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
In regards to its claims on Origen, the response can be found here:
https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_24.html
This response here will be in regards to the article’s claim on early third century apologist Clement of Alexandria.
The article on Clement of Alexandria started out by saying:
“Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.”
It then referred to this quote by the church father:
“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)
It then responded (while completely avoiding interacting with that quote):
“Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.
Such irony when accusations of “out-of-context quotes” come from this article given it omitted or changed wordings of what fathers like Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus etc. said to fit it’s context” of making them say what it wanted them to say (which is that the fathers held to the symbol only view of the Eucharist).
What it did with what Clement of Alexandra wrote was no different in its use of selective quotations. It tried to explain away what he wrote as quoted above by offering this quote in the same chapter:
“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”
It claimed: “The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood,’ is, according to Clement, figurative speech.”
Here’s where the article created a false dichotomy between assigning metaphors in some form to John 6:51 and holding to real presence. The article mocked a Catholic apologist source for saying the church father held to both real presence and symbolic aspects 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.”
Even with this selective quoting, the article doesn’t even make its case against Roman Catholics (and Lutherans who also affirm real presence here) that Clement held to a symbol only view or denied a real presence view of the Eucharist. Consider these words from Clement’s quote above:
“The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.”
Note that Clement in the context of Eucharistic discussion stated twice Christ is the food. Not exactly a denial of real presence.
Clement went on to say in the same paragraph:
“The Word Himself, then, the beloved One, and our nourisher, has shed His own blood for us, to save humanity; and by Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word, the care-soothing breast of the Father. And He alone, as is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love, and those only are truly blessed who suck this breast.”
In the context of discussing the Eucharist, he said we flee to the Word, Christ, “our nourisher” who “supplies us children with the milk of love.”
What did the church father had in mind when he said we are “supplied with the milk of love”?
Earlier in the chapter, Clement said it referred to Christ’s blood:
“The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. Milk being thus provided in parturition, is supplied to the infant; and the breasts, which till then looked straight towards the husband, now bend down towards the child, being taught to furnish the substance elaborated by nature in a way easily received for salutary nourishment. For the breasts are not like fountains full of milk, flowing in ready prepared; but, by effecting a change in the nutriment, form the milk in themselves, and discharge it. And the nutriment suitable and wholesome for the new-formed and new-born babe is elaborated by God, the nourisher and the Father of all that are generated and regenerated — as manna, the celestial food of angels, flowed down from heaven on the ancient Hebrews. Even now, in fact, nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same name as that food — manna. Further, pregnant women, on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother — pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse.”
It is in this context of Clement saying we are nourished in the Eucharist by Christ’s blood (of which he used milk as a metaphor for) that he wrote in that paragraph:
“Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”
Pointing out Clement saw the text in metaphor terms also (in the next paragraph) in the chapter does not change the fact he saw it in literal terms here (and even in the same paragraph the article pointed out his use of metaphor). He didn’t just say the bread and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ. He said that Christ “offers His flesh and pours forth His blood.” He said the Eucharist is a means also of 1) receiving a new regimen, that of Christ, in exchange for the old, 2) receiving Him to hide Him within, and 3) enshrining the Savior in our souls, that we may correct the affections of our flesh.
These were not the words of one who affirmed the Eucharist was only a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. Clement elqbtorated on what it meant to drink this milk that is Christ’s blood given in the Eucharist:
“For the flow of milk is the product of the blood; and the source of nourishment is the milk; by which a woman is shown to have brought forth a child, and to be truly a mother, by which also she receives a potent charm of affection. Wherefore the Holy Spirit in the apostle, using the voice of the Lord, says mystically, I have given you milk to drink. 1 Corinthians 3:2 For if we have been regenerated unto Christ, He who has regenerated us nourishes us with His own milk, the Word; for it is proper that what has procreated should immediately supply nourishment to that which has been procreated. And as the regeneration was conformably spiritual, so also was the nutriment of man spiritual. In all respects, therefore, and in all things, we are brought into union with Christ, into relationship through His blood, by which we are redeemed; and into sympathy, in consequence of the nourishment which flows from the Word; and into immortality, through His guidance.”
He listed the effects of the Eucharist: 1) Union with Christ, 2) relationship through His blood, by which we are redeemed, 3) nourishment which flows from the Word (Christ), 4) into immortality.
The last one on the list was consistent with what Ignatius said on the bread we break: “the medicine of immortality.” And Clement continued on the same theme:
“Furthermore, milk is mixed with sweet wine; and the mixture is beneficial, as when suffering is mixed in the cup in order to immortality. For the milk is curdled by the wine, and separated, and whatever adulteration is in it is drained off. And in the same way, the spiritual communion of faith with suffering man, drawing off as serous matter the lusts of the flesh, commits man to eternity, along with those who are divine, immortalizing him.”
So the article was not being forthright when it wrote: “I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors.”
It is true as the article pointed out in various (selective) quotations that Clement saw the Eucharist as having symbolic aspects and Eucharistic texts as having metaphor aspects to them. But that isn’t the whole picture of the chapter. Clement did not see the Eucharist as symbol only but also saw it in terms of feeding us Christ’s flesh and blood to redeem and save us unto immortality. And some of his metaphors such as milk for Christ’s blood involved affirming real presence and its life giving and saving effects outright.
The article further quoted Clement in the same writing (but in Book II, Chapter 2):
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)
Then it offered this take on the quote:
“Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.”
Notice the twist the article put by claiming the Eucharist in Clement’s view was just a celebration and remembrance (defined as symbol only by the article) of what Christ did? Somehow to receive Christ in the Spirit makes the Eucharist just a symbol. Really?
But it is twisting what Clement said to even say that to partake of the Eucharist is to receive Christ in the Spirit, without His real presence. What Clement actually said was “And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality.” These were not the words of a father who denied real presence or saw the Eucharist only as a symbol. Nor when he referred to the Eucharist as “glorious grace” and as “sanctifying body and soul.”
Trying to say those saved already are partakers of Christ’s immortality failed to interact with what Clement said and that immortality (as he also said in Book I, Chapter 6) came through means of drinking Christ’s blood in the Eucharist itself. Hardly a symbol only view.
And the article offered this quote in another writing from the church father without even offering why that even disagreed with real presence in any given form:
“If, then, ‘the milk’ is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “‘meat’ to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. ‘Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,’ it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)
So when the article said, Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction,” on the contrary, in truth, the church father, while seeing symbolic aspects to Eucharistic texts, came nowhere close to denying real presence doctrine in some or to affirming symbolic only view of the Eucharist regardless of the spins the article put on his words when he did explicitly affirmed real presence and its immortal life giving and saving effects.
In the article, it said, “Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.”
Unfortunately, for the author of the article, the widely orthodox Christian doctrine understood by the universal church at the time is in disagreement with the article’s denial of any form of real presence. Clement of Alexandria was no different.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment