Mary,
Here is a quote from the Gallican Confession about the presence
of Christ:
Gallican Confession:
"Although CHRIST be in Heaven, where He is to remain
until He come to judge the world, yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible
virtue of His Spirit, He feeds and vivifies us by the substance of His Body
and Blood received by faith. Now we say that this is done in a spiritual manner;
not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagination, instead of a truth and
real effect, but rather because that mystery of our union with CHRIST is of
so sublime a nature, that it is as much above the capacity of our senses, as
it is above the order of nature."
"We believe that in the LORD'S Supper God gives
us really, that is, truly and efficaciously, whatever is represented by the
Sacrament. With the signs we join the true profession and fruition of the thing
by them offered to us; and so, that Bread and Wine which are given to us, become
our spiritual nourishment, in that they make in some manner visible to us that
the Flesh of CHRIST is our food, and His Blood our drink. Therefore those fanatics
that reject these signs and symbols are by us rejected, our blessed SAVIOUR
having said, ‘this is My Body, and this cup is My blood."'
What I don't agree with is the
Roman Catholic explanation of transubstantiation. This was not biblical
nor was it taught by my Early Fathers of the faith.
You are now beginning to see this. This is a great step
forward in the right direction. It was the Eutychian heretics who held
to a substantial change of the bread, not the Early Church Fathers.
What I don't agree with is the
Roman Catholic adoration of the Eucharistic elements. This is
not biblical nor was it the practice of the Early Church.
You said this last Lord's Day, that you think if
Jesus is “present” then it is OK to adore the elements but
if Jesus is not substantially present (the Whole Christ: Body, Blood,
Soul and Divinity), then your adoration of It is idolatry.
Thomas Aquinas, whom you quote from below, said that if bread
and wine remain after consecration and are worshipped, then it would be idolatrous. Here
is a quote from a Catholic web site:
St. Thomas also gave a very good reason why bread and wine
cannot remain after the consecration: "Because it would be opposed to the
veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be
adored with adoration of latria.
"If bread and wine remained,
Catholics would be committing the sin of idolatry by adoring it. So, physical
bread and wine do not remain!"
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica llla,
q. 75, art. 2.
So Mary, if transubstantiation is false and if the substance of
bread remains, then Catholics are indeed guilty of idolatry. Now that you
have admitted that transubstantiation was a rather
late doctrine of the Church; about 1,000 years after Christ, we can look
and learn that Eucharistic adoration was also late.
Remember Mary, that about a year ago we discussed the difference
between [latria|adoration] and [veneration|worship]. If Catholics only believed
in the “veneration” of the Eucharistic elements, I would not say Catholicism
is guilty of idolatry (idol-latria). But
Catholics do not merely venerate the Eucharistic elements, they adore them. It
was quite late in Church history when Trent declared:
"If anyone says that Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, is not to be adored in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship
of latria, including the external worship, and that the Sacrament, therefore
is not to be honored with extraordinary festive celebrations nor solemnly carried
from place in processions according to the praiseworthy universal rite and custom
of the holy Church; or that the Sacrament is not to be publicly exposed for the
people's adoration, and that those who adore it are idolators: let him be anathema."
My argument is that this [adoration|latria] was not universal
in the earlier Church and to my knowledge was not practiced by the early Church. It can be argued that respect/honor was paid to the Eucharistic
elements, but not adoration.
- Where in the Scriptures do you find the example or command to adore
Eucharistic elements?
Not only did the Church Fathers not use terms such as “transubstantiation” but
they denied that the substance of the elements changed! (See the quotes below.)
I also take issue that the Church Fathers can only be understood
in a literal or substantial view. Gelasius certainly did not believe this.
If you look at the Early Church, you will find that it was
the heretical Eutychians who maintained a substantial change of the bread.
Furthermore, it wasn't only Gelasius who held this view:
The following is attributed to Chrysostom (c. 347–407 A.D.):
"Like
as before it is consecrated, it is bread: so after it is consecrated, it
is delivered from the name of bread, and is endued with the name of the Lord's
body, where as the nature doth remain."
Chrysostom, ad Caesarium
monachum
"Before the bread is sanctified, we call it bread: but when
the grace of God makes it holy by means of the priest, it is then freed from
the name of bread, and counted worthy to be called Christ's body, even if the
nature of bread remains in it still, and we speak not of two bodies but of the
one body of the Son of God."
John Chrysostom, Epistola ad Caesarium Monachum
Ephrem/Ephraim of Antioch wrote,
"The body of Christ which
is received by the faithful does not depart from its own sensible substance,
and yet it is united to spiritual grace; and so baptism, though it becomes wholly
a spiritual thing and but one thing, yet it preserves the property of its sensible
substance, I mean water, and does not lose what it was before."
Quoted
by Photius, cod. 1: 229
It was the Eutychian heretics that believed the substance of
the bread changed, not the Early Church. I think this explains the reason
Juan has fallen into heretical views about the body of Jesus.
Gelasius believed in a change and so do I. It's sometimes
called “sacramental” and I discuss it below. So while
Gelasius believed in a change, he rejected a substantial change. What
Gelasius writes refutes transubstantiation.
Note how different the above Fathers are from Trent:
"If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament
of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and
singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and
of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood, the species (appearance)
of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most
fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema."
- Do you have quotes from Leontius of Byzantium and Cyril of
Alexandria showing that they triumphed over the view of Gelasius, Chrysostom,
Theodoret and Ephrem of Antioch's errors?
I have 2000 years of Christian leaders who agree with
me. It is late Romanism that is the innovator, not Reformed Protestantism. It
is Rome that has departed from true worship and now worships bread and wine.
I have no problem with saying that the bread is the body
of Jesus and the wine is His blood. I have no problem in saying that we
eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Ambrose speaks once of the flesh of
Christ "which we today ADORE in the mysteries", and Augustine,
of an ADORATION [at least "in the wider sense" of
bowing the knee in respect] preceding the participation of the flesh of Christ."
[footnotes #2 and #3 gives the original Latin from these Fathers] (page
502)
I am glad that you are now trying to answer my previous question
and give me quotes from Early Church Fathers showing that they adored the Eucharistic
elements. But this reference is not very convincing since this web site
you are quoting (presumably Catholic?) admits that Ambrose and Augustine may
have adored/worshipped the mysteries in the “wider sense” of respect.
I think that this Catholic source is right about the “wider
sense.” In fact, Philip Schaff makes note of the Roman Catholic liturgist,
Muratori, who says that in these passages (Ambrose and Augustine), we must no
doubt take the references to worship/adoration in the wider sense.
He notes
that we must distinguish a mark of respect versus proper adoration (Schaff,
Philip. History of the Christian Church; Chapter 95, “The
Sacrament of the Eucharist”).
If modern day Catholics were only giving respect to the Eucharistic
elements, I would not say that it was ido-latria. But
modern day Catholics are giving latria and this was not the practice of the Early
Church. Like transubstantiation, it was a rather late invention. In
other words, it was not practiced by the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, or the
Church Fathers for centuries.
And so, my question remains.
- Do you have quotes from
the Early Church Fathers that demonstrate that they worshipped/adored (with latria)
the Eucharistic elements?
Again, I am not looking for quotes on the “presence” of
Christ but Eucharistic latria.
- You have said before that our reformed worship differs greatly
from ancient worship but can you find any trace of adoration or latria of
the Eucharistic elements in ancient liturgies?
- Was perpetual adoration
practiced in the Early Church?
I'm not sure if I understand the
comparison with Melchizedek. To be sure, Jesus is a priest in the order
of Melchizedek (Psalm 110; Hebrews 5-7) but it was Melchizedek who was
greater than Abraham and it was Melchizedek who brought bread and wine to Abraham. By
the way, bread and wine is a merism for a banquet and not just bread and wine.
(See 2 Samuel 17:27-29 and Proverbs 9:5)
The problem is that while the mystery surpasses understanding,
Rome now explains the manner through the doctrine of transubstantiation. As
I mentioned to you on the Lord's Day, Protestants speak of Christ's
presence as sacramental. They also use terms such as supernatural, mystical
or ineffable. The point is not to deny that Christ is really present, but
to deny that His presence is natural or bodily. Protestants don't claim
to know the manner of Christ's Presence, but we deny that the bread and
wine substantially change.
The bread remains what it was and becomes what it was not. The
wine remains what it is and becomes what it was not. When Protestants
say this, we are in good company with the Early Church.
"Have no doubt, therefore, that the man Christ Jesus is now
there whence He shall come again; cherish in your memory and remain faithful
to the profession of your Christian faith that He rose again from the dead, ascended
into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19; Luke 24; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 10:12), and will come from no other place but there to judge the living
and the dead; and He will so come, as the angels have testified, as He was seen
going into heaven (2 Timothy 4:1; Acts 1:10), that is, in the very form and substance
of flesh to which it is true, He gave immortality, but He did not destroy its
nature. We are not to think that He is present everywhere in this form. . . .
In Him God and man are one person, and both are the one Jesus Christ who as God
is everywhere, but as man He is in Heaven.”
Augustine, “On the Presence
of God” Letter 187; Chapter 10
"The body with which Christ rose," says he, "He
took to heaven, which must be in a place .... We must guard against such a conception
of His divinity as destroys the reality of His flesh. For when the flesh of the
Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven,
it is not upon earth." "I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven,
as it was upon earth when he ascended to heaven."
Philip Schaff, History
of the Christian Church
The Catholic explanation of transubstantiation is indeed unbiblical
and most certainly is the practice of Eucharistic adoration.
Wine is optional for our celebration of Communion? This
is new to me. I knew that for years the cup was withheld from the laity,
but I didn't know that wine was optional.
- Did Jesus say it was
optional?
- Do you really believe that the Scriptures teach it is optional?
If
so, where do you get this idea from that wine is optional? The Scriptures teach
that both eating and drinking are to be done:
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's
death until He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:26 — New American Study Bible, 1995
The keys of “Peter” are exercised throughout the
world wherever church discipline is exercised,
17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a
tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been
bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in
heaven. 19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything
that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there
in their midst.”
Matthew 18:17-20 — New American Study Bible, 1995
The Protestants said that they did not need miracles and signs
because they were not teaching any new doctrine. They said that their doctrine
was rooted in the history of the Church and the Scriptures. It was Rome that
needed signs and miracles to establish new doctrine. Furthermore, even
if they did have signs and miracles, the teaching of Rome was idolatrous and
condemned by Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
This issue is whether Catholics have even been faithful to
the Early Church. As I have shown from men like Gelasius, the Roman teaching
and practice is very different.
To be sure, but what I have been tracing is that Catholic teaching
of the Mass cannot be traced back through the Early Church Fathers. As
I have shown, transubstantiation was a new doctrine. Transubstantiation
is not something that can be found in Scripture nor can Eucharistic adoration. This
is why I say that Reformed Protestantism is “Catholic” – it
can trace its practice back through the early Church to the Apostles.
Catholics lost their way at Trent. They lost their way
when they made infallible statements that cannot be reformed:
-
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." (De fide.)
—Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651
- The Whole Christ is present under each of the two Species.
(De fide.)
- When either consecrated species is divided the Whole Christ
is present in each part of the species. (De fide.)
- After the Consecration has been completed the Body and Blood
are permanently present in the Eucharist. (De fide.)
- The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present
in the Eucharist. (De fide.)
The seeds of the Reformation began in the thirteenth century after
the Fourth Lateran Council declared the doctrine of transubstantiation.
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless,
how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to
be thrown out and trampled under foot by men."
Matthew 5:13 — New American Study Bible, 1995
The real question is who has the infallible authority to teach
and make binding doctrines. In the end, each church has its own traditions, magisterium,
and interpretation, and in fact, it is impossible in practical terms not to have
these elements.
I don't believe that the Gates of Hell prevailed
for 1,500 years. It's hard for me to believe that you have been listening
to what I have been writing to you for the last year when you keep sending and
making accusations against me regarding my alleged rejection of the Early Church.
As I have said on several occasions, the heritage of the Early
Church is my heritage. I do not reject the first 1,500 years of Church history. As
I have shown, it is now Roman Catholicism that was the innovator with the doctrine
of transubstantiation. It was Rome that was the innovator with Eucharistic
adoration.
Again, it seems as if you are just cutting and pasting from
other sources without really reading what I have written.
I have been showing that my interpretation of Scripture is in
line with the tradition of the Early Church's interpretation. I have
shown that the Early Church did not believe in transubstantiation.
It's a kind of theological shell game. Romanism
claims to hold to early tradition. When it is demonstrated that the early
Fathers did not hold to transubstantiation and even denied it, Romanism then
down plays the importance or correctness of the early Fathers or they side-step
the issue and emphasize the presence of Christ, something that I don't
deny.
You may remember that I pointed out to you this shell game
long ago with respect to the use of instruments. I didn't see a response in your last e-mail to the following:
On Sunday you were saying something about Satanism and stealing
consecrated hosts. I'm not exactly sure what your point was, but
it does bring up something interesting.
Catholics argue that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of
Jesus are in the consecrated host.
- From your description of Satanism, how
is it then that Jesus is helpless against Satanists?
- In fact, how can He
be helpless against a mouse that would nibble on the host?
It sounds to
me like you are subjecting Jesus to another estate of humiliation when He has
been exalted to the right hand of God, the Father. Your reasoning reminds
me of Isaiah's argument against idolatry.
13 The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he
roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the
form of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine. 14 He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among
the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. 15 It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself,
he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships
it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. 16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he
roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah!
I am warm; I see the fire.” 17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says, “Save me; you are my god.” 18 They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over
so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. 19 No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, “Half
of it I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and
I ate. Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left? Shall I bow down
to a block of wood?” 20 He feeds on ashes, a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself,
or say, “Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?”
Isaiah 44:13-20 (New International Version)
- As I was thinking about your comments about Satanism, I was
wondering whether you believe Jesus is in an estate of humiliation or exaltation or
is He in both estates:
- exaltation in Heaven and
- humiliation in the Catholic Mass
on earth
(see questions 27 and 28 of the Shorter Catechism)?
- Is Jesus still
subject to physical abuse if the consecrated host isn't protected?
To
bring Jesus down to earth and subject Him to potential humiliation seems to be
a denial that He is now exalted. This is why I made mention of Psalm 2.
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6 “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
Psalm 2:4-6 (New International Version)
Love in Christ,
Aaron |
