who believe on Him.”
First off, no one denies the Eucharist is a celebration in remembrance of Christ’s suffering. The issue is whether or not that is all it is as a symbol. That statement by itself is not a rebuttal to the claim that Justin denied Eucharistic real presence, especially when he did say the Eucharist received is Christ our Savior Himself and is the flesh and blood of Christ and also especially when the article have a key omission from that quote.
Secondly, the article wanted to have Justin say now Old Testament types are symbols of another symbol that is in the New Testament which makes no sense.
Thirdly, Justin didn’t go to say the Eucharistic bread only represents what Jesus offered in the past. (Nor even said it represents as such.) In fact, he went on to say the exact opposite of what the article claimed.
The article said of what Christ’s words and passed off what Justin as in agreement with the article, “He then commanded His disciples to do this (poiein) in remembrance of Him; that is, to break bread in remembrance of Him and offer the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, not offer the bread as a sacrifice.”
That gets us to what is pointed out about a key omission from the Justin quote from chapter 41 of Dialogue with Trypho. Justin followed that quote in the chapter with this that the article omitted:
“Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.' Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it].”
Note the key omission here: “He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist.”
Remember, the article claimed Justin denied the Eucharist as a sacrifice offered unto God and affirmed it only symbolizes or represents Christ’s suffering when quoting chapter 41. So it is a real key omission from what Justin said in that chapter to leave out his words that sacrifices to God offered by gentiles in every place is the bread of the Eucharist.
So while this Lutheran blog isn’t in agreement with the Roman Catholic understanding of sacrifice in regards to the Eucharist, it must be noted that the article accused Roman Catholic Encyclopedia of desperation ironically for actually quoting Justin:
“ ‘He [Justin] then goes on: ‘of the sacrifices which you (the Jews) formerly offered, God through Malachias said: ‘I have no pleasure, etc’. By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which we Gentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of eucharist and likewise of the chalice eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him.’ Here ‘bread and chalice’ are by the use of toutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the Christian sacrifice.”
The article said: “You know you are in trouble when you have to resort to defining common Greek words like toutesti (that is). Perhaps the Catholic quire will believe it, but certainly not anyone seeking the truth.”
No, the author of article knows it is in trouble when 1) it omitted a key part of what Justin said, 2) bashed its opponent for actually pointing out what Justin said on top of already as discussed before 1) changing what Justin said in First Apology Chapter 66 from saying the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ to saying the Eucharist symbolizes the flesh and blood of Christ, 2) adding a non-existing context of arguing against the suggestion of Eucharistic real presence by running to other chapters of different contexts where the Eucharist wasn’t even discussed. And that’s on top of what it did with Ignatius quotes by 1) omitting the word flesh from his statement that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ to push his point he said it in context it symbolizes the flesh of Christ and 2) by claiming the heavenly bread of life and blood Ignatius desired to take and drink refers to the resurrection, not Eucharist, despite the father calling the bread we break “the medicine of immortality.”
A person reading church fathers that creatively have no room to accuse others of desperation and lack of desire for seeking truth.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment