The original liturgy:
The Roman liturgy:
Irenaeus
After I posted Part 6: Irenaeus of Lyons, Timothy Kauffman posted a fantastic Twitter thread here that does a great job summarizing the issues. I’ve imported the thread in its entirety here, while adding links, explicit citations and references, and other markup. I’ve also added some of my own commentary at the end.
An ironic response to my use of Irenæus to show that the Eucharist offering of the ancient church was the tithe. Skogi produces this citation from Irenæus, accusing me of “quote mining,” thinking to prove Irenæus thought consecrated bread & wine—the Supper—was the oblation.
Irenæus, in Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 18, explicitly identifies “The oblation of the Church,” so it is highly regarded among scholars as evidence. But what did Irenæus think the oblation was?
That sure sounds like the tithe, doesn’t it? He goes on in the next paragraph, saying, like the Widow of Luke 21, Christians
and
Then he invokes the Philippians’ care for Paul’s needs,
because they were
Wow, this still sounds like the tithe offering! He continues in this same vein:
and then Matthew 25:
For some reason, Irenæus keeps on describing the first-fruit offering for the poor as the oblation.
Though Irenæus mentions the bread & cup, he does so only in the context of Eucharist as a Supper that follows a Eucharist oblation. But only the tithe is the oblation. The consecrated Supper was not. The tithe, not the Supper, was the oblation. Irenæus’ words bear this out.
The irony is that where Roman Catholics think Irenæus is describing their Sacrifice of Jesus’ body & blood, he actually refers to the tithe offering as the sacrifice. So what did the scholars do? They rewrote it to make his liturgy look more like the later medieval novelty.
The Roman Catholic camps on this section of Against Heresies:
The Catholic responds “Wow, that sounds like Transubstantiation! It’s the Sacrifice of Jesus’ body & blood!” The problem is Irenæus didn’t say that. Until 1743, we only had the Latin, which said bread becomes the Eucharist at the invocation of God—invocationem Dei.
But the Latin is known to be an awful translation (Schaff calls it “barbarous”[7]), and sure enough, when the original Greek was discovered, this passage was found to be a gross mistranslation. Where the Latin has “invocationem,” liturgists were expecting the Greek “epiclesis.”[8][9][10]
Had Irenæus written “epiclesis,” it could justify the English translation which says the bread becomes the Eucharist at the consecration, that is, at the “invocation (epiclesis) of God”. To their dismay, Irenæus said it becomes the Eucharist at the “ecclesin,” the “summons.”
So this section of Irenæus actually says,
So here’s a not very tricky question. When does God summon the bread? Anybody? When it is a tithe.
Since the previous chapter, Irenæus had been making the case that Malachi foresaw the tithe offerings of the Church as the “pure offering” of the Gentiles—a tithe that God summons.
What did Roman Catholics do with this exciting new information? Instead of Irenæus’ Greek correcting the barbarous Latin, they let the barbarous Latin correct Irenæus’ original Greek! They simply said Irenæus wrote “ecclesin” but “epiclesin is preferred”. Of course it is!
The effect of this redaction on Irenæus’ liturgy is to force him to say the “oblation of the Church,” the pure offering of Malachi’s prophecy, was the body of Christ in the Supper. That grotesque redaction is then brought forward by the ignorant to “prove” Rome’s liturgy.
What Irenæus wrote is that earthly bread, the fruit of our toil, becomes the Eucharist—the tithe—when the Lord summons it for His use (Mal 3:10). At that moment, it takes on a heavenly reality because it is not just earthly but also sanctified for His heavenly purposes.
Thus, Irenæus also says
Bread becomes the Eucharist at the tithe; the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ at the consecration.
And to Irenæus’ point in Book IV, in the same way the bread takes on a heavenly reality when it is tithed, our bodies take on a heavenly reality when we receive the Supper. Of course they do. Because we believe the spiritual significance of partaking of His body and blood.
This reading not only is based on Irenæus’ actual words (rather than what people wish he wrote), but it also doesn’t make him look like he’s crazy, saying throughout the chapter “The tithe is the oblation, no wait—it’s the Supper!—No wait it’s the tithe!” It’s ONLY the tithe.
[1]
We are bound, therefore, to offer to God the first-fruits of His creation, as Moses also says,
so that man, being accounted as grateful, by those things in which he has shown his gratitude, may receive that honour which flows from Him.
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book IV.” §18 ¶1
[2]
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book IV.” §18 ¶2
[3]
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book IV.” §18 ¶3
[4]
For it behooves us to make an oblation to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, in a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love, offering the first-fruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book IV.” §18 ¶4
[5]
For God, who stands in need of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His own good things, as our Lord says:
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book IV.” §18 ¶6
[6]
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book IV.” §18 ¶5
[7]
Citation: Phillip Schaff, “The Apostolic Fathers.” Introductory Note to Irenaeus Against Heresies
[8] Sancti Patris Irenæi Scripta Anecdota, Græca & Latine, Grabe, Johannes Ernesti, editor (Hagæ Comitum et Francofurti ad Moenum, 1743, preface 13.
[9] See James Beaven, M.A., An Account of the Life and Writings of S. Irenæus, 1841, 184; Migne (1857), PG, 7: 1028n, where he substitutes “επικλυσιν” as the “preferred” reading; Harvey, W. Wigan (1857), 205n-206, “επικλυσιν is evidently the reading followed by the [Latin] translator, and is that which the sense requires.”
[10] A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, Volume 42, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Against Heresies, Rev. John Keble, M.A., translator, James Parker & Col., 1872, 361.
[11] Timothy F. Kauffman, “Recovering Irenaeus.” Trinity Foundation (2019)
[12] Timothy F. Kauffman, “The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 2.” Out of His Mouth (2020)
[13]
Citation: Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies, Book V.” §2 ¶3
[14]
Citation: Phillip Schaff, “The Apostolic Fathers.” Chapter II
A few observations are in order.
First, the Latin manuscripts contained an error that was introduced. This change altered Irenaeus from calling the thanksgiving a sacrifice of the tithe to being a sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood (whether figuratively or literally is beside the point). Since this makes Irenaeus internally contradict himself and is only consistent with the later external doctrines, it strains credulity to suggest that this change was an accident. Somebody did this intentionally. A Roman Catholic translator decided to put words in the mouth of Irenaeus in conformance with his personal theology. This mistranslation is akin to Jerome translating the Greek musterion into the Latin sacramentum in the Latin Vulgate.
Second, this error persisted from c.450AD to 1743. During the Reformation, reformers using sola scriptura realized that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong, even though they could not prove it from the church fathers. The evidence of Irenaeus appeared to support Roman Catholicism, but the truth did not. Somehow the Reformers knew that they had to rely solely on scripture alone to know what the truth must be, even though history would only later prove them correct. This is a huge indictment on the Roman Catholic reliance on authority. To wit:
Latimer.— “Did Christ then offer himself at his supper?”
Pie.— “Yea, he offered himself for the whole world.”
Latimer.— “Then, if this word ‘do ye’ [Latin: facite], signify ‘sacrifice ye’ [Latin: sacrificare], it followeth, as I said, that none but priests only ought to receive the sacrament, to whom it is only lawful to sacrifice: and where find you that, I pray you?”
Weston.— “Forty years agone, whither could you have gone to have found your doctrine?”
Latimer.— “The more cause we have to thank God, that hath now sent the light into the world.”
Citation: John Foxe, “The Protestation of Dr. Hugh Latimer.” Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Book II. §XVI
Forty years after Luther’s theses, Weston would made his fallacious argument from authority and Latimer would be burned at the stake. Roman Catholics had willingly forged the evidence and as a consequence committed murder.
Third, when Roman Catholics were faced with the knowledge of their error, rather than realize that their belief had been wrong for a thousand years, they doubled down on the fiction.
This is why sola scriptura is critical. It is a monumental self-deception for Roman Catholics to believe that their Church will not lie to them about important matters of faith. By encouraging blind faith in church authority, Roman Catholics become gullible and unquestioning: unable to detect when heresy has taken root. This is why Roman Cahtolicism has the greatest number of ingrained heresies. It is the most susceptible to propaganda.
Meanwhile, Protestants have long been gullible and unquestioning because they had no ability to question. Consider how Latimer had no way to know that one day the Greek copy of Irenaeus would be found. What did all those Protestants do before the advent of the computer age, when access to the patristic writings exploded and inconsistencies were more easily uncovered? If the age of the Protestant was brought on by the printing press, the age of the sola scriptura has only come into its own in the computer age. It is now much easier to find the truth on your own. The ability to question is now significantly more legitimate, yet ironically Weston’s fallacious retort is just as popular today: those who find or acknowledge errors that have existed for a thousand years are viewed as if our doctrines are modern purely because the truth was only recently discovered. The truth? It was always ancient. It was always found by using sola scriptura.
So the Eucharist is the tithe for the poor instead of the consecrated bread and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ?
Betty,
According to the writers in the first 300 years of the church, the eucharist is the sacrificial giving of thanks, gratitude, prayers, praise, hymns, firstfruits, blessings, a pure and contrite heart and mind, service, and glory to God in fulfillment of Malachi 1. Eleven fathers explicitly made this connection to Malachi (see: Part 40: Conclusion).
According to the early writers, the eucharist tithe—which included bread, wine, cheese, ointment, milk, honey, grapes, olives, oil, raw grains, flour, dough, beer, incense, etc.—was an integral and necessary part (but not the whole) of the giving of thanks.
Until the late fourth century, the consecration—by the words of institution or epiclesis—happened after the bread and wine were offered (eucharisted per Justin Martyr in the second century) as part of the sacrifice (oblation) of thanksgiving (eucharist).
Many writers associated the eucharist with the tithe. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in Treatise 4 of “The Lord’s Prayer”:
“The blessed Apostle Paul, when aided in the necessity of affliction by his brethren, said that good works which are performed are sacrifices to God.
“I am full”,
says he.
“having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.” — Philippians 4:18
For when one has pity on the poor, he lends to God; and he who gives to the least gives to God — sacrifices spiritually to God an odour of a sweet smell.”
The sacrifice which was offered (per Paul in Philippians 4:18) is the self-same sacrifice prophesied by Malachi. And what does Cyprian associate Paul’s sweet smelling sacrifice with? Gifts for the poor, that is, one’s tithe.
Peace,
DR
See the commentary in today’s post “The Eucharist, Redux #1.” You can see how Ignatius did the same thing as Irenaeus and Cyprian.
The Gnostics didn’t have any regard for the poor and needy. They did not offer their tithes (eucharist).
Why not? Because they not consecrate the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ, because to do so they’d have to acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh. Gnostics couldn’t say “This is my body, this is my blood.”
You can also read Justin Martyr who also associates the eucharist with helping the poor.
Pingback: The Eucharist, Redux #1
Pingback: The Eucharist, Redux #2
So Derek, to the question
You responded
Irenaeus wrote
Derek, obviously Irenaeus’s understanding of THE EUCHARIST does not coincide with your definition. Let’s substitute your definition in Irenaeus’s statement.
Irenaeus’s statement is nonsense with your substitution Derek.
You also wrote Derek
So did Justin believe the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of our Lord or did he accept your definition.
Derek, try substituting your definition for THE EUCHARIST in Justin Martyr’s quotes above and it’s pure nonsense.
Derek you posted the translation
Now let’s substitute your definition of The Eucharist or The Thanksgiving
Derek, how can our actions of thanksgiving be “ the flesh
Betty,
I anticipated your response. Yesterday I posted “The Eucharist, Redux #2” which fully addressed this exact point.
Obviously? Hardly! The two statements are completely compatible.
If they wanted to, the early writers could have said that the prayers, hymns, service, oil, and cheese were all the eucharist. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, they did! They also could have referred to the eucharist both individually (part) and collectively (whole). And guess what? They did!
The early writers collectively referred to more than forty different things that are the eucharist. That’s a far cry from merely “bread and wine,” let alone “body and blood.” They even asserted that the various elements of the tithe remained the eucharist even when they were used for other purposes.
For example, when the oil offered in the eucharist (alongside the bread, wine, and other tithes) was used in the anointing during baptism, the oil was still the eucharist. The eucharist didn’t cease to be the eucharist simply because the tithes were put to use. Having been offered to God as a sacrfice in thanksgiving, they were holy and could not be un-thanked or un-offered.
Origen of Alexandria even went so far as to say that because the bread of the eucharist was holy, further consecrating it gave it a double portion!
Critically, for Irenaeus to say that the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, it must have already been the eucharist and remained the eucharist afterwards.
That’s correct: it is nonsense. Your substitution is a category error that commits the fallacy of “affirming the consequent.” You can’t substitute it, because you’re not substituting a definition (that is, formally, where both A⇒B and B⇒A are true) for another equivalent definition.
If you read what you wrote carefully, you’ll note that you performed the substitution, I did not. You’ve correctly detected the error in this approach, but falsely attributed your error onto me.
The source of your category error lies in the simple fact that there is a part-whole relationship where the early writers can (and did) refer to the “eucharist” either by the parts or by the whole. For example, you wrote…
…which rather plainly demonstrates the absurdity of your substitution approach.
It’s absurd to think that you can just find-and-replace something without considering the context. You can’t replace it with the whole where the part is warranted, nor swap in the part where the whole is being discussed, nor substitute one part for another part when a specific part is referred.
See, I’ve never claimed that the oil of the eucharist is the flesh of Christ, only that it is the eucharist. But since the oil is the eucharist, what do you personally do with statements that the eucharist—which includes the oil—is the flesh of Christ? I know what I do: I do not substitute the oil of eucharist (or the wine, or any other action of thanksgiving) for the bread of eucharist. But, what do you do?
Two days ago I foresaw this objection too, because your methods follow the standard “copy-and-paste apologetics” approach. In “The Eucharist, Redux #1,” I discuss this exact quote (which says the opposite of what you are saying that it says).
Compare the translation you supplied…
the food which has been made into the Eucharist
by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him
is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus
…with these three translations:
Your translation is easily the most biased (and mistranslated) one I’ve seen so far. It’s not even faithful to the other Roman Catholic translations! On the scale of translation methods—formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase—it is an example of the latter.
Do you even know where you got that quotation from, or is it a blind copy-and-paste?
I’ll tell you. It comes from William A. Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1.” §128, p.55 (1970). Here is how Wikipedia describes him:
William A. Jurgens (July 3, 1928 — September 1, 1982) was an American Roman Catholic priest, composer, historian, musician, and translator of patristic and other works.
Do you own a copy? Did you look it up yourself?
I suspect that you simply copied-and-pasted it, because your quotation from the “Dialogue from Trypho, 41” has been altered from the original found on page 60 of Jurgen’s work. I did a Google search for the altered text and found 27 results containing your altered quotation. Of these only one (here) fully cited the source. As far as I can tell from Google, no one on the internet has ever accurately quoted and fully cited Jurgens’ original.
If you didn’t know where that quote came from, then I hope you feel some shame for uncritically authoritatively quoting such an obviously biased source.
Instead of reasoning and analyzing, you appear merely to be blindly regurgitating. This brings nothing new to the table and is not constructive criticism. Although I more-or-less allow anyone to comment whatever they want here, I still expect a higher standard than most blogs. If you are going to make claims, they shouldn’t be unsubstantiated or merely copy-and-paste. If you can’t meet those high standards, you won’t be censored, but these acts will be repeatedly exposed (and any vacuous claims summarily dismissed).
The analysis contained on this blog goes way beyond quote-dumping. For example, in “The Eucharist, Redux #2,” I found during my analysis eleven patristic writers who explicitly made the connection between the thanksgiving (eucharist) of the church and the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi, while none of them—none!—ever associated Jesus’ sacrifice with that of Malachi. I also found numerous implicit and inferential support for the same. This is substantive analysis that goes well beyond dumping quotes. It is disrespectful to respond to such specific analysis with general-purpose copy-and-paste apologetics.
The fact that I could write two articles that responded to your objections that you hadn’t even made yet should give you great pause.
Peace,
DR
Derek, sorry for my delay in getting back to you. Would love to look at those quotes that you say are taken out of context. You wrote
Now I don’t know if you have attended a Mass but let’s look at Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lectures
“Catechetical Lecture 22” (New Advent)
And
“Catechetical Lecture 23” (New Advent)
Derek, “6th or 7th Century”? Cyril of Jerusalem lived from AD 315-386. I didn’t “copy and paste” a snippet because I did not want to be accused of taking a Church Father out of context.
Now there is a reason Protestant apologist don’t provide long lists of Church Father’s quotes to support their position on doctrinal issues. Their lists would be minuscule compared to those quotes provided by Catholics. So instead they take a few quotes and claim they are taken out of context. But they don’t just provide the context, but then add their own commentary, usually numerous paragraphs trying to argue that the Father didn’t really mean what he wrote. The Fathers repeatedly tell us the consecrated bread and wine is THE EUCHARIST, the Body and Blood of Christ. Derek and Timothy Kauffman say THE EUCHARIST is the tithe. Derek, do you have any quotes from the Fathers explicitly stating “The tithe is THE EUCHARIST “. We know the Tithe is a Thanksgiving or Eucharistic offering but I am not aware of the Fathers proclaiming the tithe to be THE EUCHARIST.
Betty,
Yes, this is the claim of the Catholic Encyclopedia. What reason do I have for taking your private, personal interpretation over that of the Roman Catholic scholars? Given that claims about Cyril conflict with the Roman Catholics, are you now a Protestant to be disagreeing with them? If so, then I welcome you.
Yes. I was present for one earlier this year, where I observed without participating. Unlike many Catholics, I’m also aware of the order of the mass (which Nick Broom provided), including the required and optional elements.
Thus, despite requiring seven Amens, the apostolic corporate Amen is missing from the Roman rite.
So, yes, I’m well aware that the Roman rite doesn’t match that described by the earliest writers, including that of Cyril.
That’s demonstrably false. Proof-texting and quote-mining are often not very persuasive methods of rational argument, so their absence implies nothing negative. In particular, quote-mining is not a rigorous form of intellectual examination, and so its avoidance is evidence of intellectual honesty.
That’s a speculative, sweeping, and unsubstantiated claim. It’s also an ad hominem. Why are you so eager to attack the motivations of Protestant apologists rather than accept that Roman Catholic apologists can and do recklessly take quotes out of context?
Consider how in “Part 24: Cyril of Jerusalem” I took Fish Eater’s citation and merely cited the complete sentence in order to refute it. I claimed that it was taken out of context, and then I showed it to be true. Shouldn’t you be praising me for exposing the Roman Catholic apologist’s out-of-context usage, such as the abuse of the work of Jurgens? Why are you, instead, concerned with irrelevancies such as the size of the quote-bank of unnamed hypothetical Protestant apologists? Are you not merely deflecting from the inadequacies in your argument?
I’m still waiting for that explanation of your handling of the Jurgens citations.
That’s a non sequitur. The number of paragraphs and the length of the argument is irrelevant.
In one question you were able to deny what Cyril really meant, so clearly the length does not determine the merit of a claim. A more efficient non sequitur is still without value.
Of course they do. They also repeatedly say that 40+ other things are THE EUCHARIST, including oil, milk, and cheese. They also repeatedly use terms like symbol, type, antitype, figure, example, allegory, icon, likeness, and commemoration to describe the consecrated elements. For three hundred years they do this both explicitly and implicitly without ever once explicitly describing them as literal. Even the example of Cyril that you quoted describes them as symbols! As I showed, I couldn’t find a single writer up to and including the 4th century who abandoned the symbolic explanation, even among those late 4th century writers who offered the body and blood of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.
You can say “The fathers understood the consecrated bread and wine as the eucharist” and you’ll get nothing but agreement from me. But the moment you assert that they believed that the eucharist was only the bread and wine, or that the consecrated bread and wine were literally the body and blood of Christ, I’ll give you dozens of citations proving these assertions to be incorrect.
During my series, I provided many quotes in which the tithe for the poor was described as the eucharist. Your demand for evidence that I’ve already provided is sealioning.
I think you may projecting. During my 40-part series, I found zero attestations prior to the 5th century that any writer viewed the eucharist as the literal body and blood of Christ. So when I see you demanding that I prove that a “Father” called the tithe “the eucharist,” I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws. Having found no evidence of Roman Catholicism, you can only hope that I also cannot find any evidence that the eucharist included the tithe. But the evidence of the early liturgy is attested in dozens of writings.
Regardless, as I pointed out, your question is fundamentally invalid and loaded. It presupposes that which isn’t true, and so has no proper answer.
In particular, it goes against what “Justin Martyr” taught: that the bread and wine were (already) eucharisted when the words of Christ were invoked over a portion of the eucharist. Notice that Justin Martyr uses the verb form to describe what you have demanded be expressed as a noun with a definite article.
As I’ve just shown, your (unsubstantiated!) attempt to distinguish between “a” thanksgiving and “the” thanksgiving isn’t valid, let alone persuasive. Furthermore, while I’ve certainly seen these distinctions made in English in bad Roman Catholic translations (as in the Jurgens quotation you provided), I’ve not seen any Roman Catholic make this argument on the basis of the Greek. Feel free to substatiate your claim, if you can.
Now, let’s look at the Catechetical Lectures.
——————————————————————
In his 12th, he writes…
…of the figure of the bread.
——————————————————————
In his 18th, he writes that what we offer to God as sacrifice (per Malachi 1:11) are our blessings, praise, and glorifying God. Completely absent is any reference to the body and blood of Christ.
——————————————————————
In his 19th, he writes…
…indicating that he believed that the bread becomes the body of Christ in the same way that the meat sacrificed to idols becomes the flesh and blood of Satan. But of course Satan doesn’t have a literal flesh and blood, because Cyril was speaking of symbols, of making something holy or profane (rather than making it literal).
——————————————————————
In his 21st, he writes that when the invocation of the Holy Spirit takes place, the bread becomes the symbol of the flesh of Christ while the ointment becomes the symbol of the divinity of Christ.
——————————————————————
In his 22nd, he writes…
Cyril explicitly denies the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53 that Jesus was inviting them to eat his flesh. Rather, he asserts that the flesh was the Word of God. When one eats the bread of the communion, the physical bread provides physical sustenance, while the spiritual bread—the Word of God—nourishes our soul.
Cyril’s explicit views explicitly contradict the doctrine of transubstantiation. His argument is indistinguishable from the standard Protestant explanation of John 6.
——————————————————————
In his 23rd, he writes…
As before, he uses the language of symbols to describe the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. Now read how he treats the (supposedly literal) body and blood of Christ:
That’s right, take that bread—which is the body of Christ—moisten it with a little wine from your lips and then touch it all over your face: eyes, brows, ears, mouth, lips, nose, and skin. So horrified are Roman Catholics at this teaching that many scholars assert that Catechetical Lecture 23 is not authentic.
Your own Roman Catholics think that Catechetical Lecture 23 is a fraudulent piece of work, so why would any of my readers squirm? I’m more interested in hearing why you have cited it authoritatively when your own scholars reject it because it deviates so heavily from the Roman rite. What evidence do you have that it is authentic and how do you handle Cyril’s anti-Catholic sentiment?
The next time you go to Mass, after you’ve leaned forward to take a sip of the wine, grab that bread and after moistening it with a bit of the wine from your lips, touch it all over your face. Make sure to put it to your eyes, ears, and nose! Oh, and make sure your priest uses leavened bread, as Cyril did. Make sure to correct him if he uses unleavened bread, just as you’ve corrected me, by pointing out that Cyril’s liturgy is the correct one.
Let me know how your priest reacts.
Peace,
DR
Derek, I hope anyone that follows your blog will review the catechetical lectures of Cyril. I can understand how those lectures describing the Mass so clearly would cause a Protestant apologist to squirm. I’m not sure how we are expected to post quotes from the Fathers without cutting and pasting?
Betty,
Don’t think that I didn’t notice that you were unable or unwilling to address the points I raised. Responding to comments with new challenges—instead of responses—is sealioning behavior (“a pretense of civility and sincerity”). Considering your apparent mishandling of the Jurgens material, I want to warn you right now that any future bad faith argumentation will be aggressively exposed, especially if you refuse to acknowledge or repent.
Charges have been leveled at your regarding your handling of the Jurgens material. What have you to say about that?
——————————————————————
“Cyril of Jerusalem” wrote around 350 AD, the dawn of the second half of the fourth century when Roman Catholicism arose. He’s the first known canonical author to describe an altered liturgy. One could argue that Cyril is the first true father of Roman Catholicism, so of course my readers would not be surprised to find that his liturgy deviates from the one attested by the ancients before (and after) him, as shown in this graphic. Without Cyril’s novelties, perhaps there would have been no Roman Catholic Church!
Nevertheless, Cyril’s liturgy isn’t compatible with the later Roman Rite, as Roman Catholic scholars attest.
I have yet to fully respond to your comment. However, so unoriginal are copy-and-paste apologists, that I have already addressed both catechetical lectures that you have cited there, so all I’ll be doing is repeating myself having already refuted these objections. You could just read the article, respond to that, and save me from having to copy-and-paste.
In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why Cyril’s eucharist included ointment in “Catechetical Lecture 21?”
Peace,
DR
Cyril wrote
Derek, where does Cyril write “the ointment is THE EUCHARIST “. I ask again where does any Church Father state “The tithe is THE EUCHARIST “.
Betty,
He says so in the quote you have provided.
You are not the first person—nor will you be the last—to insist that because a writer didn’t order words in precisely the way that you demand that he couldn’t possibly have been saying what he says.
Your reasoning is fallacious and your corresponding demand is invalid.
There exists more than one way to say the same thing. Just because Cyril didn’t use a particular arrangement of words didn’t mean he wasn’t conveying the exact same meaning through some other arrangement of words. I don’t need to find a citation that says precisely what you want, because the citation you provided is functionally equivalent.
Let me illustrate the fallacious nature of your objection:
Even if I did provide you an exact quote, you could just demand that I produce some other wording instead. After all, it’s curious that you are demanding a noun and definite article when you could just as easily accept, for example, the past tense verb form (as with “Justin Martyr“). It is as if you know that the evidence exists to counter your belief, but you’ve already decided to exclude it. To wit:
So…
…is precisely what you asked for: the bread and the ointment become the fleshly and divine nature of Christ (respectively) when the Holy Spirit is invoked, that is, when they (according to Cyril) are offered to God. So how is it that the bread which is offered to God as sacrifice is the eucharist? Was it the eucharist before invocation of the Holy Spirit or did it become that upon invocation? Either way, your assertion is unfounded. Either way, the bread and the ointment are the eucharist, for either both are offered in advance or both are offered in the invocation.
If you wish Cyril had used fewer, simpler, or different words to say the same thing, you can take it up with him. I have no obligation to pretend that he meant anything other than what he said. Of course, you can choose to think Cyril means something else, but you can’t deny that my reading of Cyril is completely reasonable.
Now, did you notice that your quotation shows that after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the thing that is changed—bread and oil—is changed symbolically and not literally? Cyril confirms this in his other writings too.
Why would anyone fail to conclude that Cyril is saying that upon invocation, the bread (symbolically) becomes the human nature of Christ while the ointment (symbolically) becomes the divine nature of Christ? The bread and the oil combine in one invocation to represent the Trinitarian incarnational understanding of Christ as having a fleshly nature and a divine nature.
If you want to conclude that the early church offered multiple completely separate sacrifices (of bread and wine separately from oil, cheese, praise, hymns, etc.), you’re going to have show evidence of that and then ask yourself why there is only one sacrifice (instead of multiple) offered in the Roman Catholic Church. Your unsubstantiated assertions are not sufficient. My explanation explains, while yours fails to explain anything, it merely tells.
In any case, you’ve sidestepped the primary issue, which is where did the anointing oil come from? The answer is the altar of the eucharist (see: here, here, here, and here).
What makes the ointment holy is being offered as part of the sacrifice at the altar. The reason the bread is holy is the same reason the oil is holy: both were offered sacrificially with the invocation of the Holy Spirit. They are both the eucharist because they are both offered as sacrifice—made holy—at the altar. You have to try really hard not to understand what Cyril is saying here, as he sees the bread and the oil as parallel (“as” and “so also”) elements of the sacrificial offering.
Furthermore, like the eighth sacrament “Laying on of Hands Regeneration,” Roman Catholics do not believe that the invocation of the Holy Spirit transubstantiates the oil into the literal divine nature of Christ. There is no corresponding “transubstantiation” of the oil. Yet, for some reason, you think that Cyril is describing the invocation of the Holy Spirit to convert the Bread into the literal body of Christ, which is awfully strange because Cyril doesn’t agree.
Other Roman Catholic Apologists take this quotation and say that “the Bread of the Eucharist … is no more … common after invocation,” to assert the doctrine of transubstantiation. Somehow they understand that Cyril is treating the ointment and bread together. Are they wrong? Which of these mutually exclusive positions is the correct one? Has your “infallible authority” ruled on this yet?
And I answer again.
What you are asking for—a definition—is an improper request; a loaded question. The thanksgiving is the sacrificial offertory from whence the tithe is offered alongside the other thanksgiving offerings as a free will sacrifice. What is offered is both collectively and individually referred to as the eucharist (and not just with nouns preceded by definite articles!). Many church fathers attest this.
Is there something unclear that makes you ask this question after I have already answered it?
Peace,
DR
Derek, you are losing it!
“…is precisely what you asked for: the bread and the ointment become the fleshly and divine nature of Christ (respectively) when the Holy Spirit is invoked”
Where does Cyril or any Church Fathers ever say that the ointment becomes the fleshly and divine nature of Christ? The consecrated ointment Is “made fit to impart the Divine Nature”. You say the Church Fathers don’t have to say “The tithe is the Eucharist” to prove your point, then at the same time when numerous Church Fathers tell us the bread and wine which is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ IS the Eucharist, you say no it’s not. This is insanity!
————————————–
Derek, as usual you are putting words into the mouth of the Church Fathers.
“Sure, Cyril still viewed the body and blood of Christ as figurative (thus, bloodless) symbols (not transubstantiation). Here he explicitly calls them “anti-typical” (or symbolic). “.
First, Cyril never calls the Eucharist “Figurative Symbols”, and “anti-typical” does not mean symbolic, it refers to the relationship between a type and it’s antitype.
Cyril wrote as you know
“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood , and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber Matthew 9:15, shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood ?
Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter,”
Now why in the world would Cyrus have referred to the MIRACLE at Canna in a discussion on the Eucharist if he thought the Eucharist was just a symbol? Derek, do you think the water turned into wine at Canna was just symbolic wine?
————————————–
But Justin Martyr wrote
“Chapter 41. The oblation of fine flour was a figure of the Eucharist
Justin: And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.”
Irenaeus wrote
“He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)”
But Derek you wrote
“All of these were offered to God[1] during the thanksgiving during each gathering of believers for worship.
These had their origin in the ancient Hebrew practice of the thank offering, a freewill offering to God.[2] The Hebrew scriptures describe bread, meat, thanksgiving, praise, and song as thanksgiving sacrifices freely offered.
The OT Law mandated 10% tithe offerings to support the priesthood and the poor. This same purpose carried over into the early church. But, like the Widow’s Mite, the giving of the ‘tithe’ in the church is nonspecific and voluntary: it is a free will offering[3] used to support those in need[4].[5]”
Derek, you are offering the sacrifices of the Old Testament, you said so yourself. Irenaeus says we offer the NEW sacrifice of the NEW COVENANT. And Justin Martyr reviews the Last Supper and links the prophecy of Malachi to “the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist”. It is the Eucharist!!!
Betty,
I’m afraid that the colorful criticisms in your comment are utterly without merit.
“Derek, you are losing it! Where does Cyril or any Church Fathers ever say that the ointment becomes the fleshly and divine nature of Christ?”
Um, that’s not what I said. I believe you missed the word “respectively” in what I wrote:
“…the bread and the ointment become the fleshly and divine nature of Christ (respectively)…”
You might also want to review that quote again:
Upon invocation—by the prayer of the eucharist—the bread becomes the body (the fleshly nature) and the ointment becomes the divine nature. Cyril contrasts the human vs. the divine in the bread and the ointment (respectively). The middle of the fourth century—when Cyril wrote this—was during the height of the explication of trinitarian doctrine and the incarnational theology: when the dual nature of Christ was fully fleshed out. Cyril uses the duality of the bread and the ointment to reflect the duality of the Jesus’ nature.
Treating the bread and the ointment as if they were “separate eucharists” (or “the eucharist” and “a eucharist”) makes no sense of the context of Cyril’s other works, the context of the theology of that era, or the context of the other early writers.
“The consecrated ointment Is “made fit to impart the Divine Nature”.”
Correct. When the oil was applied to the person, it was actually the divine nature being applied not ointment. Or at least it would have been if bread was transubstantiated into the literal human substance and ointment was transubstantiated into the literal divine substance. But, of course neither were the case, since transubstantiation hadn’t been invented yet. The bread did not literally change, nor did the ointment literally change. Just as the ointment was symbolically applied…
…so too was the bread of the eucharist consumed as the symbol of the body of Christ after the invocation of the Holy Spirit. The bread and ointment are analogs.
“[W]hen numerous Church Fathers tell us the bread and wine which is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ IS the Eucharist, you say no it’s not. This is insanity!”
As above, this is a failure of reading comprehension. Here is what I have written:
“If they wanted to, the early writers could have said that the prayers, hymns, service, oil, and cheese were all the eucharist. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, they did! They also could have referred to the eucharist both individually (part) and collectively (whole). And guess what? They did!”
“The early writers collectively referred to more than forty different things that are the eucharist. That’s a far cry from merely “bread and wine,” let alone “body and blood.” They even asserted that the various elements of the tithe remained the eucharist even when they were used for other purposes.”
“Origen of Alexandria even went so far as to say that because the bread of the eucharist was holy, further consecrating it gave it a double portion! Critically, for Irenaeus to say that the eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, it must have already been the eucharist and remained the eucharist afterwards.”
And here also:
“The thanksgiving is the sacrificial offertory from whence the tithe is offered alongside the other thanksgiving offerings as a free will sacrifice. What is offered is both collectively and individually referred to as the eucharist“
And, of course, here too:
“Even within the offering of firstfruits and tithes—an integral and necessary part (but not the whole) of the giving of thanks—the early writers describe a wide variety of things which were offered by the faithful as part of their eucharist. “
I have never once denied that the consecrated bread and wine are the eucharist.
That said, since the Roman Catholic’s bread and wine are not gifts given by the congregation, collected at the altar, and corporately offered as a sacrifice of unconsecrated tithes as part of the thanksgiving offering, it would seem that the Roman Catholic’s consecration of bread and wine cannot be called the eucharist, for it was never properly eucharisted. So I do assert that the Roman Catholic bread and wine are, in particular, not the eucharist. So for the first time publicly, I am denying that this particular consecrated bread and wine are the eucharist.
Anyway, since the unconsecrated bread and wine are the eucharist, so the consecrated bread and wine must, logically, also still be the eucharist. In fact, because the early writers describe both the unconsecrated and consecrated bread and wine as the eucharist, this shows that they do not literally change upon consecration, as is attested up to and including the fourth century (and even into the fifth).
Perhaps you are confused because “eucharist” can refer to the general act of offering thanksgiving as well as the specific things that are offered. But again, I’ve made this clear.
The fact that unconsecrated bread and wine are called the eucharist is why “THE EUCHARIST” is the tithe, because it is “THE EUCHARIST” before it is the consecrated communion elements. But even if, for sake of argument, I granted that “THE EUCHARIST” was not the tithe, “THE EUCHARIST” still couldn’t strictly and solely be the elements of the Lord’s Supper prior to their consecration. “THE EUCHARIST” would have to be something else entirely, something you have not posited.
“Derek, as usual you are putting words into the mouth of the Church Fathers.”
That’s an interesting claim. Let’s see if you can substantiate it, shall we.
“Cyril never calls the Eucharist “Figurative Symbols”, and “anti-typical” does not mean symbolic, it refers to the relationship between a type and it’s antitype.”
There is a major problem with this claim. Let me cite a Roman Catholic expert that you are familiar with personally:
By your own attestation, an antitype is a symbol.
In Catechetical Lecture 22, he explicitly calls the bread and wine figures. In Catechetical Lecture 21, he refers to symbols. These are all based on the Roman Catholic translations found at New Advent. And, per your own attestation, you agree with New Advent that the English term “symbol” is a valid translation of the Greek word for antitype. So I’m forced to conclude that your statement “Cyril never calls the Eucharist “Figurative Symbols”, and “anti-typical” does not mean symbolic” is not only false, but you knew it to be false when you made the claim. Did you think you could get away with lying about it?
So, no, I’m not putting words into Cyril’s mouth, I’m just quoting what the Roman Catholics believe.
Also, both Basil of Caesarea (d.379) and John of Damascus (d.749) attested that the bread and wine were antitypes before they were consecrated, because (according to John) they were still symbols?
“Now why in the world would Cyrus have referred to the MIRACLE at Canna in a discussion on the Eucharist if he thought the Eucharist was just a symbol? Derek, do you think the water turned into wine at Canna was just symbolic wine?”
There is an error in your reasoning. Cyril actually said that the bread and wine were figures. So your question is improperly stated, because regardless of what he said about the water to wine, we already know that he said the bread and wine of the eucharist are symbols. It would be a logical contradiction to say that Cyril was referring to wine turning into literal blood when he explicitly stated that it was a figure. I suggest you come up with an alternative explanation that makes sense of this fact instead of demanding that I explain it for you.
But I’ll be kind and explain it anyway, by expanding the context:
“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood , and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? When called to a bodily marriage, He miraculously wrought that wonderful work; and on the children of the bride-chamber Matthew 9:15, shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood? Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him.”
A figure. It is clear that in the figure of the wine, but blood is represented. The blood is the figure, or symbolic representation, of the wine. Yes, indeed.
I think the problem you have is that you don’t think that the wine is actually changed when it becomes the figure of Christ’s blood. You think it must be literally and physically changed to be actually changed, but that’s your own presumption, not that of Cyril. You have trouble with granting a mere figure—an abstraction—actual reality.
All you need to do is put aside this presumption, and the apparent contradiction you’ve created simply disappears.
“Derek, you are offering the sacrifices of the Old Testament, you said so yourself. Irenaeus says we offer the NEW sacrifice of the NEW COVENANT.”
That’s a non sequitur. The Old Testament and the New Covenant are not opposed, indeed, it is the prophecy of Malachi (and not just Malachi) contained in the Old Testament that is fulfilled in the New Covenant. Even the Jews, who were outside the New Covenant, understood the Old Testament thanksgiving as the only thing to remain after the Messiah came!
“And Justin Martyr reviews the Last Supper and links the prophecy of Malachi to “the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist”. It is the Eucharist!!!”
Per “Justin Martyr,” the prophecy of Malachi is fulfilled in the bread and cup of the eucharist. Justin offered unconsecrated bread and wine as his Eucharist. His tithes, alongside his prayers and giving of thanks, were his eucharist.
When the Roman Catholics attest that the Roman rite began in the 6th or 7th century, this logically excludes Justin Martyr from having described the same. In fact, the whole point is that Justin Martyr’s liturgy doesn’t match Rome’s liturgy. That’s the “chief difficulty” they are describing!
If you are reading Justin Martyr and finding the Roman liturgy instead of a chief difficulty, then that’s your own bias speaking, not Justin Martyr. That’s how you know you are deceiving yourself, because it’s not possible for Justin Martyr to be describing the Roman liturgy.
You should be scrambling, trying with great difficulty to find a plausible explanation for why my stance is not automatically correct by default. That, instead, you are ignoring my arguments—while boldly proclaiming how correct you are—indicates that you don’t really understand the difficulty that you face. It’s the proverbial head-in-the-sand.
You seem to think your personal interpretations and opinions are superior to the ones your church has stated. Why are your resisting becoming a Protestant, as you effectively act like one.
Peace,
DR
[This is Timothy F. Kauffman’s comment, reposted here]
Antitype in Greek simply means the counterpart or opposite. Opposite when two are paired against each other as a coin to its opposite image on the stamp, or counterpart when two share similar attributes but not equivalency, as in 2nd Clement chapter 14 (It was originally attributed to Clement of Rome, which has since been disproven, but it is considered authentically from that era). The pseudoClement writes,
“No one then who corrupts the copy (ἀντίτυπον, antitype), shall partake of the original (αυθεντικον, authentikon)”.
What is profoundly hilarious about this particular citation is that when scholars read the early Greek sources they are constantly confronted with the uncomfortable truth that the word antitype back then was not used the way we use it today; so there are constantly footnotes and caveats explaining that the early sources used it in a way that is different than how we would define it today. So what to do about the pseudo Clement who said the antitype is the copy and not the original? Easy! Just reverse them so that it makes sense to today’s readers!
One translation of 2 Clement simply inserts the wrong words to make it make sense (I’m inserting the Greek here so you can see just how profoundly misleading the attempted English rendering is):
“no one, therefore, having corrupted the type (ἀντίτυπον, antitype), will receive afterwards the antitype (αυθεντικον, authentikon).”
Well, that’s not how scholars are supposed to handle things but that is exactly what they did. In the original, the pseudo-Clement used “antitype” to refer to the “copy,” contrasting it with the true original, the authentikon.
Cyril of Jerusalem used antitype in a similar way when he calls the Unction “the antitype of the Holy Ghost.”
“And to you in like manner, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given an Unction, the anti-type (αντιτυπον) of that wherewith Christ was anointed;” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 21, paragraph 1)
Oil and the Holy Spirit are not against each other in Cyril’s lecture—they share attributes but not equivalency. Cyril did not mean that the oil is the fulfillment or reality of the rough draft of the Holy Spirit. He did not mean that the unction is the reality represented by the symbol of the Holy Ghost. In sum, he did not use the term the way modern English dictionaries—Websters, British, Vocab Malone—attempt to define it.
[This is Timothy F. Kauffman’s comment, reposted here]
Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Mysteries, II on Baptism:
“those things [baptism], which were done by you in the inner chamber, were symbolic [συμβολα]” (paragraph 1).
In paragraph 4 he says this is all symbolical,
“you made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again; here also hinting by a symbol [συμβολικου] at the three days burial of Christ.”
Then paragraph 6 he says baptism
“is the antitype [ἀντίτυπον] of the sufferings of Christ.”
Not only does Cyril use “antitype” and “symbol” interchangeably when referring to Baptism as an image or figure of Christ’s death, but he calls Baptism the “antitype” of the sufferings of Christ. By all the definitions you have provided, Cyril must have meant that Christ’s sufferings were only the “type,” and that Baptism is Christ’s sufferings “in its more full state,” making baptism the fulfillment of Christ sufferings, that were just a foreshadowing, or a type.
Again, On the Mysteries, III, on Chrism,
“And to you in like manner, … there was given an Unction, the anti-type (αντιτυπον) of that wherewith Christ was anointed;” (paragraph 1).
Unction is the act of applying oil to the forehead, and in paragraph 3 he says that unction is “symbolical” (xσυμβολικως). By all the definitions you have provided, Cyril must have meant the Holy Spirit was only the “type” of Himself, and that Oil is the Holy Spirit “in its more full state.”
Now John of Damascus clearly understood the significance of “anti-type” as a “symbol” because he insisted that nobody would call the bread and wine anti-type unless they were doing so prior to the consecration, when they were still only symbolic. He believed that after the consecration, the bread and wine were really the body and blood of Christ, and therefore were not antitypes anymore:
“But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes [αντιτυπα] of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration, so calling the offering itself.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, chapter 13, paragraph)
Betty,
Where does Cyril or any Church Fathers ever say that the ointment becomes the fleshly and divine nature of Christ? The consecrated ointment Is “made fit to impart the Divine Nature”.
Do you see a meaningful difference between my description of Cyril’s belief…
“the ointment is the divine nature”
…and what Cyril wrote?
“the ointment is made fit to impart the divine nature”
If the application of the ointment imparts the divine nature, then that which is applied must be the divine nature which is imparted by that application. That’s the same literal “logic” behind transubstantiation. Wouldn’t you agree?
How can you argue that the wine is actual, literal, physical blood while denying that the ointment is the actual, literal, spiritual divine nature? That’s suspicious, for as the wine is consumed and the ointment is applied, both have meaning beyond mere mundane actions.
Now, consider these two statements.
Catechetical Lecture 21:
“For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and your other senses ; and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.”
On the Mysteries III:
“And to you in like manner, … there was given an Unction, the anti-type (αντιτυπον) of that wherewith Christ was anointed;”
To Cyril, the unction—the application of the ointment—is:
(1) the symbolic imparting of the divine nature by the arrival of the Holy Spirit
(2) the symbol of the Holy Spirit
So, how can the action of anointing both be the symbol of Holy Spirit himself and also the arrival of the Holy Spirit at the same time? Did Cyril believe that the act of applying ointment was literally the Holy Spirit and also the arrival of the Holy Spirit, which is to say,
“the holy spirit is the arrival of the holy spirit.”
This formulation is just as absurd as that made by TimothyP, to which Timothy Kauffman responded:
“Unction is the act of applying oil to the forehead, and in paragraph 3 he says that unction is “symbolical” (xσυμβολικως). By all the definitions you have provided, Cyril must have meant the Holy Spirit was only the “type” of Himself, and that Oil [“antitype”] is the Holy Spirit “in its more full state.””
Cyril’s statements don’t work if taken strictly literally.
The rather obvious answer to these difficulties is plain if Cyril is speaking in symbolic figures-of-speech. His words are perfectly understandable if you accept that he was speaking of symbols. And since he repeatedly says that he is speaking of symbols, you’d have to be insane…
This is insanity!
…to insist in understanding what he says literally. Wouldn’t you agree?
Obviously I don’t actually believe that the ointment really is the divine nature, nor do I think that Cyril believed that. Similarly, neither I nor Cyril believed that the wine was actually blood. As should be painfully obvious at this point, Cyril was speaking using symbols.
Peace,
DR
Derek, you wrote
“That’s an interesting claim. Let’s see if you can substantiate it, shall we.
“Cyril never calls the Eucharist “Figurative Symbols”, and “anti-typical” does not mean symbolic, it refers to the relationship between a type and it’s antitype.”
There is a major problem with this claim. Let me cite a Roman Catholic expert that you are familiar with personally:
By your own attestation, an antitype is a symbol.
In Catechetical Lecture 22, he explicitly calls the bread and wine figures. In Catechetical Lecture 21, he refers to symbols. These are all based on the Roman Catholic translations found at New Advent. And, per your own attestation, you agree with New Advent that the English term “symbol” is a valid translation of the Greek word for antitype. So I’m forced to conclude that your statement “Cyril never calls the Eucharist “Figurative Symbols”, and “anti-typical” does not mean symbolic” is not only false, but you knew it to be false when you made the claim. Did you think you could get away with lying about it?”
Derek, I am flattered that you would go back and review my old posts but it you reviewed the entire discussion on Fragment 7 from Irenaeus you would have seen I was challenging Timothy for inserting (ie symbols) after the word Antitype in the translation provided of Irenaeus’s quote. The entire quote
From the following Fragment of Irenaeus
XXXVII.
Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of’ the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” as John also declares in the Apocalypse: “The incense is the prayers of the saints.” Then again, Paul exhorts us “to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” And again, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God “in spirit and in truth.” And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.”
Timothy had inserted (ie symbols ) after Antitypes which of course would have Irenaeus claiming “receivers of these symbols may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.”. As Patristic scholars warn us caution is needed when defining words like Figure, Type and Antitype as used by the Fathers. So Derek, why did Cyril site the miracle at Canna if he believed the Eucharist was only a symbol? Do you believe receiving symbols leads to remission of sin and life eternal? Yes or No?
So you accused me of lying because you did not read the entire discussion I had with Timothy Kauffman and Kevin. I forgive you.
That’s a completely unsubstantiated claim.
I can read exactly what you wrote here. What you, not Kauffman, wrote. It’s public record. Do you deny that you wrote that? Are you suggesting that Kauffman edited your comment in order to call you a liar?
Here are your words. Yours, not Kauffman’s.
There you state that you did not question the meaning of the word antitypes, which you then explicitly call symbols. Do you deny doing this?
How can it be an accusation when I am merely reading and understanding what you have plainly written? It is your own attestation that accuses you!
For what, exactly? Are you forgiving me for reading exactly what you wrote? Are you forgiving me for you being misleading? I admit I am perplexed as to what could possibly require forgiveness.
Your problem with Cyril Derek is you have already convinced yourself that the word Antitype and Figure mean symbols instead of looking at the context. You do realize that Christ is an Antitype. Do you think he is a symbol? Yes or No.
Betty,
Did you miss the part where I not only looked at, but actively discussed the context? Please review it here and then respond to substance of my arguments. Once you have done that, you can make additional challenges. So, as long as you persist in sealioning here, I will only respond to your new challenges at my own whim.
I cited multiple Roman Catholic sources which call them symbols. Should I add to that by citing Migne too (see Migne, P.G. vol. 7, col. 1253)? Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic sources—including your younger self—are wrong?
Is it your assertion that I should not be convinced by anything that Roman Catholics say? Certainly you can see that this would auto-refute your arguments.
Peace,
DR
Derek, tell me which article the post was under. I did write that quote for the purpose of pointing out that Timothy had placed the word Symbol in parentheses I believe after Antitype. And with that substitution you have to defend the receivers of symbols obtaining remission of sins and eternal life.
“tell me which article the post was under.”
Is it your habit to always make demands of others? I already provided a link to your quote in this comment.
I did write that quote…
It’s good that you have taken ownership of your own words. But, to be clear, it wasn’t a quote of someone else’s words, it was a quote of your words.
…for the purpose of pointing out that Timothy had placed the word Symbol in parentheses I believe after Antitype
No one who reads what you wrote would—or could—reasonably conclude that. How can you blame Tim for what you wrote? It would be one thing if you had used quotation marks, but you didn’t. Nor did Tim write “antitype (symbol)”. Yes, I checked. No one in the article or comment section ever put symbol in parentheses.
Here is what you wrote:
“Timothy, thanks for your response. I didn’t question the authenticity of the fragment or the meaning of the word antitypes. I was just bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie symbols “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”. Kevin mentioned “a propitiatory sacrifice for sin” so it just seems to be very confusing.”
And here is the comment you were replying to:
Thank you, Betty. May I first inquire as to your position on the Fragment? Is it your opinion that the Fragment is authentic but “antitype” here does not mean “symbolic”? Or is it rather that “antitype” means symbolic, but the Fragment itself is not authentic?
So, per your own words, you didn’t deny the authenticity of the fragment nor deny that “antitype” meant “symbolic.”
Why would you lie about this? It makes no sense to me. It just undermines your entire argument. I don’t understand your motivation. Let’s review:
Tim asked…
“Is it…that “antitype” means symbolic, but the Fragment itself is not authentic?”
…and you said…
“I didn’t question the authenticity of the fragment”
Tim asked…
“Is it your opinion that the Fragment is authentic but “antitype” here does not mean “symbolic”?”
…and you said…
“I didn’t question…the meaning of the word antitypes”
Then you concluded by saying:
“I was just bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie symbols “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”.”
So, by your own words, you were not disputing the authenticity of the fragment. Nor, by your own words, were you claiming that antitypes didn’t mean symbols, which you doubly confirmed by saying that antitypes are symbols (“antitypes, ie symbols”).
The Latin term “i.e.” means “that is” and is used to show equivalence, a simple restatement. In your own words, you literally clarified that “antitypes” means “symbols.”
You didn’t quote anyone else, nor did you indicate that it was someone else’s idea (e.g. “You claimed that…”). There is not even a hint that you were paraphrasing or being sarcastic or ironic. Indeed, you relied on antitypes being symbols in order to make your point that Irenaeus was a heretic…
And with that substitution you have to defend the receivers of symbols obtaining remission of sins and eternal life.
…a point that I believe only you were trying to make.
Yes, after twice confirming that an antitype is a symbol, you then explained that this creates a heretical stance. The next day you wrote:
It would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenæus which sprouted in the fourth century as described by Tim, would you agree?
You did not say:
“It appears to me that Tim thinks the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenaeus”
No, you said:
It would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenæus which sprouted in the fourth century as described by Tim
So, it appeared to you the Irenaeus was a heretic, just as Tim (supposedly) described. You were clearly agreeing with “Tim”, nevermind that Tim didn’t actually think that Irenaeus was a heretic nor describe him as such.
And just to be clear that you personally believed Irenaeus was a heretic, three hours later you made sure here to let us know that the heresy was original to Irenaeus and not an artifact of historians:
Also Kevin the historians could not have planted the seeds of heresy because the heresy was in existence before they wrote, correct?
You asserted that the heresy was in existence prior to the historians. In that same comment, you criticized Kevin and Tim for denying that Irenaeus was a heretic:
There appears to be a reluctance on your and Kevin’s part to acknowledge Irenæus may have been teaching heresy and yet we know from scripture that heresies entered into the Church community very early.
So, clearly you are saying that Irenaeus was a heretic, while Tim and Kevin are actively resisting that claim. This is weird, because you just said three hours before that Tim believed Irenaeus
was—and described him as—a heretic and that his heresy took hold in the 4th century. How can “It would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenæus” be ascribed to Tim (instead of you) if Tim was actively reluctant to acknowledge that Irenaeus even might have been teaching heresy?
Now either you were contradicting yourself, or you believed what you said about yourself…
It would appear to me that the seeds of heresy were planted by Irenæus…
…and about Tim:
…which sprouted in the fourth century as described by Tim
The first belief is yours and the second is Tim’s. Yes, you clearly, clearly stated that Irenaeus was a heretic, and you clearly, clearly denied that this belief was Kevin’s or Tim’s! That first belief can’t be Tim’s because three hours later you had confirmed that Tim denied it, and of course you had originally said “it appears to me” not “it appears to Tim.”
Six months later you confirmed this again:
Actually I’m not bothered at all by Irenaeus’s fragment because I was simply pointing out previously the inconsistency of the belief that one would obtain remission of sins and eternal life from eating a symbol.
So yes, the “seeds of heresy” began with Irenaeus saying that eating symbols obtained the remission of sin. And you agreed that it actually began with Irenaeus—who saw antitypes as symbols—and not with later historians. This heresy—which you agreed Irenaeus was espousing—is only possible if you actually believed that antitypes were symbols at the time you made that comment.
But there is still one major problem. After 6 months, you forgot what you had said earlier…
You write “anti types, ie symbols” but you know as well as I do that that is the point of debate
…by falsely attributing your own words to Tim, which you have also done here. See, this time you actually did put “anti types, ie symbols” in quotes and falsely attributed it (“You write…”) to Tim, even though six months earlier it was you who had originally said it.
That brings us to today. Had you merely still forgotten about it, that would be one thing, and I wouldn’t dare call you a liar. But Tim had long ago pointed out your error and confronted you with your own words, concluding:
So your first foray into this conversation was a lie. Ok.
That was in February, 2021. It has been ~3.5 years since Tim notified you of your lie, and yet here you are today repeating it again.
Now it gets really weird, because later that day you wrote:
The sentence were you accused me of lying ends with “as described by Tim” and is a question. I was simply pointing out based on your fourth century theory Irenaeus statement would totally mess up your timeline.
This explanation makes no sense at all, and is clearly contradicted by your own words. If you were truly simply pointing it out rather than believing it yourself, you wouldn’t have said that Tim believed Irenaeus was a heretic and also that Tim did not believe that Irenaeus was a heretic. Regardless of which was true, you were lying about it.
Tim didn’t respond to that comment, because it made no sense and was clearly a lie.
Lastly, fully read Tim’s comment where he accused you of lying. Your “first foray” into the discussion includes the collection of comments you made, not just the second one. You misidentified the specific lies he was talking about.
So, there you went boldly denying that you were a liar without even understanding the charge against you. Somehow you knew you must be innocent despite not even knowing what it was that you were accused of doing. What does that say about your epistemology (and that of your church)?
Thanks Derek. So I wasn’t too far off. After posting the part of Fragment 37 from Irenaeus Timothy Kauffman wrote
“It is sufficiently evident that Fragment 37 refers to the offering as “the Eucharist” before the Invocation, and further that the bread and wine were still antitypical, or symbolic, even after the Invocation”
I wrote
Betty
AUGUST 3, 2020 AT 8:56 PM
Timothy, thanks for your response. I didn’t question the authenticity of the fragment or the meaning of the word antitypes. I was just bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie symbols “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”. Kevin mentioned “a propitiatory sacrifice for sin” so it just seems to be very confusing..
Now my point at that time was not to get into a debate about the authenticity of Fragment 37 or a debate over the meaning of Antitype but to simply show how Timothy’s claiming Antitypes means symbols leaves him with the burden of explaining how receiving symbols leads to the remission of sins and eternal life. If I were to say I’m not on this site to point out how you tend to ramble and dodge direct questions that is not my stating you do not ramble or dodge questions. So do you believe receiving the Eucharist leads to the remission of sins and eternal life? Yes or No?
I wasn’t too far off
I see. So you are going to persist in lying to us.
After posting the part of Fragment 37 from Irenaeus Timothy Kauffman wrote… [..] …I wrote
No, that’s not what happened. You can see the play-by-play in your own words here what you were replying to. At 8:56pm you responded to a comment Tim made at 1:44am that same day. You even said “thanks for your response” in your comment, which unambiguously indicates that you were not responding to (or quoting) his article, but his comment.
My point at that time was not to get into a debate about the authenticity of Fragment 37 or a debate over the meaning of Antitype but to simply show how Timothy’s claiming Antitypes means symbols leaves him with the burden of explaining how receiving symbols leads to the remission of sins and eternal life.
Are you serious? That quite the retcon! Here is what you actually said at the time:
There appears to be a reluctance on your [Tim’s] and Kevin’s part to acknowledge Irenæus may have been teaching heresy
The one who insisted that Irenaeus was teaching heresy that symbols lead to the remission of sins and eternal life was you.
My point at that time was not to get into a debate about the authenticity of Fragment 37 or a debate over the meaning of Antitype
Except for the fact that this was not your point. When Tim asked you point-blank if you disagreed that antitype was symbol, you said that you didn’t question it, confirming twice that it did mean symbol. And he believed you. And so did I, which is why I was able to cite your testimony as an attestation against you.
You followed this up with a series of arguments which only made sense if you thought an antitype was a symbol. You did the worst job imaginable at communication by communicating the exact opposite of what you supposedly meant to say.
Your attempts at retconning your actions will not be successful, nor will passive-aggressively blaming me (“I forgive you”, as if I was the one who did wrong) cover over your own words. Honestly, the audacity of blaming me for your misrepresentation is truly astonishing.
Do you have a mitigating cause? Dementia, perhaps? Poor memory recall? Autism? Or maybe you are not a native English speaker? I find it hard to believe that anyone is this delusional without a mitigating contributory cause. That would make more sense than simple bold faced lies.
I think you actually believe what you are saying! You are genuine, aren’t you?
So do you believe receiving the Eucharist leads to the remission of sins and eternal life? Yes or No?
You’ve come here lying and sealioning. You are completely and utterly nonrepentant about that, having the audacity to blame me for your own failings. So, I owe you nothing. If I had most bloggers’ ban policy, you’d have already been banned for trolling. Are you here because Tim banned you?
I don’t censor here. I find value in letting people expose themselves for who and what they are using their own words to speak for themselves. But, per here, I will only respond to your new challenges at my own whim. If you wish that to change, stop lying and start addressing my points.
If I were to say I’m not on this site to point out how you tend to ramble and dodge direct questions that is not my stating you do not ramble or dodge questions.
That’s not a proper hypothetical any more than “I’m not here to point out how stupid, simplistic, and ignorant your comments tend to be” is a proper hypothetical. Such statements are very thinly veiled insults, which is why neither my statement nor your statement are appropriate in civil discourse. If it wasn’t for your stubbornness, I would never have said such a thing, even as a illustration of a bad hypothetical.
If you said such a thing—which you did!—everyone would assume that you were passive-aggressively accusing me of rambling and dodging questions. None of my readers would think you were denying it, nor would they think you were taking a neutral position. If you tried to claim neutrality, people would—rightly—call you a liar.
Honestly, how stupid do you think I am? “I’m not here to point out that you dodge questions. Now answer these questions.” This is classic sealioning behavior:
You’re a troll who tells herself that she’s doing the Lord’s work. I suggest taking some time for some deep introspection.
For example, you said:
“I was just bothered by Irenæus claiming that the receivers of these antitypes, ie symbols “may obtain remission of sins and eternal life”.
That’s not a conditional statement. It’s not hypothetical language. That’s not you being unsure if Irenaeus actually claimed that. That’s you stating it as a factual statement without any qualifiers and without attributing it to others. You didn’t say “I don’t want to take a position on this” or “I don’t want to debate it.” You said you were personally bothered by Irenaeus’ claim, not Tim’s belief. That’s you taking a position.
When Tim asked you about the meaning of antitype being a symbol, you said that you didn’t question it. This isn’t the same thing as taking no position. Let’s be clear. If someone asks you “Do you believe this thing?” and you say “I don’t question it” that means you don’t believe the opposite to be true. It may not be a strong affirmation, but it’s still an explicit affirmation. It is most certainly not a passive “no comment.” For you to deny this is extremely dishonest.
And if you “didn’t question the meaning of antitype” but you actually did question the meaning, but just didn’t want to talk about it, then you were lying about it by the way you answered the question. It doesn’t matter if your intention was to avoid debate. You don’t tell someone that you don’t question the meaning if you actually do question the meaning. That’s called a deception. A lie.
And, guess what? You successfully deceived Tim. But I’m not falling for those tricks. I’m calling them out.
It’s very clear that you do question the meaning of antitype. You did so above. So why did you tell Tim that you didn’t question the meaning of antitype if you did all along? You lied to him. You deceived him because you wanted to avoid discussing it. That’s not a valid excuse for lying.
Were you really “just bothered” by Irenaeus’ claims? Of course not. You lied about being unconcerned (‘not-bothered’) by the definition of antitype and only (‘just’) bothered by that one thing. You can’t retcon history by now claiming what you failed to claim then. On the other hand, that’s exactly what Roman Catholicism does: it retcons history to make it say whatever it says now. It’s the Roman Catholic Axiom.
If you do not modify your behavior, you will continue to get rambling analyses of that behavior, and your questions will be dodged. If you wish for a different outcome, try discussing my actual points.
Derek you are totally correct. I should apologize for using deception to show how ridiculous the claim is that Antitypes should be defined as symbols by the Church Fathers . It wasn’t right but it did serve the purpose by pointing out that Irenaeus would have been teaching heresy In your, Timothy Kauffman’s ad Kevin’s eyes, having Irenaeus teaching that receiving symbols would lead to remission of sins and everlasting life. I also need to thank you for bringing up this incident as it reinforces the point I made with Cyril of Jerusalem. When you try to make the Eucharist a symbol, you have to deal with Cyril referencing the miracle at Cana and his comments
“. Even of itself the teaching of the Blessed Paul is sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, of which having been deemed worthy, you have become of the same body and blood with Christ. For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?”
Note Derek “Divine Mysteries”. Why Derek is Cyril speaking of Divine Mysteries especially in this paragraph if Cyril believes the Eucharist is just symbolic?
————————————-
Derek, you asked why did I deceive Timothy. Because I wanted to show the consequences of accepting Timothy’s definition of Antitypes, ie symbols on the sentence in question. If I had said I disagree with your definition, Timothy would have just insisted on his definition as you have done without looking at the context. As I see it the Protestant apologist is convinced the Early Church Fathers were Protestant, when they clearly hold views not consistent with Protestants. So I ask you, do you believe receiving the symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ lead to remission of sins and eternal life. Yes or No. And if you answer No do you believe that view to be heretical?
“When you try to make the Eucharist a symbol, you have to deal with Cyril referencing the miracle at Cana”
No, I do not have to do that.
This illustrates my frustration with your approach. I have already responded to that point, and you’ve brought nothing new to the argument. For reference, I will repeat it here in its entirity. I encourage you to engage with what I have argued, rather than repeat your previous arguments and raising the same the same old issues over-and-over again as if I hadn’t responded already.
Here is what I already said:
—————————————————-
—————————————————-
Now, having repeated that, there is no conflict between Christ changing physical water into physical wine and Christ changing the breaking of physical bread into a symbol of the breaking of his body. Both are actual changes, but physicality is not the concern.
“Why Derek is Cyril speaking of Divine Mysteries especially in this paragraph if Cyril believes the Eucharist is just symbolic?”
Cyril didn’t believe that the Eucharist was just symbolic. He believed that it was a symbol which was sacrificially offered. He was espousing heresy, and he was the first writer to do so. His words formed the foundation for the Roman Catholic Eucharist, albeit not in the form that he originally envisioned it.
Regardless, your question is easily, but not trivially, answered.
I’ve written twenty different articles on the topic of “sacraments and mysteries.” A good place to start reading is in “Sacraments, Part 2: Tertullian” and the sections on sacraments and mysteries in “The Eucharist, Part 40: Conclusion” and “Changing Language.”
I will do my best to summarize centuries of language and doctrinal development.
The Greek term for mystery means “sacred secret” and in the context of Christ’s revelation, and it refers to things that were hidden prior to Christ’s advent and in the time of the Apostles had been revealed to all. In the first century, it was completely unrelated to the Latin sacramentum, which was the military oath of initiation before the gods.
Tertullian was the first to describe the Eucharist, Communion, and Baptism as the sacrament—initiation rite—of the catechumen. For Tertullian, all of these would happen on the same time, and corresponded to the military oath of service before the gods. This was his analogy. In his writings he contrasts the Christian sacraments with the pagan mystery religions. He never conflated the pagan mysteries with the Christian sacraments.
Notably, the New Testament never called its practices sacraments. That was Tertullian’s novelty. The way he used it wasn’t a heresy, but it would later be twisted into one.
By the fourth century, the term sacramentum had changed in meaning to refer to “repeated sacred rituals” and various writers had started to conflate this with the term mysterium (see Jerome’s Vulgate). The idea of the revealed sacred secrets of God was replaced by hidden and unexplanable doctrines. You can see how the former would lead to consistent apostolic continuity, while the latter would lead to unconstrained arbitrary doctrinal development. The latter is precisely what happened in the late 4th century.
Cyril writes around 350AD, at the transitional point in history, only a few decades prior to the rise of Papal Roman Catholicism.
Cyril was a product of his time. In the quote you provided, he is conflating sacraments and mysteries. This is seen in the examples he uses. Yet Paul never described mysteries as sacraments, and Tertullian never described sacraments as mysteries. But Cyril freely understood mysteries and sacraments as being one-in-the-same. Cyril talks of Paul’s “musterion” in the context of the Last Supper (which was now a “sacramentum”). Paul never called the Lord’s Supper a mystery. Cyril was engaging in doctrinal development.
Meanwhile, Cyril joined a number of his contemporaries in understanding the eucharist was a sacrament and a mystery. They understood that the bread and wine figuratively represented the body and blood of Christ and not a single writer prior to the 5th century did otherwise. Cyril did not change the language of the eucharist or its symbolic nature. What he changed was to treat the sacrificial prayer of thanksgiving as the consecration of the bread and wine.
This reordering of the liturgy had no bearing on whether or not the eucharist was a mystery or a sacrament. His contemporaries thought it was a mystery before he reordered it, and they thought it was a mystery after he reordered it. Mysteries were just rituals. The Eucharist would have been a mystery to Cyril, whether or not the body and blood of Christ were literal or figurative, and whether or not the body and blood of Christ were offered as a sacrifice.
Irenaeus would have been teaching heresy
No, he wouldn’t have. See here and here. Let’s not concern ourselves with what might have been had Irenaeus written something other than what he wrote.
Derek, you asked why did I deceive Timothy. Because I wanted to show the consequences of accepting Timothy’s definition of Antitypes, ie symbols on the sentence in question.
And, per above, it led nowhere.
“If I had said I disagree with your definition, Timothy would have just insisted on his definition as you have done without looking at the context.”
Please stop:
So you apologize for lying and then immediately follow it up with a blatant misrepresentation after I told you not to?
There is plenty of contextual analysis that is still awaiting your response. All you have to do is respond to it. Stop sealioning, please, and be constructive.
“As I see it the Protestant apologist is convinced the Early Church Fathers were Protestant”
You appear to be ignorant of what I have written. I wrote a 40-part series on the Eucharist where I analyze the early writers in their own words. In most cases, I cited zero Protestant sources. I focused on what the Roman Catholics had to say and contrasted the Roman Catholic sources with the early writers. That was my primary method.
Notably, since I’ve written the series, no Roman Catholics have contested the specific claims that I made in that series. Other than your cursory commentary, it’s largely been crickets.
If you have a specific accusation of bias that you would like to make, go over what I wrote and indicate specifically where any of my analysis is biased by a Protestant source. Substantiate your claim.
If you can’t substantiate your claim, then I suggest you cease making these empty claims.
“So I ask you, do you believe receiving the symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ lead to remission of sins and eternal life. Yes or No. And if you answer No do you believe that view to be heretical?”
You have failed to answer my many questions or respond to the many claims above (here, here, here, and here), so I need not answer yours until you properly engage with me. Don’t expect a one-sided “discussion” where you keep making demands and I keep making answers. If you want a back-and-forth discussion, you have to do your part. Until you do, this is my blog and I’ll discuss whatever I want to discuss. Those are my terms of engagement. If you put in the work, it will bear fruit. If not, prepare yourself for disappointment.
They say “don’t feed the trolls” so show me that you are not a troll.
Note: if you pay really close attention, you’ll see that I actually did answer your loaded question above, just not with the simple “yes” or “no” you preferred. The ball is in your court.
Derek , I apologize for the delay in a response. You wrote
“You have failed to answer my many questions or respond to the many claims above (here, here, here, and here), so I need not answer yours until you properly engage with me. Don’t expect a one-sided “discussion” where you keep making demands and I keep making answers. If you want a back-and-forth discussion, you have to do your part. Until you do, this is my blog and I’ll discuss whatever I want to discuss. Those are my terms of engagement. If you put in the work, it will bear fruit. If not, prepare yourself for disappointment.”
Actually it is overwhelming to try and respond to the many points that you have raised and I am trying to as you say “put in the work” so we can have a fruitful discussion. I’m writing some notes to discuss some of the points you made and if I leave anything out I welcome your pointing it out. After we have finished current unanswered questions I would love to review each of your articles on the Eucharist as you had mentioned . You wrote
“Notably, since I’ve written the series, no Roman Catholics have contested the specific claims that I made in that series. Other than your cursory commentary, it’s largely been crickets.”
Maybe we could take one article a week to review. Have you thought about publishing your series? I think having it challenged might be a good test to see if it’s worth publishing.
I’ll starting posting my comments . Thanks.
Derek, again sorry for the delay in responding . It has been somewhat overwhelming trying to decide where to start, you have been bringing up so many issues for debate. I’ll make an attempt to address some of the issues you have brought up. You wrote
“I’m still waiting for that explanation of your handling of the Jurgens citations.”
You had posted before
“Two days ago I foresaw this objection too, because your methods follow the standard “copy-and-paste apologetics” approach. In “The Eucharist, Redux #1,” I discuss this exact quote (which says the opposite of what you are saying that it says).
Compare the translation you supplied…
the food which has been made into the Eucharist
by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him
is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus
…with these three translations:
Your translation is easily the most biased (and mistranslated) one I’ve seen so far. It’s not even faithful to the other Roman Catholic translations! On the scale of translation methods—formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase—it is an example of the latter.
Do you even know where you got that quotation from, or is it a blind copy-and-paste?
I’ll tell you. It comes from William A. Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1.” §128, p.55 (1970). Here is how Wikipedia describes him:
William A. Jurgens (July 3, 1928 — September 1, 1982) was an American Roman Catholic priest, composer, historian, musician, and translator of patristic and other works.
Do you own a copy? Did you look it up yourself?
I suspect that you simply copied-and-pasted it, because your quotation from the “Dialogue from Trypho, 41” has been altered from the original found on page 60 of Jurgen’s work. I did a Google search for the altered text and found 27 results containing your altered quotation. Of these only one (here) fully cited the source. As far as I can tell from Google, no one on the internet has ever accurately quoted and fully cited Jurgens’ original.
If you didn’t know where that quote came from, then I hope you feel some shame for uncritically authoritatively quoting such an obviously biased source.
Instead of reasoning and analyzing, you appear merely to be blindly regurgitating. This brings nothing new to the table and is not constructive criticism. Although I more-or-less allow anyone to comment whatever they want here, I still expect a higher standard than most blogs. If you are going to make claims, they shouldn’t be unsubstantiated or merely copy-and-paste. If you can’t meet those high standards, you won’t be censored, but these acts will be repeatedly exposed (and any vacuous claims summarily dismissed).
The analysis contained on this blog goes way beyond quote-dumping. For example, in “The Eucharist, Redux #2,” I found during my analysis eleven patristic writers who explicitly made the connection between the thanksgiving (eucharist) of the church and the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi, while none of them—none!—ever associated Jesus’ sacrifice with that of Malachi. I also found numerous implicit and inferential support for the same. This is substantive analysis that goes well beyond dumping quotes. It is disrespectful to respond to such specific analysis with general-purpose copy-and-paste apologetics.”
So Derek, it appears you are bothered by Jurgen’s translation
Specifically the sentence
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
So Derek, your issue appears to be the translation “the food which has been made into the Eucharist”. Now I’m not a Greek scholar, but your complaint seems over the top because in the same discourse Justin says “We call this food Eucharist “ . Let’s look at two other translations.
Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Source. Translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία1910 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.1911 For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me,1912 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Both translations start off that the food is called the Eucharist. So is the “food which is blessed by the prayer of His word” the Eucharist” as Jurgen points out? Well what is the prayer of His word”? Justin Martyr tells us.
“thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me,1912 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.”
Sounds like the words of consecration to me. And what is the food, the bread and wine after the consecration? “ It IS “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”. Justin doesn’t say it represents, he says “IS”. And he is making a parallel statement comparing the fact that the food, the bread and wine is or becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus with the fact that Jesus was made flesh. Derek, I know you are not a Gnostic and you believe Jesus was made Flesh right?
At least it appears to me Derek you find some sinister deception in Jurgen rightfully identifying the food in the verse in question as the Eucharist, a fact the Justin testifies to earlier in the discourse. And I can only believe your diversion results from your effort to draw attention from the fact that Justin Martyr believed in the real presence
Betty,
There is no need to apologize for the delay, nor are you obligated to respond to each and every question I’ve raised. I don’t believe that I have ever criticized anyone for taking too long to respond, as that would be an ad hominem.
You can take your time—be it days, weeks, months, or even years—and so long as you consistently respond to some of my arguments, that’s probably good enough to move the conversation forward. One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed our interaction in the past is because we’ve been able to maintain the discussion over a period of months. This type of focus and attention is a rarity on the internet.
So, I don’t mind if you pick-and-choose which points to respond to, so long as you are responding to some of them. However, if I think you are avoiding an important issue, I may bring it up again.
As for myself, I have slowed my posting down somewhat and request that you bear with me as it may take me a few days (or weeks) to read and respond to your last two comments.
(As is my practice, I’ve reformatted your comment for readability, as well as added the missing image. I did not alter the text of anything you’ve written.)
Peace,
DR
Thanks Derek, you are very kind in your response and I too appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with you. As I’ve mentioned I am overwhelmed with your accomplishments and the amount of material you have produced. We may disagree on a number of points but I find you, Timothy Kauffman and Brian Culliton to all be men of high intelligence.
I’ll try to respond in January, after the holiday season.