Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-03-2005, 06:27 PM   #31
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
That's not the point. I am assuming those quotes are the closest to showing "substantiation" in the ECF's, and if they don't do it universally, then the ECF's did not necessarily believe in "substantiation". I am not saying they didn't, I am saying it has not been proven that they did, and thus it cannot be said that Calvin went directly against historic church opinion regarding the local presence of Christ's flesh and blood.

__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 01-04-2005, 02:39 AM   #32
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Okay, well I still think that some of the quotes show that the doctrine probably existed back then and so other quotes showing the contrary would probably need to be presented.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-04-2005, 08:35 AM   #33
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
Some of the quotes do show "substantiation", but some church fathers probably believes a lot of stuff. You need to show that the vast majority did in order to appeal to some sort of historic church view.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-04-2005, 05:37 PM   #34
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
I understand what you're saying, but now do you claim that you're view of the Eucharist has any backing in the ECF's?
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-04-2005, 06:11 PM   #35
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
My specific one? No, but neither does yours, really. In fact, I'm not aware that any modern view that has backing in the ECF. As has been stated, they had a very peculiar approach to the subject.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-05-2005, 02:29 AM   #36
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Do you think they had a specific meaning of the Eucharist in mind? If so, what is it?
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-05-2005, 09:55 AM   #37
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
I don't know; they are too ambiguous in their wording, and, like you said, the doctrine hadn't been debated in as much detail then. However, given their reasoning when speaking about it, their views do not necessarily lead to some sort of substantiation (well, not all of them) and also do not sound anything like any modern theory on the Eucharist.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-05-2005, 11:14 AM   #38
Banned
 
eldestofvic's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2002
Location: North America's attic
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by +Donny
I don't know; they are too ambiguous in their wording, and, like you said, the doctrine hadn't been debated in as much detail then.
Were they ambiguous or was there a general consensus of meaning that didn't need to be restated? That is to say, that when I did my initial studies on this subject (which admittedly are not nearly as exhaustive as Todd's) we began with the original Gospel texts, specfically the Last Supper dialogue. In this dialogue we noted the special significance that Jesus's words would have had to the Jewish listeners in the context of the Passover meal they were celebrating.

Catholic writers that I have read (quoting Jewish rabbinical sources) note that in the Passover there was a cultural understanding not merely of a remembrance (in the modern sense) but rather of a return to the original moment - an actual 'being there' experience. They note that each of the particular portions served at the meal had a specific 'being there' role in the context of this highly ritualized celebration. The bread (which was always unleavened and always made of finest wheat) was taken and shared at the meal. More importantly it was a type representing the purity of the Jewish sacrifice which brought a degree of oneness between the Jewish people and their YHWH. Its name "aphikomen", given to it when broken, means "I arrive" or "I am here". Part of this bread would be hidden (a mystery to be found) and if not discovered then after the meal it was revealed and again divided up and eaten as a continued participation in the Passover.

So in effect, Jesus was saying to his disciples at the Last Supper, "You see this bread which you see as a type of sinlessness - 'This is my body'. The mystery which God has granted to reveal to you. Therefore, take it with you as is your tradition and continue your participation in this Passover". In this context it clearly is a NT type of Jesus himself (which I don't think anyone is arguing) however, what is more important is to always keep in mind the aspect of actual participation in the original act that was tacitly understood amongst the Jews at this supper and the requirement therefore to actually eat the lamb to effect the passover.

My suspicion is that because the ECF already understood this degree of "reality" in the Eucharist it became a sort of common parlance that did not need to be reiterated.


Quote:
However, given their reasoning when speaking about it, their views do not necessarily lead to some sort of substantiation (well, not all of them) and also do not sound anything like any modern theory on the Eucharist.
If we continue with my conjecture we can begin to see that their views may have already been underlined with this understanding. With respect to the "modern theory" on the Eucharist. I would submit that it is not so much a modern theory but rather a modern clarification of terms brought about by the Churches continued efforts to refine its teaching method for a changing world.
eldestofvic is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-06-2005, 04:13 PM   #39
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldestofvic
Were they ambiguous or was there a general consensus of meaning that didn't need to be restated? That is to say, that when I did my initial studies on this subject (which admittedly are not nearly as exhaustive as Todd's) we began with the original Gospel texts, specfically the Last Supper dialogue. In this dialogue we noted the special significance that Jesus's words would have had to the Jewish listeners in the context of the Passover meal they were celebrating.

Catholic writers that I have read (quoting Jewish rabbinical sources) note that in the Passover there was a cultural understanding not merely of a remembrance (in the modern sense) but rather of a return to the original moment - an actual 'being there' experience. They note that each of the particular portions served at the meal had a specific 'being there' role in the context of this highly ritualized celebration. The bread (which was always unleavened and always made of finest wheat) was taken and shared at the meal. More importantly it was a type representing the purity of the Jewish sacrifice which brought a degree of oneness between the Jewish people and their YHWH. Its name "aphikomen", given to it when broken, means "I arrive" or "I am here". Part of this bread would be hidden (a mystery to be found) and if not discovered then after the meal it was revealed and again divided up and eaten as a continued participation in the Passover.

So in effect, Jesus was saying to his disciples at the Last Supper, "You see this bread which you see as a type of sinlessness - 'This is my body'. The mystery which God has granted to reveal to you. Therefore, take it with you as is your tradition and continue your participation in this Passover". In this context it clearly is a NT type of Jesus himself (which I don't think anyone is arguing) however, what is more important is to always keep in mind the aspect of actual participation in the original act that was tacitly understood amongst the Jews at this supper and the requirement therefore to actually eat the lamb to effect the passover.
Yes, but there has to be a distinction between the sacrifice and the eating of the sacrifice. The lamb was killed, then it was later eaten. This is true of all the offerings aside from the burnt offering, IIRC. Thus, we have the atoning sacrifice and then the eating afterwards, drawing a distinction between the two. They are linked, of course, as I think Paul speaks of partaking of the sacrifice is also partaking of altar, or something to that effect, but they are still distinct. Likewise, we have the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, and then we have the partaking of the benefits of that sacrifice in the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

Quote:
My suspicion is that because the ECF already understood this degree of "reality" in the Eucharist it became a sort of common parlance that did not need to be reiterated.
They don't seem to appeal to a Hebraic understanding of passover in any of the quotations, though.

Quote:
If we continue with my conjecture we can begin to see that their views may have already been underlined with this understanding. With respect to the "modern theory" on the Eucharist. I would submit that it is not so much a modern theory but rather a modern clarification of terms brought about by the Churches continued efforts to refine its teaching method for a changing world.
I'm sure this is true to some degree, but their logic is fundmentally different. They argue for a physical eating of Christ's flesh and blood as well as a spiritual eating because both our bodies and souls are saved. I've never seen that argument elsewhere. But, then again, I haven't read much on it, so I may be flat out wrong.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-06-2005, 05:55 PM   #40
Banned
 
eldestofvic's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2002
Location: North America's attic
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by +Donny
Yes, but there has to be a distinction between the sacrifice and the eating of the sacrifice. The lamb was killed, then it was later eaten. This is true of all the offerings aside from the burnt offering, IIRC. Thus, we have the atoning sacrifice and then the eating afterwards, drawing a distinction between the two. They are linked, of course, as I think Paul speaks of partaking of the sacrifice is also partaking of altar, or something to that effect, but they are still distinct. Likewise, we have the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, and then we have the partaking of the benefits of that sacrifice in the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.
Distinct yes but equal and necessary for salvation. The passover lamb had to be eaten in reality not just spiritually to affect the salvation implicit in the sacrifice. All the painting of blood on the doors in Egypt would not have saved one single child if the lamb had not been eaten.

Quote:
They don't seem to appeal to a Hebraic understanding of passover in any of the quotations, though.
True but irrelevant if the understanding was already underlying their thought - even if said belief was coming to them as simply capital "T" Tradition from the earlier Jewish based church.

Quote:
I'm sure this is true to some degree, but their logic is fundmentally different. They argue for a physical eating of Christ's flesh and blood as well as a spiritual eating because both our bodies and souls are saved. I've never seen that argument elsewhere. But, then again, I haven't read much on it, so I may be flat out wrong.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. However, here is a stab at an answer. As it was both Jesus physicality (is that a word? - his humanness) and his spirituality (his divinity) that were necessary for the effectiveness of the sacrifice; and, the Eucharist is the "symbol" of this sacrifice then it would stand to reason (if we view the Eucharistic celebration as a 'being there' experience as in the RCC) that both would have to be present in its consumption.

I agree with you that taken by themselves these quotes from the ECF, so far discovered, don't prove Transubstantiation. However, I believe that the quotes viewed in the context of the Hebraic tradition illuminating the phrase "This is my body" move the weight of evidence in that direction.
eldestofvic is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-06-2005, 06:04 PM   #41
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
Quote:
Distinct yes but equal and necessary for salvation. The passover lamb had to be eaten in reality not just spiritually to affect the salvation implicit in the sacrifice. All the painting of blood on the doors in Egypt would not have saved one single child if the lamb had not been eaten.
Agreed.

Quote:
True but irrelevant if the understanding was already underlying their thought - even if said belief was coming to them as simply capital "T" Tradition from the earlier Jewish based church.
Okay, do we see such an understanding in the scriptures or very early church documents? I do see Paul claiming that the Eucharist is communion with the body and blood of Christ, but not necessarily a reliving of a past event.

Quote:
I'm not sure where you're going with this. However, here is a stab at an answer. As it was both Jesus physicality (is that a word? - his humanness) and his spirituality (his divinity) that were necessary for the effectiveness of the sacrifice; and, the Eucharist is the "symbol" of this sacrifice then it would stand to reason (if we view the Eucharistic celebration as a 'being there' experience as in the RCC) that both would have to be present in its consumption.
Actually, as I showed on page 2, I don't deny that we partake of Christ's physical body. In fact, how does it make any sense to partake of His divine "body"? I agree that we eat His physical body, just that we eat it spiritually, not carnally, which seems to be the mystery/miracle in it.

Quote:
I agree with you that taken by themselves these quotes from the ECF, so far discovered, don't prove Transubstantiation. However, I believe that the quotes viewed in the context of the Hebraic tradition illuminating the phrase "This is my body" move the weight of evidence in that direction.
I'm not seeing the link between the Hebraic understanding and Transubstantiation. Can you elaborate?

Thanks for the info; you obviously know much more than me and I should learn quite a bit in this. God bless.
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-06-2005, 08:15 PM   #42
Banned
 
eldestofvic's Avatar
 

Joined: Feb 2002
Location: North America's attic
Posts: 830
Hey Donny

I'm more than interested in continuing this conversation with you. It's fun, it's interesting and most importantly - it's respectful. However, I am directing a local amateur play production and we go on stage at the end of next week.

Sooooo... I was wondering if maybe you could PM me say the beginning of the week following and we can pick this discussion up then.

PS. How's things going with your dad? I've been dedicating my Night Prayer to you and your family.
eldestofvic is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-07-2005, 02:46 AM   #43
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by +Donny
I'm sure this is true to some degree, but their logic is fundmentally different. They argue for a physical eating of Christ's flesh and blood as well as a spiritual eating because both our bodies and souls are saved. I've never seen that argument elsewhere. But, then again, I haven't read much on it, so I may be flat out wrong.
If you're talking about a spiritual eating in the sense that by "spiritually eat and drink" it is meant "nourish the soul", then this is the teaching held by Catholicism. If this is what you meant, then we believe in this spiritual eating, as well as the physical eating.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-07-2005, 09:37 AM   #44
A fan of the lemer[sic]
 
+Donny's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2001
Location: Nowhere, ID
Posts: 17,861
Send a message via AIM to +Donny
I understand. But is the logic that leads there the same?
__________________
"Well, this is extremely interesting," said the Episcopal Ghost. "It's a point of view. Certainly, it's a point of view."
+Donny is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-07-2005, 04:06 PM   #45
Resident Sedevacantist
 
goldenchild's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,097
Could you explain what you think they're logic was? Or if you already did, could you direct me to the correct post? I'm not really sure what you meant by the logic they used.
goldenchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:28 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2