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 boldly 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
In regards to what was claimed on Justin can be found here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_22.html
How it dealt with Irenaeus is rebutted here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_23.html
And the rebuttals to its claims on Tertullian are here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_6.html?m=1
This response here will be in regards to the article’s claim on early third century apologist Origen.
The article wrote: “And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.”
On what basis did he made that claim? It cited him here:
“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)
Note the article put these words in bold: “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.” And it underlined the words “typical and symbolical body” as proof Origen cannot possibly affirmed real presence if he assigned any symbolism to the Eucharist.
In fact, elsewhere in the article, a Roman Catholic apologist was mocked for saying Clement of Alexandria affirmed both real presence and symbolic nature of the Eucharist: “Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language.”
Clement of Alexandria will be dealt with in the next blog post, but just wanted to point out the dismissive (and inaccurate) nature of the article’s arguments.
Dismissing what is said doesn’t deal with what is said. Let’s give an example of how one can affirm the Eucharist is a symbol and real presence at the same time. The Lutheran Confessions treated this sacrament as both involving Christ’s real presence and as a sign and seal (terms people treat as symbols). Just because the author of the article doesn’t seem to know one can then and today assign both real presence and symbolic aspects to the Eucharist doesn’t change the fact that such views exist.
The problem is that Origen didn’t even say the bread was symbolic of the body of Christ nor even described the bread as a symbol but was describing Christ’s body itself as typical and symbolic. That’s not a view any side here want to hang on to. But that’s not all Origen wrote.
Origen’s own bolded words actually undercut the article’s claim that he held to the Eucharist was just a symbol. Consider these words from him: “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.”
What makes the sacrament of the Eucharist but the word said over the material of the bread? Origen said such word said over the bread makes it “of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.”
What advantage would that be?
On that issue, the the article doesn’t deal with the sentence that immediately followed the bolded parts from Origen: “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 said here that the Word made flesh and became true meat of he who eats of it shall live forever: “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.”
The article doesn’t deal with this part which is clearly in the context of the ongoing Eucharist discussion. Origen specifically said those who eat of Christ as the Word made flesh and became true meat shall live forever. The advantage is “shall forever.” That followed the same theme as Ignatius earlier saying in his epistle to the Ephesians that the bread we break is “the medicine of immortality.” Hardly a symbolic only view of the Eucharist.
What the article said next: “And leading up to this explanation, Origen expounded in more detail,” followed by more quoting from this source by Origen to make him denied real presence when the opposite is true:
“ ‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’”
Note these statements as bolded by the article in the effect to have Origen saying the Eucharist is only a symbol that doesn’t sanctify or wasn’t Christ’s real presence to us:
“what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify.”
“as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth.”
“that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it.”
“And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions.”
As shown by the context above, Origen wasn’t denying that Eucharist sanctified those who partake if not unworthily. What he was denying real presence for those who ate the bread unworthily: “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.’”
That’s a far cry from seeing the Eucharist as just a symbol of Christ’s body and blood. Origen held to the Eucharist there as giving life to those who eat not unworthily of the Word made flesh.
Yet the article (which, as it does throughout, conflated real presence with Roman Catholicism) concluded on Origen:
“There are several reference from Origen that demonstrate his understanding of the eucharist and the bread of life discourse, and none of them agree with Catholic doctrine.”
What is demonstrated if Origen was read in context with the quotes read so far was that he was anything but an advocate of symbol only view of the Eucharist. Holding to there’s symbolic aspect to the Eucharist isn’t the same as holding to symbol only view of it.
The article went on to say: “However, it is not uncommon for Catholic apologetics sites to use references from Origen that are used to support the real presence doctrine. These references, however, are far from their context and taken from writings of doubtful authenticity known as Origen’s homilies.”
Besides (as usual) conflating real presence with only Roman Catholicism, it offers zero evidence that 1) the quotes from Origen’s homilies were far from their context (not even offering to give quotes and then explain why) and 2) the homilies were of doubtful authenticity.
Here’s Origen’s Homily 13 on Leviticus:
“But if these things are referred to the greatness of the mystery, you will find this ‘remembrance’ to have the effect of a great propitiation. If you return to that ‘loaf which descends from heaven and gives life to they world, that shew bread ‘whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood’ and if you turn your attention to that ‘remembrance’ about which the Lord says, ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ you will find that this is the only ‘remembrance’ which makes God gracious to men.”
Origen directly quoted Christ’s words in Matthew 26:26-28 on the Eucharist. And he referred to the word remembrance quoted from the gospel as 1) having the effect of a great propitiation and 2) making God gracious to men. On top of that, he said, in this context of discussing the Eucharist, that this involves 1) “returning to that loaf which descends from heaven and gives life to this world” and 2) “bread, whom God set as propitiation through faith in his blood.” These are not the words of a symbol only advocate on the Eucharist but one who held to the Eucharist as itself grace and propitiation (that the blood of Christ gives), through faith in His blood and through returning to Him as the loafer and bread from heaven.
The article’s claim, that Origen’s statements from his homilies quoted to support real presence are far from their context, isn’t true. Nor does it offer to show any proof that homilies like these are spurious.
Nor is it even true that only homilies from Origen are cited to support real presence.
Origen did write in Against Celsus Book VIII Chapter 33:
“But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.”
He said several things: 1) this bread, presented to us and that we eat becomes a sacred body by prayer and 2) this sacred body, that the bread becomes as we eat it, sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. That’s two things that go squarely against those who affirm the Eucharist is only symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment