In this short, two-part series, we are demonstrating how meaningless it can be to have a PhD in Theology, to have numerous publications, to be a Professor at a prestigious university, and to be an expert. This will serve as a practical example of why formal appeals to authority in religion are close to meaningless.
You can read Part 1 here.
The impetus behind this is the following post made by a highly credentialed and honored individual:
Although the phrase ‘Real Presence’ was not introduced until St. Ambrose, the historian J.N.D. Kelly has described Origen as part of a consensus of the early Church Fathers, who held an “unquestioningly realist” view of Christ in the Eucharist.
These authorities include:
Ignatius of Antioch who explicitly called the Eucharist the “flesh of our Savior”;
Justin Martyr who described a “change” or “transmutation” in the food to become Christ’s flesh and blood; and
Tertullian who argued that the “flesh feeds upon Christ’s body” so the soul may be filled with God.
Haecker did his PhD dissertation on Origen (c.185 – c.254 AD). If there is any one person who he should be an expert on Origen, he is it.
Unquestioningly Realist
Unfortunately we can already see one of the same errors that we saw another Catholic make (in “Joe Heschmeyer on J.N.D. Kelly“). Scholars all know that Kelly—an Anglican—really did use those two words (“unquestioningly realist”), but scholars also (should!) know that the context refutes the Catholic view:
In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view , which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian [c.160-240] and Cyprian [c.210-258], and was to be given a renewed lease of life through the powerful influence of Augustine [c.354-430].
Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine .
Kelly identifies two unquestionably realist views: (1) a figurative or symbolic view and (2) an actual or conversion view. The former he identifies with (at least) the early 3rd century, and the latter with (no earlier than) the late 4th century. There is no question—at all!—that Kelly rejected an unquestioningly realist view of Christ in the Eucharist as Catholics would understand that phrase.
It is incredibly dishonest to imply that “even this highly respected Protestant scholar agrees with us” when, as an Anglican, he would have fundamentally rejected the Catholic position even if he hadn’t said so explicitly. The idea that Kelly was somehow rejecting Anglicanism for Catholicism just doesn’t even pass the basic smell test!
The problem here is that Catholic theology cannot accept the existence of an early view that the bread and wine are:
figurative or symbolic and
unquestioningly realist and
not explained as the result of an actual change or conversion.
And yet, that is precisely what Kelly claims that the early church (in the early 3rd century) believed!
There is no excuse for a decorated scholar to set aside proper scholarship for dogmatic religious fundamentalism. The fact is, Kelly and Haecker can use the same language (in isolation!) to describe two fundamentally different things (in fact, we’ll see, below, how Origen and the Alexandrian Fathers do the same thing). As a scholar, Haecker should have examined the context and realized that what he thought was apparent similarity was, in fact, actual dissimilarity.
It’s exactly the same as when Catholics take the phrase “this is my body…this is my blood” and say “is means is,” pretending that the phrase must be taken literally when, by default, basic reading comprehension indicates that “bread is flesh” is an inherently figurative statement.[1]
Kelly on Origen
When we talked about Joe Heschmeyer, we noticed that he only quoted from a single paragraph in a 500-page book. It became evident that he wasn’t looking at Kelly’s work as a whole. But, what about Haecker? Is he doing the same thing? Here is his claim again:
Although the phrase ‘Real Presence’ was not introduced until St. Ambrose, the historian J.N.D. Kelly has described Origen as part of a consensus of the early Church Fathers, who held an “unquestioningly realist” view of Christ in the Eucharist .
The only quotation he provides comes from that same paragraph. We will look at what Kelly had to say about Origen to see if it matches. If we can pull this off, we’ll prove that Haecker actually read more than one paragraph. (Spoiler: it doesn’t match)
Let’s proceed:
Alexandria, famous in the late second and third centuries for its catechetical school, became the home of allegorical exegesis, with the great Biblical scholar, Origen, as its leading exponent. An admirer of Philo, he regarded Scripture as a vast ocean, or (using a different image) forest, of mysteries; it was impossible to fathom, or even perceive, them all, but one could be sure that every line, even every word, the sacred authors wrote was replete with meaning.
Formally he distinguished three levels of signification in Scripture , corresponding to the three parts of which human nature is composed: the bodily, the psychic and the spiritual. The first was the straightforward historical sense, and was useful for simple people; the second was the moral sense, or the lesson of the text for the will; the third was the mystical sense with relation to Christ, the Church or the great truths of the faith .
In practice Origen seems to have employed a slightly different triple classification, comprising (a) the plain historical sense, (b) the typological sense, and (c) the spiritual sense, in which the text may be applied to the devout soul .
I start with this quote because it reflects a theme by Kelly to explain Origen’s views. Kelly understood that Origen was deeply concerned with the non-bodily, spiritual side of reality (and clearly distinguishing between the two). This infused his whole theology, including the way he understood scripture. Moreover, it was decidedly mystical.
This is, unsurprisingly, identical to the Anglican view where the Lord’s Supper is not merely symbolic but reflects heavenly and spiritual realities. We’ll see Kelly’s view shine forth in direct opposition to Haecker’s attempts to say otherwise. Keep in mind that Kelly doesn’t have to be correct in his theology, we need only show that Haecker’s claims about Kelly are wrong and reflect extremely poor (and possibly dishonest) scholarship on his part.
Let’s continue:
p.202
(edited)
All the time, however, there is an acute tension in his mind between the empirical Church here on earth and the ideal Church. In the former, he recognizes, there are many merely apparent members, just as there were many Jebusites in Zion; but the true Church, in contrast, is as St. Paul described it, ‘without spot or wrinkle’, holy and blameless. To it belong all who attain perfection here on earth, who, according to Origen’s mystical theology , become united to the Logos. This elect portion of the terrestrial Church is identified with ‘the heavenly Church’, which Origen regards as having existed since before creation. In this sense the Church is ‘the assembly of all the saints’, and its body is constituted by ‘all those souls which have attained perfection’. Many have inferred from his preoccupation with this spiritual Church that Origen did not in the last resort regard the true devotees of the Logos as belonging to the visible, hierarchical Church, but this is a perversion of his teaching. Despite the distinction he draws between the spiritual Church , the immaculate bride of Christ, and the earthly Church with all its defects, it remains his clear belief that the two somehow coincide, and in several passages he indicates that the spiritually advanced are the teachers or, as it were, ‘the eyes’ of the visible, empirical body. As the body of Christ, with the Logos animating it as its life-principle, the latter is ‘an imitation of the coming kingdom’, and the true gnostics form its spiritual core.
From the mystical, sometimes elusive, theorizing of Alexandria …
A different situation confronts us when we turn to the Alexandrian fathers, for, while they verbally reproduce the conventional realism, their bias to allegory and their Platonizing absorption in the spiritual world behind phenomena alter their perspective .
Kelly notes that Origen placed such a strong significance on the spiritual church that commentators sometimes infer that he had little regard for the visible church!
Kelly understood that Origen had a spiritual and (sometimes elusive) mystical focus. He stated that Origen was strongly influenced by Platonism and, what he calls elsewhere, “platonic realism.” That’s right, Kelly wrote of Origen’s ‘realist’ stance as one influenced, not by scripture, but by Platonism. The fact is, Origen verbalized realism using borrowed conventional language, but he understood his words through the lens of Platonism. This is much like how Catholicism has borrowed conventional language (e.g. ‘eucharist’; ‘real’; ‘catholic’) and repurposed it.
Origen lays much greater stress on the inward significance and spiritual efficacy of baptism, and has a firmer hold on the biblical doctrine [than Clement].
Just as he did with the church itself, according to Kelly, Origen prioritizes the spiritual significance of baptism.
Kelly thrice notes that—of scripture, of the church, and of baptism—Origen was preoccupied with the spiritual. In light of this, how do you think Kelly will describe Origen’s take on the eucharist? If you are a fan of Ryan Haecker or just a standard Catholic, the answer may surprise you.
Let’s repeat that for emphasis:
Here is the original text:
Chapter 33
From this it is evident that we have already met the next statement of Celsus, which is as follows:
…
For this reason, then, let Celsus, as one who knows not God, give thank-offerings to demons. But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received , we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body , which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.
In Origen, we find the eucharist of the early church: the sacrificial giving of tithes and offerings.[2] In Origen, we see the ancient thanks-offerings found in the Mosaic Law. In Origen, we see that the giving of thanks of the early church was really the actual giving of thanks for the blessings we have received. In Origen, we see that these gifts are meant to be eaten.
Also, in Origen, we see that when the bread of the tithe is consecrated by prayer (i.e. “This is my body…this is my blood”) they are the body of Christ, a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ.[3]
While there is much more to be said to confirm that this is, in fact, what Origen believed, you can read more in “The Eucharist, Part 10: Origen of Alexandria.” Let’s continue discussing Kelly’s view:
Origen presupposes the idea of the eucharist as a sacrifice of first-fruits and prayers to the Creator; but at the same time he argues that the Christian rite replaces the propitiatory sacrifices of Israel . The shew-bread of Israel, for example, was a type of Christ and the eucharistic bread; and it is the commemoration of His sacrifice in the eucharist which alone makes God propitious to men. What he says, however, must be read with discernment, for the deeper meaning which he himself perceives behind the Church’s sacrificial system is the surrender of the heart to God. .
Kelly notes that Origen understood that the tithes of first-fruits and the giving of thanksgiving prayers was the thanks-offering that replaced all of the the propitiatory sacrifices found in the Mosaic Law. He says that the sacrificial system of the church is “the surrender of the heart to God.” Regular readers of this blog will find this quite familiar.
Origen presupposes the idea of the eucharist as a sacrifice of first-fruits and prayers to the Creator; but at the same time he argues that the Christian rite replaces the propitiatory sacrifices of Israel. The shew-bread of Israel, for example, was a type of Christ and the eucharistic bread; and it is the commemoration of His sacrifice in the eucharist which alone makes God propitious to men . What he says, however, must be read with discernment, for the deeper meaning which he himself perceives behind the Church’s sacrificial system is the surrender of the heart to God.
Kelly also notes that Origen viewed the bread through typology (not through the lens of a literal conversion!). He says the bread of the eucharist is a commemoration of His sacrifice, which His sacrifice alone is propitious to men. This is a flat denial that Origen espoused the Catholic literal view!
Kelly’s comments regarding the sacrifice and propitiation should not surprise anyone who read what Kelly wrote about Origen in the previous chapter of his book:
Thirdly, however, Origen was prepared to interpret Christ’s death as an act of vicarious substitution or propitiatory sacrifice. He is indeed the first of the fathers to treat this aspect of the Lord’s work in full detail, and he conceives of His death, not simply as an obedient surrender to God’s will, but as an offering which has positive influence on the Father. Thus he argues that, as leader of the Church, Jesus is the head of a body of which we are members; He has taken our sins upon Himself, has borne them and has suffered freely for us. As a true priest, He has offered the Father a true sacrifice in which He is Himself the victim, thereby propitiating the Father . Sin called for a propitiation, and Christ stepped forward as ‘a victim spotless and innocent’, propitiating the Father to men by His generous self-oblation .
According to Kelly, Origen believed that the Church now offered the thanks-offering instead of the propitiatory sacrifices of Israel. In their place, Origen viewed the propitiatory atonement of Christ as a self-oblation. Christ’s propitiatory self-sacrifice means that the church no longer offers a propitiatory sacrifice, it offers only a physical sacrifice of tithes and offerings with a spiritual sacrifice of the heart. That was Origen’s view.
Now, I’ve saved the best for last. In the very same chapter where Kelly says that the early view was “unquestioningly realist,” he actually references the spiritualist tradition of Origen two pages later. I want you to take the time to properly appreciate this:
For a truly spiritualizing interpretation we must look to the heirs of the Origenist tradition. Eusebius of Caesarea, for example, while usually content with the ‘symbolical’ doctrine, is also prepared to deduce from John 6 that what our Lord said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood must be understood in a spiritual sense. The flesh and blood which He required His disciples to eat and drink were not His physical flesh and blood, but rather His teaching .
Evagrius Ponticus echoes this approach when he writes,
Here Kelly describes a pretty bog-standard Anglican view. I don’t know how anyone can read Kelly and conclude that he saw anything but Anglican theology in Origen.
Kelly identifies Origen as one of the key sources for the spiritualized interpretation, where the physical elements are signs of spiritual realities that are present and not absent. What the bread and wine signify and point to are unquestioningly real. The symbols—and they are, beyond question, symbols—point to something real: something spiritually real.[4] Origen’s theological heirs make this explicit.
But one doesn’t have to read to the end of Kelly’s book to know this. He says it over two hundred pages earlier:
In the sacrament [Origen] seems to distinguish two aspects, the corruptible matter which passes through the communicant and the incorruptible reality which sanctifies him . Much more important in his eyes, however, than this ‘typical and symbolical body’, as he designates the consecrated bread , is the Logos Himself, Who became flesh and is our authentic food. A host of passages suggest that for him Christ’s body and blood signify, in a deeper and more spiritual sense, His teaching, the ineffable truth which He reveals and which nourishes and sustains the soul . The outward rite, he implies, which imparts the sacramental body and blood, is for the simpler grade of Christians, while the more advanced, with their profounder insight, find nourishment in the Logos Himself.
According to Kelly, what does Origen say is the physical reality of the consecrated bread? Corruptible as it passes through the communicant.
According to Kelly, what does Origen say is the spiritual reality of the consecrated bread? The incorruptible teaching of Jesus Christ and its truth which sanctifies, sustains, and nourishes our soul.
According to Kelly, this is what Origen means by the ‘typical and symbolical body.’
A Question of Scholarship
Now that we’ve examined Kelly’s claims regarding Origen, let’s review what Haecker claimed that Kelly thought about Origen:
Although the phrase ‘Real Presence’ was not introduced until St. Ambrose, the historian J.N.D. Kelly has described Origen as part of a consensus of the early Church Fathers, who held an “unquestioningly realist” view of Christ in the Eucharist .
Recall that Haecker did his PhD dissertation on Origen with regards to the relationship between logic, ontology, theology, and trinitarianism. He’s a Professor at Cambridge University whose job it is to teach truth, God, and metaphysics. If there was ever a perfectly suited expert that had been prepared by the educational system to produce an accurate portrayal of Kelly and his scholarship on Origen, it would be Ryan Haecker.
And, yet, despite all of that, Haecker still managed to thoroughly misrepresent Kelly’s view of Origen. Despite logic, truth, and theology being his focus, he chose the illogical and false path.
For those who need a review, this is how the Catholic Church defines the Real Presence and Transubstantiation in the Catechism:
REAL PRESENCE: The unique, true presence of Christ in the Eucharist under the species or appearances of bread and wine. The Church invites the faithful to deepen their faith in the real presence of Christ through adoration and communion at the Eucharistic liturgy, and through adoration outside its celebration. (1378-1379).
TRANSUBSTANTIATION: The scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. “Transubstantiation” indicates that through the consecration of the bread and the wine there occurs the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ—even though the appearances or “species” of bread and wine remain (1376).
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:
The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”
The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
Did Origen believe that the real, eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of consecration when the bread and wine change their whole substance from bread into body? Absolutely not. As a question of scholarship, such a claim would be pure anachronism. And since Transubstantiation is logically required to initiate the moment when the Real Presence begins, Origen could not possibly have asserted the latter without (at least implicitly) believing the reality of the former. Again, as a question of scholarship, this is unambiguous.
Origin could not possibly have believed in Christ being truly present in the substance of the bread because he didn’t believe the bread and wine changed their whole substance from bread into body. For Origen, the change was a spiritual one.
Origen didn’t even believe that “the eucharist” was “the Eucharist.”[2]
Not even Kelly claimed otherwise. Kelly is careful to note that, for Origen, the consecrated bread is “designated as” the body, the blood, and the Logos. The “unquestioning reality” is a designation: the realities are signified and they are spiritual. Kelly’s claim is that the symbolic and figurative view of Origen is not merely symbolic,[4] but Kelly never once denies that it is symbolic. Moreover, Kelly explicitly and clearly contrasts the “not merely symbolic” view with the “actual change or conversion” view.
As a matter of pure logic, the “unquestioningly realist” not-merely symbolic view that Kelly explicitly espouses does not involve Transubstantiation—the actual, literal change—therefore it cannot involve the Real Presence which depends upon it. Therefore, Origen was not part of a consensus of early writers who affirmed the Real Presence (just without using the phrase itself).[5]
And, as a question of scholarship, Kelly is on firm ground. Haecker, on the other hand, is proving that expertise is worth precisely nothing. He’s showing that it’s possible for even a Cambridge education to be worth nothing.
Footnotes
[1] If my wife said “my husband is a dog” nobody would take this literally. To take it any differently, you would need explicit context to override this. The default, in such cases, is to assume a figure-of-speech. The same is true of “this [photo] is me” and “this [bread] is my body.”
[2] Origen’s view…
…is very similar to that of Irenaeus found earlier in the same chapter:
Neither believed that the eucharist (thanksgiving) was “the Eucharist.”
[3] With respect to the bread which has been consecrated by the words “this is my body…this is my blood”:
Origen’s teaching is of a piece with this, only clearer. He is prepared to speak of Christ giving His body and blood to Christians, and informs Celsus that
He commends the reverence shown to the consecrated elements , and emphasizes the wrongness of approaching the body and blood with traitorous feelings towards one’s brethren or thoughts otherwise impure.
In the sacrament he seems to distinguish two aspects, the corruptible matter which passes through the communicant and the incorruptible reality which sanctifies him. Much more important in his eyes, however, than this ‘typical and symbolical body’, as he designates the consecrated bread , is the Logos Himself, Who became flesh and is our authentic food. A host of passages suggest that for him Christ’s body and blood signify, in a deeper and more spiritual sense, His teaching, the ineffable truth which He reveals and which nourishes and sustains the soul. The outward rite, he implies, which imparts the sacramental body and blood, is for the simpler grade of Christians, while the more advanced, with their profounder insight, find nourishment in the Logos Himself.
Throughout this article, the cyan highlights all represent the fact that only consecrated bread is the body and blood of Christ. This is to show that the eucharist is a sacrifice of unconsecrated bread and that consecrated bread (i.e. the body of Christ) is never offered as a sacrifice. Each time Kelly or Origen speak of the bread being the body of Christ, they are speaking of already sacrificed bread which has been thereafter consecrated.
[4] Kelly’s view of the what a figure or symbol means is very muddy. He does not provide much clarity on what is to be ‘real’ is:
Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms ‘body’ and ‘blood’ may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers (E.g. c. Marc. 3, 19; 4. 40.) to the bread as ‘a figure’ (figura) of Christ’s body, and once speaks (Ib. 1, 14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32, 3.) of ‘the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body’. Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion.
According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized . Again, the verb repraesentare, in Tertullian’s vocabulary, (Cf. ib. 4, 22; de monog. 10.) retained its original significance of ‘to make present’.
All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of figura, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine.
The symbol has a mysterious relationship to the thing symbolized.
The symbol is in some way the thing symbolized.
The symbol is sacramentally distinct from the thing symbolized.
Kelly doesn’t explain what these things mean. Nor, I suspect, can he, for he is saying that they are both dogmatically equal and empirically distinct. He recognizes the contradiction, but his rationalization does not resolve it.
Kelly acknowledges that the symbol is symbolical, but denies that it is merely symbolical. His only clarification is that the symbol represents something real and present, not something absent. In the case of Origen, he identifies this as something spiritual and contrasts it with the literal and physical, but he remains vague.
It’s worth noting that there is no apparent contradiction between “the consecrated elements are now Christ’s body and blood” and “the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine” if the consecrated elements are, in fact, a symbol of the body and blood. Kelly appears to have begged-the-question, created a contradiction out of nothing.
See Tim Kauffman’s analysis here, here, and here for more information on this view.
[5] Formally:
(1) The symbolic view is not merely symbolic.
(2) The symbolic view is unquestioningly real.
(3) The symbolic view is contrasted against an actual change or conversion.
(4) Transubstantiation is when the substance of bread becomes literal flesh
(5) Transubstantiation is the beginning of the Real Presence
(6) ∴ In the symbolic view, transubstantiation does not happen (by 3 and 4)
(7) ∴ The Real Presence never begins (by 5 and 6)
(8) ∴The real, not-merely symbolic, view isn’t the Real Presence (by 1, 2, and 7)
(9) ∴Haecker’s historical claim is false.