 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 03:13 pm |
|
I am wrestling with Book III, Chapter 9 of St. Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine" (easily found via google):
"...the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error."
Reading several chapters before, as well as its immediate context, it seems relatively clear that the "signs" refers to are the symbolic rituals of the OT, not the eucharist (and baptism), even though these are mentioned in close proximity. All well and good. A Protestant interpretation of Augustine avoided.
But reading further, I came across this (Book III, Chapter 15):
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
It seems here that his argument goes: "Since eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood would be a crime or a vice, we should interpret these commands symbolically"--and then he proceeds to give what sounds like a very protestant spin on the passage.
I really want to be honest with myself. But things like this give me cognitive dissonance. I'm well aware of the concatenation of passages one can assemble (e.g. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm), but I feel the weight of this example in Chapter 15. I don't want to just throw this passage out.
Any thoughts, or any help out there? I would much appreciate it. It seems that the protestant would take this passage from Chapter 15 and use it as an interpretive key for the rest of St. Augustine.
Many thanks,
David
|
|
|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 04:43 pm |
|
| Chirp-chirp - our heavy hitters must be out. I know Protestants love to quote Augustine - but I think they misunderstand him and they use secondary resources often.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 09:53 pm |
|
First of all, welcome to the Coming Home Network. We're glad to have you here, and look forward to hearing your conversion story when you're able to share it with us.
akatalutos wrote:
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
It seems here that his argument goes: "Since eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood would be a crime or a vice, we should interpret these commands symbolically"--and then he proceeds to give what sounds like a very protestant spin on the passage.
The basic Protestant mindset is "either/or" while the basic Catholic mindset is "both/and". You mentioned Augustine's take on Baptism and it's connection to the Old Testament, and that is certainly true, but why can't it also refer to Baptism as commanded by Jesus? Baptism, like many other signs and symbols, are used in both the Old and the New Testaments. It's meanings are both the same and different.
Here, I believe Augustine is saying that on the surface, Jesus "appears" to be telling us to perform an act of cannibalism. Thus we do not take Jesus' commands literally to chew on his body as it lived on earth, died, and was buried. Instead, his glorified body, through the sacrament of Eucharist, is made present under the appearance of bread and wine.
The Catholic Church did not define the language of the transformation ("transubstantiation") until a thousand years after Augustine lived. Many of the early Fathers used language which, in retrospect, was not correct according to the current teaching of the Church. But is it fair to judge their writings by the standards of a thousand years later?
Augusting believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as did all the early Fathers, but his entire generation and others both before and after him struggled with the words to use to describe their beliefs. Was the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist spiritual or physical? Was the bread and wine transubstantiated or consubstantiated? Did the physical nature of bread and wine remain and the miracle was the spiritual inclusiion of Jesus? Was it a true presence or just a spiritual one? These questions were undecided at Augustine's time.
It's comparable to a Protestant saying that the Church "added" books to scripture at the Council of Trent. Everyone used the same books until Martin Luther came along; only then was it necessary to declare as doctrine which books belonged in the bible. The same books had been used for more than a thousand years, since the early fourth century. Doctrine cannot be dated from the date of pronouncement; in order for it to be doctrine at all, it must be consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
So Augustine is telling us that when a command of Jesus appears on the surface to be criminal or impossible, we must look for another meaning. He used the term "figurative" in the passage you cite, but he could just as easily have used "symbolic" or "spiritual". He was saying we cannot take every one of Jesus' instructions literally ("I am the vine and you are the branches") but must sometimes look beyond the literal meaning to find Truth.
|
|
|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
I appreciate your taking the time to write back at length, Rick. Your explanation was helpful.
On Dave Armstrong's site, he argues for the Catholic "both/and" in a similar manner to you, and that makes sense. I see how the Catholic view is "big" enough to encompass both and hold them simultaneously, without the "symbolic" aspect swallowing up the "real."
I think what threw me off was that St. Augustine in the context was discussing "Which things in scripture are literal and which are figurative?" A Catholic today I'm sure would want to affirm that we LITERALLY feed on Christ's body and blood, whereas St. Augustine said we figuratively do.
The explanation you provided, however, helps it make more sense. And yes, it makes sense too that it would be anachronistic to project the debates of a later age back onto Augustine's thoughts, as if he intended to answer the precise questions we might wish to ask.
Thanks again.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 12:41 am |
|
I find this confusing...Augustine believed ??? about the Eucharist? I guess I dont like even reading he may have not believed in a literal presence because catholics always say how much the early church testimony points to this doctrine. Yet if someone as prominent as Augustine argues against it does that not imply that it was not so clearly defined? How unanimous is the consensus among early church writing.
And when is the first time the church makes an official dogmatic statement about the Eucharist and what was it? had it been done by the council of Nicea?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:02 am |
|
brian wrote: I find this confusing...Augustine believed ??? about the Eucharist? I guess I dont like even reading he may have not believed in a literal presence because catholics always say how much the early church testimony points to this doctrine. Yet if someone as prominent as Augustine argues against it does that not imply that it was not so clearly defined? How unanimous is the consensus among early church writing.
The language used to explain the Real Presence had not yet been defined. Augustine's language did not indicate that he did not believe in the Real Presence; it indicated that the Eucharist did not visibly change from the appearance of bread and wine to the appearance of flesh.
And when is the first time the church makes an official dogmatic statement about the Eucharist and what was it? had it been done by the council of Nicea?
The official dogmatic statement that described the method by which the Eucharist became the Body and Blood of Christ (transubstantiation) was at the Council of Trent.
The fact that the language used to explain the doctrine had not been defined by the time of Augustine does not indicate that he did not believe it, only that he did not correctly describe it. And considering that the language would not be defined for more than a millennium, that is not surprising.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:22 am |
|
| But the orthodox church clearly believes in the real presence yet they were not at Trent. I would think there was something in church history that declared some official belief about the Eucharist, since it was celebrated as the highlight of the mass for so long. I am not asking when we decided on the word transubstantiation, so much as any defined concept of the Eucharist in a church writing or council or something.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:42 am |
|
brian wrote: But the orthodox church clearly believes in the real presence yet they were not at Trent. I would think there was something in church history that declared some official belief about the Eucharist, since it was celebrated as the highlight of the mass for so long. I am not asking when we decided on the word transubstantiation, so much as any defined concept of the Eucharist in a church writing or council or something.
Brian, the Church (Catholic and Orthodox) has always accepted the Real Presence. What you are questioning is the language Augustine used to describe it. The Orthodox never faced the heresies of Martin Luther, so a precise definition of language was never necessary. They understand that Augustine's language meant that the transformation of the Eucharist was not visible by human senses, but invisible. Whether you want to call it figurative, or spiritual, or any other word, terminology has not been an issue for the Orthodox as it was for the Catholics.
In a similar manner, the Orthodox never found it necessary to define "Original Sin" as the western Church did. The Orthodox today reject the term "Original Sin" but accept the fact that the sin of Adam and Eve was a loss of Original Holiness, which is exactly how Original Sin is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As far as the Real Presence is concerned, we use different terminology, but our meaning is exactly the same. Augustine used different language, but his meaning was also exactly the same, even though the terminology was not defined for a millennium, when a challenge was issued by Martin Luther and later by the other Protestant revolutionaries.
The fact that the Orthodox were not present and did not participate in the Council of Trent only lends credibility to the fact that the belief in the Real Presence is the same, and has been the same, throughout the history of the Catholic Church in both its manifestations, Catholic and Orthodox. Remember that today, the Orthodox recognize the legitimacy of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, even though they do not permit intercommunion at this time. (Catholics not only recognize the legitimacy of the Orthodox sacraments, but also permit intercommunion.)
And when is the first time the church makes an official dogmatic statement about the Eucharist and what was it? had it been done by the council of Nicea?
No, the official pronouncement was made at the Council of Trent in the 1500's. There was no challenge to the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Real Presence until that time.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:56 am |
|
I am confused. I was not arguing anything, I was just pointing to the fact that the orthodox have a similar belief to us yet they did not have Trent therfore somewhere long before Trent a belief in a real presence was shared by all. It seems like you responded to me arguing the same point I already shared an understanding of.
I just wonder why something so important was never defined by the church. How could they celebrate the Eucharist every week, yet have no official statement as to what it meant till the 1500s? There was an official creed and canon of scripture and instructions for baptism etc, so why nothing on the eucharist. And I am not talking about how it is transformed..simply something to establish that it is seen as Jesus. And when and where do the orthodox make their first statement as to what it means. If the answer is that becuase it was never challenged it did not need to be defined than I will have to accept that. But does that mean in order to demonstrate the fact that this is what the church taught we simply have to rely on quotes from the Fathers and the clear teaching in scripture on the matter? How does one demontrate that this was clear church teaching if there is no official position on it?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 02:55 am |
|
brian wrote: I just wonder why something so important was never defined by the church. How could they celebrate the Eucharist every week, yet have no official statement as to what it meant till the 1500s?
Why was there a need to? We have the words of Jesus in John 6, and we have the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:
[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
[17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Until Martin Luther, no one questioned the meaning of passages such as this. Why was there a need to specifically define something until the belief was questioned? We still have doctrines of the Church that are unquestioned and have not been dogmatically defined.
There was an official creed and canon of scripture and instructions for baptism etc, so why nothing on the eucharist.
These things were challenged early on. The Eucharist was not.
Here is an analogy. Have you ever heard of Miranda rights? Why didn't the Supreme Court define Miranda rights in 1796? The answer is that they were not challenged until the 1960's. If the "right to privacy" is an implied right in the U. S. Constitution, why wasn't it defined by the Supreme Court until the 1970's? Because it wasn't challenged until that time. The Dred Scott decision of the 1850's established the principle of "Separate but Equal". Why did the Supreme Court reverse itself in the 1950's to say that Rosa Parks didn't have to sit in the back of the bus? Because as a result of her decision not to vacate her seat, the Supreme Court was forced to look at the "Separate but Equal" ruling from a different perspective. The law was not examined until it was challenged. Well, Church doctrine is not (even to this day) examined until it is challenged. You may not like that answer, but it is the truth.
"I may not be able to describe pornography, but I know it when I see it." That's a famous quote which prompted the U. S. Supreme Court to establish a community standard to judge pornography, so what is acceptable in your community might be considered pornography in mine. "Pornography" still has not been definitively defined in the United States. Some day it may be, but that day is not today.
You are reading a quote from Augustine written 1600 years ago in an ancient language and expecting the terminology and understanding to match that which we know and understand today. It won't. Shakespear didn't talk about zippers on pants, and that was only 400 years ago. He talked about codpieces instead. Times change, understanding changes, and language changes.
George Washington established a principle that no president would serve more than two terms in office. Every president honored that precident until almost 150 years later, when Franklin Roosevelt served more than three terms before he died in office. Since he had accomplished what was thought to be impossible, the Constitution was amended to forbid a president to serve a third term. Why wasn't it part of the original Constitution? Because no one ever challenged that "doctrine" until Roosevelt did.
There are countless examples. The simple fact is that the Orthodox to this day have not "defined" the Real Presence. They accept the Catholic definition, but no challenge has ever been made in the Orthodox tradition. Similarly, they have not defined the Immaculate Conception, although they believe Mary was sinless from the first moment of her conception, or the Assumption, although they believe Mary was taken bodily into heaven at the end of her earthly life. Why should they define the Real Presence if it has never been challenged? They know the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus; to them, that's all that matters.
So the Catholics "officially" defined the Real Presence at Trent, because the manner of Jesus' presence in the Eucharist was challenged by the Protestant revolutionaries. The Orthodox have never defined it because it has never been challenged in the Orthodox faith. Augustine had no need to go beyond the language he used because it was specific enough to convey the message he intended, that the bread remained under the appearance of bread even though it became the Body of Christ, and the wine remained under the appearance of wine even though it became the Blood of Christ. He chose to use a word that has been translated as "figurative" in the reference you quoted. Perhaps in other translations the word is translated differently. You can't parse words, Brian, especially when the words you are parsing are 1600 year old translations.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 03:03 am |
|
brian wrote: There was an official creed and canon of scripture and instructions for baptism etc, so why nothing on the eucharist.
There is plenty on the Eucharist, Brian. This is from the Didache:
Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
It doesn't define what the Eucharist is any more than the instructions on Baptism define water. It was well known.
I can't research any more tonight, as I'm on dial-up and I have to free my phone line. Hopefully David can provide some more references.
|
|
|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 03:37 am |
|
Picking up on what you write, Rick, the argument has been put forth to me that the Egyptian Coptic church has apostolic roots and has always been separate from the Roman Catholic church; why therefore isn't it an equally legitimate branch of the church? Why (they say) do I run off and join Rome and not the Coptic church?
(I believe tradition attributes its founding to St. Mark.)
I don't have a good answer to the question, assuming its assumptions are correct. It does, indeed, seem possible that it is an independent stream of Christianity dating back to the apostles.
That being said, however, the argument might be turned around: assuming that it IS an independent stream of the church, it makes it all the more striking that the Coptic doctrine of the eucharist appears virtually identical to the Catholic (and Orthodox) view: this vouches rather powerfully for the antiquity of the belief.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 06:24 am |
|
I am having a hard time understanding your seeming frustration with my question. You seem to be talking to me like I am arguing with you. I hardly even mentioned the Augustine quote and you are telling me I am parsing words. I am not even worried that much about this quote. I am just interested in how we demonstrate the fact that the doctrine of the Eucharist existed if we can not rely on offical dogma till Trent and I wanted to know if there was anything defining it any earlier than that. Since the answer appears to be that there is not, I then wanted to know how we do establish this doctrine existed. It appears the answer is through the church Fathers and their commentaries on scripture and the universal testimony of the Eastern and western churches. And a lot of the writings we seem to have on the Eucharist comes from people in authority like popes and bishops. Therfore though not official church dogma, I find this very assuring along with the fact that nobody questioned it seriously for so long. I guess since we have such a specific mass and we specifically believe and developed specific liturgies with actions for the priest and specific consecration prayers, I would think there would exist something to demonstrate historically what the priests were being taught about their actions and how they were offering this sacrifice and what their prayers meant. Is their anything in early writings explaining the liturgy and how the priests role worked?
such as this:
"The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.",
Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:
and here:
"'The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:' You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'And again:' Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.",
-"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" ante 373 A.D.,
So it seems that though these are not offical dogmas or councils at least they come from those in high authority teaching the faithful.
I also found a lot from something called the "Mystagogic Catechesis, which sounds like something obviously being used to teach the faith.
How much would it need to be questioned before being defined. I seem to remember a quoe from one father where he talkes about how foolish a certain group of people are who refrain from the Lord's table because they refuse to believe that it is the body and blood of our Lord...so there were people questioning it somewhere at someplace long before Trent. -
"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.
There also were people questioning it in the year 500 roughly.
I am glad that you find the Orthodox and Catholic faiths to be very similar, though I am not sure you fullly represent the Orthodox sides which I have read many articles on why they refute our ideas of original sin, or the filioque, or the idea of mortal sin, papal authority, and many other things. Our faiths are very close, and I love that the ecumenical dialogue is achieving some good fruit, but I do not think they are as close as you often make them sound to be if you asked many of them. Though they accept the Catholic ideas of the Eucharist, I do not think they like how rigid and defined the West has made it, though I realize we have only done so because of the need to in different times and places. They do afterall think that their church is more correct theologically than ours is and I am glad we are getting these things out in the open with them.
As for Augustine's belief...I find this quote rather reassuring.
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
-"Sermons", [227, 21]
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 09:48 am |
|
Brian, I think you are saying the same thing as Rick, but in different words. It’s beginning to look like the whole problem is one of wording. And this was Rick’s initial response to you: the wording is different, but the meaning is the same.
Meanwhile, what you are not perceiving in your question of how the “doctrine” of the Real Presence (or any other doctrine, for that matter) could exist before it is officially defined is this: The answer is in what you have been quoting. We call it Tradition.
The doctrine of the Real Presence is in Scripture; this you have accepted. The doctrine was eventually defined by the Magisterium at the Council of Trent; this you have accepted. But there is a third leg to our stable “stool” of doctrine: Tradition. You need to recognize that as well.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
akatalutos wrote: Picking up on what you write, Rick, the argument has been put forth to me that the Egyptian Coptic church has apostolic roots and has always been separate from the Roman Catholic church; why therefore isn't it an equally legitimate branch of the church? Why (they say) do I run off and join Rome and not the Coptic church?
The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches that the Catholic Church considers legitimate. The Coptic Catholic Church is a similar Church fully united with Rome. Some of the great early Fathers of the Church came from the Coptic tradition, including Origen and Athanasius. Coptic Christianity, along with the other Oriental Churches, broke with Rome over the definition of the two natures of Christ in the 400's. Pope Benedict met with a representative of the Oriental Churches on his recent visit to Turkey.
You can find a good article on Coptic Orthodox Christianity in the Wikipedia. You can read about Coptic Catholics here.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:17 pm |
|
brian wrote: I am having a hard time understanding your seeming frustration with my question.
Brian, I apologize if it seems I was frustrated with you. I am not, but neither can I give you what doesn't exist.
The early challenges to the Eucharist were whether or not it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. The Church decided early on that it was indeed the Sacred Species. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium agreed on the Real Presence, as indicated in the Gospel of John, the writings of Paul, and the instructions of the early Fathers. However, that is still not a dogmatic pronouncement that explains exactly how that Presence is created. The Real Presence was denied by some, but that did not produce a definition beyond the statement that the Real Presence is real. No further description was necessary at the time.
Martin Luther was the first to challenge the method of transformation. He denied that the bread and wine were transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ; instead, he said, Christ became present along with the bread and wine. He said both realities remained. Others, such as John Calvin, taught that Jesus wasn't physically present at all; his presence was in the gathering of the congregation rather than in the bread and wine (which remained merely bread and wine).
In the face of these challenges, the Church at Trent responded by dogmatically defining exactly how the bread and wine become the Eucharist. That doesn't mean the Church "invented" a definition; it means that the Church took the writings of Scripture and Tradition, combined with the teachings of the Magisterium, and came up with a single word to describe the transformation. There was no dogmatic definition prior to that time because it wasn't considered necessary. Everyone either believed or they didn't.
It is basic human nature not to worry about exact definitions of things until a definition becomes necessary. This is the whole basis of English Common Law, which to this day controls much of the legal system of the United States. You can read about Common Law in the Wikipedia. You may be surprised to learn that large areas of law have never been legislated or defined, but it is true. (The legal system in Louisiana is based on the Napoleonic Code, which is much less dependent on common law.)
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:20 pm |
|
"And this was Rick’s initial response to you: the wording is different, but the meaning is the same."
But to what question have I asked was this the answer to? I never asked about Augustines quote that much, except for at first. Then Augustine kept being brought up as if I were challenging what was said. I was not the one who started this post. I was epcifically asking what we do know about defining the Eucharist if not from dogma.
Rick answered my question that Augustine believed the same we do, but in different words since his generation had not defined it. Then the matter was settled until I further saw a need to challenge that, which i never did. From there my question was one of how we see this doctrine carried out and taught if not formally done so until Trent. That is all I wanted to know. And Rick has been answering my question, but I felt like he is being defensive as if I am attacking the doctrine, when I am only asking questions about it. (which now that i see his last response, I suppose I am the one who is mis-interpreting his response and he is not frustrated with me, which is good to know)
What I find curious is how priests were trained and what we know about it and how we can find evidence that they were taught of the essence of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist and the fact that it was indeed Christ. I would think in order to train priests (even using tradition) there would be some sort of known ideas about why they did what they did and why the liturgy was written the way it was written with the Eucharistic prayers. To me the prayer where the priest askes the Holy Spirit to come down on the bread (anaphora?) that it may become for us the body and blood of Christ...when was this prayer written for instance, for its inclusion in the liturgy would say a lot to me on the implied understanding of tradtion. Or the prayers about it being a sacrifice offered, specifically the sacrifice of calvary in an unbloody manner. If there is no official statement until Trent, my question was then, what can we observe from tradition and the development of the liturgy that shows us that this belief was so universal, and it seems to me that quotes from the early Fathers and bishops and whatnot is the best way to go...and of course the testimony of scripture.
Sorry Rick, if I am saying anything that is misleading, or seemingly confrontational, I do not think we are on opposite sides, I only wanted to know what we can know from what sources if not official dogma. For instance you have answered, why never being seriously challenged no definition was needed, but I was looking for more examples of how we can establish that the Magisterium and Tradition of the church taught this. So I feel like maybe my question was not being answered, but you kept answering my earlier questions, which I have accepted as being answered.
So the dialogue has follwed...did Augustine believe in real presence: Yes, but sometimes worded differently than what we would understand.
Is there any official dogma on it prior to Trent: no
Is that a problem: no
So now all I want is to know if not dogma, than where do we see that the church taught the idea of the real presence early on.
So all I am still asking is how we can know what we know about how the liturgy was developed and priests trained in knowing what the mass and the belief in the real presence has been intended to be understood since the earliest times. Is it simply from quotations like the ones I found?
Anyway, Sorry for making this difficult. Please accpet my apology for being so weird about this. I really intend no problems and greatly respect the work that you all consistently do. I think maybe I am just overreacting to something or confused for some reason. My apologies, Rick. -
Last edited on Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:34 pm by brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 01:41 pm |
|
brian wrote: So all I am still asking is how we can know what we know about how the liturgy was developed and priests trained in knowing what the mass has been intended to do since the earliest times. Is it simply from quotations like the ones I found?
Actually, yes. If you study Church history, you will see that the training of priests prior to Trent was haphazard at best. It was left to the bishops to determine how to train them, and many of them were illiterate and had little knowledge at all. They were named bishops because they paid for the priviledge. Liturgies were not well defined, and differed from place to place. As a result of the collapse of Western civilization, the Church concentrated on monasteries to maintain the faith. Those who were educated received their education from monks, and the only sources of learning were the abbeys and monasteries, which were also responsible for maintaining knowledge through the Dark Ages. The best popes were monastics. This is basic world history.
The Eastern Churches were much better organized at the time because civilization in the East had not collapsed. Plagues and disease had not crossed the Alps, and government continued to function. The collapse of government in the East came with the Muslim invasions in the second millennium but even then, the Churches did not suffer as much as the Western Church did at the hands of the barbarians.
Popes became the most important people in the West because they were the only ones who had influence over everyone. They were considered so important that the French convinced them to move to Avignon, which helped to assure the prominence of France in international politics. The German princes were the first to really challenge their authority, and they used Martin Luther to do it. Luther protested legitimate problems in the Church, but the influence of the princes convinced him to break away and form his own Church. Politics drove the Protestant Revolution; doctrinal differences were merely the excuse.
The Church's response was the Council of Trent, which, for the first time in the West, mandated education for priests, a control on charges for administration of the sacraments, a defined liturgy, and other controls in the selection and education of priests and bishops, the relationship of clergy and faithful, and the establishment of the foundations of the Church that we know today.
If you want to look at ancient liturgies, look to the East. The liturgies in the Eastern Churches have been in constant use with only minor revisions since the earliest days of the Church. During the period prior to Trent, liturgies in the West were not cohesive, and most have not survived.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 02:51 pm |
|
| Interesting. I have got to read more church history. Is it safe to say that even though the western liturgies were not as consistent that they still maintained some sort of eucharistic celebration with consecration prayers and the understanding of the mass as a sacrifice? I am curious if their was so much difficulty in training priests, what things were obvious and easy enough for even an illiterate person to pass down.
|
|
|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 03:07 pm |
|
| Regardless of the differences, the bridges being built between Catholic and Orthodox (e.g., as you pointed out, the Pope's recent trip to Turkey) are highly encouraging.
|
|
|
akatalutos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Bible church, Presbyterian (PCA), Treading in Tiber |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 03:10 pm |
|
Ha, maybe if I wait long enough, the choice between Rome and Orthodox will become obsolete. 
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
|
| | |
