God's Truth
New member
The scripture does not say 'angels'.
the church
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
The scripture does not say 'angels'.
God's Truth
New member
You are badly mistaken.
God's Truth
New member
You both made a mistake. You both say Jesus preached to disobedient angels.
brewmama
New member
You misunderstand what "symbolic" means...
The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms—bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.
In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.
One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”
Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.
brewmama
New member
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
brewmama
New member
St. Clement of Alexandria studied under Pantaenus. He later succeeded him as the director of the school of catechumens in Alexandria, Egypt around the year 200 A.D.,
"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",
-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,
For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment... (2 Peter 2:4)
Only disobedient angels need to be judged.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus went to preach to those who disobeyed a long time ago.
If Jesus did not preach to the spirits of people, how do you think he covered the sins of the WHOLE WORLD?
God's Truth
New member
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.2 Co
csuguy
Well-known member
No - I used it just as I intended. Words often carry several different connotation. Context becomes key in determining which is being used for a specific instance of a term. I see that you are an Orthodox Christian which is why you were thinking something quite different from what I intended in my usage of the term as a non-denominational Protestant. However, that was a good overview of a more Orthodox perspective on the term.
I've visited Orthodox Churches a few times and had a good friend who was Orthodox, but it wasn't exactly a welcoming environment so I didn't attend too long. Not that they were rude, but I was very much an outsider. I wouldn't mind becoming for familiar with the Orthodox - but they are quite private.
csuguy
Well-known member
We must take the writings of Ignatius with a big grain of salt. Over half of the letters ascribed to him are regarded as flat out forgeries, and the remaining 7 epistles all have two different versions: a short and a long one. The short are generally favored, but their authenticity is not without question.
Now, as far as the quotes you provided from him, the only one that could potentially be taken to enforce a literal interpretation of the Eucharist is the first one:
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
This is one of those sections that differs quite drastically between the long and short versions of Ignatius' writings. Here is the long version of this same passage:
They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the ressurection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam, by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua the son of Josedech, who sought to "sift the faith" of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now "worketh in the children of disobedience;" from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep public to talk with them; but to give heed to the law, and of the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the words of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.
Quite a bit different, no? There are many such places in the manuscripts of Ignatius' writings with such drastic differences between them - it is evident that people had an agenda. They wanted, as they have tried with so many other important figures, to use their name to push their anachronistic theologies onto others. But, again, the scholastic rule of thumb here is to favor shorter version so I will stick with that one.
The shorter one says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
Let us pick this apart a bit. Who are "they" that abstain from the Eucharist and prayer? In Ignatius' authentic works he does fight against some heresies from his time. In particularly: he fought against the Docetists who maintained that Jesus did not literally die on the cross, nor that he ever had a physical body. The crucifixion was regarded by them as a lie or deception.
Indeed, this writing makes reference to them directly/indirectly several times. For instance, the second chapter of the same work reads as follows:
Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.
When writing this work, from the get-go he has Docetism in mind. As such, when he says that "THEY do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" he is not making a statement about Real Presence or the like. It is much more straight-forward than that: the Docetists in question don't believe that Christ EVER had flesh, and so they could not even accept the Eucharist to represent that. This runs much deeper than disputes on the matter between Protestants and Catholics and Orthodoxy. This was a dispute concerning who Christ is, what he did, and what is expected of us as his followers.
To read-in the idea here that he intends us to regard the bread and wine as Christs actual, physical flesh and blood is simply anachronistic - that's not what Ignatius was fighting against here.
Furthermore, other passages that you quoted from him demonstrate that he himself uses the Eucharist symbolically. Like these ones:
"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."
-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."
-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
I'll try to make time this weekend to dig up some quotes on the matter of the pagans and such accusing the Christians of cannibalism over the Eucharist, and the response of the Church Fathers.
Here's more info on Docetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
Last edited:
HisServant
New member
The term 'breaking bread' was a common Jewish term. I does not infer the eucharist.
Why are you reading something into scripture that just plainly isn't there?
:thumb: True, breaking bread does not imply anything magical. (Acts 2:46)
brewmama
New member
It most certainly does imply it. It is used several times, including Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.
Why do you deny things that are obviously present in Scripture merely to suit your agenda?
brewmama
New member
I'm impressed with your effort on this. However, it was well established in the early church that the Eucharist included the real Presence.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says this: "In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject...That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first, and language was very commonly used which referred to the Eucharistic elements as themselves the Body and Blood. Even where the elements were spoken of as 'symbols' or 'antitypes', there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts...
The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ's Eucharistic Body...but won practically no support."
HisServant
New member
Do you think that when Jesus broke the bread to feed the thousands with the loaves and fishes, he was actually doing the Eucharist?
brewmama
New member
Of course not, since He hadn't sacrificed Himself yet or instituted the Eucharist. But it did prefigure the Eucharist.
HisServant
New member
Its the same words in the verse you quoted... it also doesn't mention a cup at all.
So tell me why again you think it was the Eucharist which opened their eyes?
brewmama
New member
Sigh. Since they said so themselves, in plain language.
" And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;
And they told what things were done in the way, how he was known of them in breaking of bread."
they didn't even say "when He broke the bread", but "in the breaking of the bread"
HisServant
New member
Sigh... so the Eucharist is till valid without the cup?
You are reading something into it that just isn't there... this CANNOT be a Eucharist.