Debate on the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

The following is a debate I had with a Catholic that took place on a Catholic internet forum in May 2008. Because this discussion took place on an internet discussion forum, and because there were no predetermined standards, we were not the only two involved. The overall discussions varied in topic and involved different people chiming in at different times. It culminated, however, in a one-on-one discussion between myself and a Catholic on the topic of the immaculate conception. It is that portion of the debate that appears here.

The debate is posted here for those who may wonder how Catholics might defend what appears to be un-defendable in light of Scripture and historic Christian doctrine. I hope it also serves as a means by which we can better present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Catholics who are willing to here it. This discussion sheds light on the Catholic perspective which is necessary for communicating the Gospel to those who’s understanding of Scripture is tainted by false doctrines like the “immaculate conception.”

The debate is posted with the permission of the Catholic participant.

	Catholic - I love that trite little attempt by non-catholics to say that Jesus was somehow putting down his mother. Some even go so far as to allow it to contradict Luke 1 where it says “blest art through among women” and some claim that they are just as blessed as Mary by their children. Mary was the Mother of the child who was the greatest blessing of all time! The answer to Luke 11:28 is simple. Jesus was correcting the source of blessing. That one is not simply blessed by birth or giving birth with regard to heritage and children. But one is blessed in responding to the grace of God which Mary did in her fiat “be it done unto me according to your word”. We may, like Mary, be blessed when we say “not my will but thine”. But Luke 11:28 does not speak of the quantity of blessing and we are not all blessed equally (some receive 10 talents, some 5, and some 1) and Mary is the blessed among women by God’s prerogative and grace and her response to that grace/calling.
	Response - I really don’t know what “trite little attempt” you are talking about. You must be referring to someone else; I simply asked if you would explain Luke 11:28, which you did and I thank you. As you might guess, I disagree with your interpretation that Jesus was correcting the woman. I believe He was instructing rather than correcting. Jesus never denied that His mother was blessed. He used the occasion to teach that there was a far better blessing than the blessing of being the mother of the Lord, and that is the blessing of eternal life promised to those who believe and follow Him. Mary had no pass to eternal life simply by being Jesus’ mother. So the blessing of being His mother cannot compare to the blessing of eternal life. And that is what Jesus was teaching. You brought up the parable of the talents. How exactly does Mary fit into that parable? If you place her in the parable, how many talents does she receive? Is it more that any other believer? How could you possibly know? Yes, Elizabeth’s greeting, “blessed are you among women” exhibits a special and unique blessing that Mary received from God. But it is also a very specific blessing. Elizabeth did not say she was blessed among men, or mankind, but among women. This was said, as you stated, because she believed the Lord and the will of God was carried out through her. But that is it; the blessing cannot be taken to the point of Mary being something grater than all other believers. “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” And what about blessed Abraham; wasn’t he blessed for believing God too, just like Mary? Aren’t Christians the children of Abraham through Christ? It is never said that we are the children of Mary through Christ. So why is Mary grater than Abraham in Catholic theology?
	Catholic - Your welcome. I was speaking in more general terms of those who use this verse as a “proof text” against Catholic Marian theology. It was not specifically against you. I’ve answered these questions many times so if I make a general statement like that don’t take it so personal. The reason there are umpteen thousand denominations is because of this either or theology everyone has. Has to be faith or works, Mary of Jesus, Peter or Jesus, etc. etc. Of course he was instructing. Everything he did was instructive. But I am not quite sure what “blessed rather” means if it doesn’t mean, rather than her womb and her breasts being blessed, i.e. physical blessing, she was spiritually blessed. And the spiritual blessing came about because she said yes to the Lord! and so is everyone blessed who says yes to the Lord. [In reference to: "Jesus never denied that His mother was blessed."] I didn’t say he did. I have dialogued with some non-catholics who seem to call it in to question or minimize Mary’s blessing. I think you do that to a degree, primarily because you don’t understand blessing. i.e. the blessing of a child. More later. [In reference to: "He used the occasion to teach that there was a far better blessing than the blessing of being the mother of the Lord, and that is the blessing of eternal life promised to those who believe and follow Him."] This is exactly my point. Her blessing wasn’t specifically in her motherhood and what she could do for Jesus. I am a father to 8 children and I tell you I am far more blessed by what they do for me. Children as Psalm 127 says are a blessing. But in fact they are a blessing because God uses them to mold us in to who we are. I recall a fair we used to go to. The first year my wife and I and her three boys from a previous marriage went. They DROVE ME NUTS! Dang kids running around all over, jumping on all the machinery, going every witch way. But as the years went by I became more and more patient with them and appreciative of their zest for such things. They didn’t change nearly as much as I did and as time went and we had 5 more, my patience grew to the point that 8 seems easier than 3. That’s the blessing of children. That’s the blessing of being open to life. Children are our opportunity to nurture the beatitudes. To live them and to grow in them. Mary was given an infinite blessing. Can you imagine learning from watching the son of God!!!! Watching him perfectly handle when other children teased him about the mystery around his birth, being before she was married to Joseph and all. Do you think people didn’t talk? Watching his charity toward others, etc. etc. Learning from perfection! No way I can claim I am blessed more than Mary. No way anyone can. Can you imagine anyone saying they did not want to be Mary or Joseph with this child for 30 years? I can’t. I believe in Psalm 127 and I believe that she received an infinite blessing from God because of her fiat. “Be it done unto me according to your word. So there are greater things to say yes to, than bringing the savior of the world in to the world? I can’t imagine a greater call. I am really surprised that you would make such a claim. Anything great in Mary was from God. Anything great in us is from God. You make this out to be a petty jealousy thing of who is blessed more than who. Just acknowledge the greatness of God in her. Try it. Abraham was blessed. Everyone is blessed in some fashion. The salvation of all mankind however came through Mary and her yes, which countered Eve’s no. She is the new eve. The obedient eve. She was blessed more than Abraham because of her special calling to raise the son of God. I believe I adequately justified that above. But you will disagree I am sure. God did great things for her! as she says in her canticle. All that was in the OT prepared the world for that yes that she spoke and from it the blessing came to mankind of Christ! There was never a greater yes in all of history, except of course Christ’s yes to dying on the cross for our sins. She heard the word of God through the angel and it blessed her and all of us!
	Response - Mary was indeed given an infinite blessing; not for giving birth to Jesus, but for believing. And it was that faith that brought her to a relationship with Christ unlike anything she experienced raising Him. That blessing is no different than what every believer who does the will of the Father receives. The rather means, rather than envy the mother of Jesus as the woman did, envy those that through faith and the grace of God receive the blessing of eternal life. “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.“ You brought up Mary being the new Eve; if Mary was eternally blessed for believing God, was Eve eternally damned for believing the serpent? And if Eve was saved by the sacrifice of Christ, was not Mary saved the same way? As I said before, Mary could not have obtained eternal life without the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, the blessing of giving birth to Messiah because she believed God, could not, apart from His sacrifice, save her; it could only be an eternal blessing via the cross. And that blessing is the same blessing all God’s children receive who believe Him and do His will. Both Mary and Abraham are perfect examples of what we all aught to be. But you know as well as I do that God is no respecter of persons. I would like to expound on the connection between Eve and Mary when I have a little more time.
	Catholic - I most certainly agree that the faith is critical to the blessing. I even from one point of view agree that we all have at [least available to us an infinite blessing. I would contend that the limit of the blessing is the faith, hope, and love virtues. Us being limited creates have limited and varying amounts of these virtues unfortunately and so that limits both our view of the blessings and the ability to use it to move mountains. If we just had the faith of a mustard seed ..... I think Mary has the advantage particularly in the area of love over us. Remember Simon and the woman who was washing Jesus feet with her tears and drying them with her hair in Luke 7? I love that story. But it shows us that our love is not equal with regard to God. It shows us at least in part why he allows sin, i.e. to open our hearts up to him when we are forgiven. Then the blessings pour in. Simon had blessings and he even recognized some. Jesus didn't say "you don't love me". But that Simon loved less. The difference between the Christian and the non-believer is not that the blessings are available to one and not the other. The sun shines on the good and the bad. The difference is that one is able to express a love and a faith that make the blessings real and are able to actually bring about changes in his life and in the world from the blessings. A blessing ignored does not bring about such change. With regard to Mary and love I think that is perhaps the key to understanding why she was more blessed than anyone. Personally I know of no love greater than a mothers. She loved Jesus far more than you and I will in this lifetime, which made her far more open to the blessings available. Made her faith stronger than ours and gave her hope, that allowed her to remain silent as she watched her son being crucified. I am sure she shed many tears but the silence is deafening! To me, to be able to stand at the foot of the cross, watch him die, and not take matters in to her own hands says much more than any words she could have spoken. [In reference to: "You brought up Mary being the new Eve; if Mary was eternally blessed for believing God, was Eve eternally damned for believing the serpent?"] I am surprised that you would have to ask this. The promise is to Eve and to all. The forgiveness of God knows no bounds. We bound it by our lack of faith, our lack of hope, and our lack of love. Or should I say deficiency in these three areas. Eve was saved by Christ’s grace as we are. Do you agree that grace can prevent us from sin? I would hope so. St. Augustine in his Confessions, third chapter speaks of repenting of the things he would have done had he not come to Christ. Not something we have to do but it lets us reflect on the sins we would commit had we not known him. Grace does prevent sin. That Mary says she needed a savior is no proof that she was not sinless. For without grace if in fact she was sinless, like Adam and Eve who were sinless before the fall, she would have sinned. No question. [In reference to: "Therefore, the blessing of giving birth to Messiah because she believed God, could not, apart from His sacrifice, save her; it could only be an eternal blessing via the cross."] I one hundred percent agree. The grace from the cross goes back as well as forward. That is why Abraham is used as an example in Romans 4 and it says his faith was credited as righteousness. Again, the availability of the blessing is equal but our ability to access it depends upon our love for God, which is also given to us through grace. That God is not a respecter of persons does not mean we all are equally blessed. It does not mean that we all receive equally and all of that is his discretion. Any goodness in us is his discretion and a gift from him. Mary received a gift of being a mother of the savior and having that motherly bond that gave her a love that no one else could have. This was a gift to her from God that she simply said yes in faith to, being open to the blessing. If God were a respecter of persons, the gifts would not be free, that I agree on, but we need to recognize the difference between what is a gift in the person that predisposes us to further gifts. Grace starts before we are saved. Grace for Mary started before she said “be it done unto me according to thy word” and it made her open to receiving that infinite gift of a child who was the son of God.
	Response - You said, “Grace does prevent sin. That Mary says she needed a savior is no proof that she was not sinless.” I said, Therefore, the blessing of giving birth to Messiah because she believed God, could not, apart from His sacrifice, save her; it could only be an eternal blessing via the cross. You said, “I one hundred percent agree. The grace from the cross goes back as well as forward.” So if you consider Mary sinless on account of Christ’s sacrifice, then you would agree that every one of God’s children are sinless just like Mary for the same reason. This shows that you don’t really believe Mary was uniquely sinless from conception like you think you do. Christ was made an offering for sin; if Mary was saved because of that sacrifice as you agree she was, you cannot believe she was sinless from conception.
	Catholic - Yes, another non-catholic telling a Catholic he knows Catholicism better than I and knows how I should think and what I should think. Did you read my post? Do you claim that avoiding sin is the same as committing the sin? Do you claim we don’t need grace to avoid sin? Was Eve sinless before she sinned or not sinless? Can God create a sinless human being?
	Response - Actually, it was you who agreed that Mary’s salvation was only possible by Christ’s sacrifice. You and I both know that Christ’s sacrifice was the offering for sin. So because you believe Mary’s salvation came by that sacrifice, you believe she was not born sinless, but needed her sin placed upon Christ and put to death on the cross just like the rest of us. That is what you believe! Unless you want to tell me you do not agree that Christ’s sacrifice was the offering for sin. Yes, Eve was created sinless, but did you forget that the promise that in her seed the serpent’s head would be crushed was made after the sin? The promise was not made while Eve was sinless, but after she and Adam had sinned. God created two sinless people who, had they not sinned, would have lived forever. But because of their sin, death entered the world. Did Mary die? “Just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Rom. 5:12) Paul did not say, “except Mary.”
	Catholic - His Sacrifice is for sin to be sure. But is sacrifice ONLY for sin? The Old Testament offerings that foreshadowed Christ’s offering were not just for sin. What are our sacrifices for? If you say all sacrifices are for sin, then you have a problem.
	Response - You agreed that Mary’s salvation was a result of Christ’s sacrifice. So if you believe Mary had no sin and, therefore, had no need for Christ’s atoning sacrifice, how do you explain her salvation by that sacrifice?
	Catholic - Because I don’t agree that his atonement was ONLY for sin committed as my last post tries to point out but you cannot seem to grasp. By HIS grace she did not sin. I think I’ve made that quite clear. Eve did not have to sin because she was human. Mary did not sin because she relied on God, not because she had the power within herself not to sin, except by his grace. Your statements imply that we have the power not to sin and don’t need grace and grace is like a mop up afterward. Paul tells us “you have not resisted sin to the point of death” in Hebrews. Such a resistance to sin requires grace! All is grace, doing good that God wants us to do, not just avoiding sin or having sins cleansed by grace, is grace. You have a very limited view of grace and what Christ really did for you on the cross.
	Response - Saying, “Because I don’t agree that his atonement was ONLY for sin committed” does not answer my question. So let me ask it in a different way: if not for debt of sin, then what aspect of Christ’s sacrifice makes you believe that Mary received special grace to avoid sin from conception? Isn’t Christ the righteous sacrifice upon whom our sin was placed and taken to the cross? Did He who knew no sin not become sin so that sin might be put to death? And if He became sin and was put to death, how does Mary benefit from the cross if she also knew no sin? When Jesus said, “No one is good but One, that is, God,” did He not mean NO ONE but God? When Paul said, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” did he not mean ALL have sinned? And when Paul said that Adam’s sin brought death to all men, because all sinned, did he not mean ALL sinned? What do you say to these things?
	Catholic - [In reference to: "Saying, "Because I don't agree that his atonement was ONLY for sin committed" does not answer my question."] Why yes I have in many ways quite clearly. Catholics I am sure have understood what I’ve tried to say but it is dead on arrival with you. You know what you believe and also what I believe so there really isn’t a lot of point in taking a third or fourth run at it except to say that God a human being that was without sin. I was answering the IC as a general matter which included no sin for Mary. God however created ANOTHER child without sin. I believe in original sin and that the sin nature is in the sperm and the egg. Yet Mary by grace had had this taken away. She was the first perfect human created sin God did it TWICE before (so it is quite possible for him to do it don’t you agree). [In reference to: "Isn't Christ the righteous sacrifice upon whom our sin was placed and taken to the cross?"] Yep. But what you refuse to answer is he responsible at all for sins that you would commit? Do tell. If everyone has to sin in order to be saved then you must think that babies sin. Otherwise you have two different ways of salvation or some claim that all don’t need to be saved. That’s not consistent with scripture. [In reference to: "Did He who knew no sin not become sin so that sin might be put to death?"] Yep. [In reference to: "And if He became sin and was put to death, how does Mary benefit from the cross if she also knew no sin?"] Truly your joking in having to ask this question now. Please tell me you are. I’m not going to type it out again. [In reference to: "When Jesus said, "No one is good but One, that is, God," did He not mean NO ONE but God?"] You might want to read the background of this in Psalm 14 where Paul is quoting from. [In reference to: "When Paul said, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," did he not mean ALL have sinned? And when Paul said that Adam's sin brought death to all men, because all sinned, did he not mean ALL sinned?"] Well if all meant every single one then babies sin in the womb. Christ had to sin since he was fully man and fully. Now do me a favor and check the following passages and get back to me if all (pas gk) is always every single one. Mt 2:3 , 4:24. Mt 3:5, 21:10, 27:25, Mk 2:13, 9:15 That’s just a few examples. By the way what kind of sacrifices do we make and what for? Please answer. Blessings Mary was spared by grace from the sin of adam passed on to who. This sin passed on which causes our sin nature, ie. concupescence etc. is inheretied to us all. But as a FREE GIFT from God and a gift for his son he made Mary as a new creation, free from sin, preventing in some way which we do not know from this stain on the soul. Note it was a FREE GIFT to her. Now your going to have to show me that original sin is false and then your going to have to explain why little children don’t need a savior and why they are excluded from the ALL HAVE SINNED and where is the age of reason in scripture.
	Response - You are a riot. This is not about what God is capable of doing, nor is it about babies; this discussion is about Mary and your belief that she was sinless. Your entire defense is based on what God is capable of doing. You have no Scriptural proof for what you believe. From a biblical perspective, what you believe isn’t even reasonable. You see the same Scriptures I do yet deny they mean what they say. In Adam all die, and in him all have sinned. This includes babies and little children, the difference is that they are not accountable if they should die in their youth on account of their inability to commit sin. But even they are justified by Christ’s sacrifice; not because of sins they committed, but because of Adam’s sin. The fact of the matter is little children die; and that fact is a direct result of Adam’s sin. If God did create someone sinless, they would be exempt from death because death is punishment for sin. “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Rom. 5:14) Why don’t you understand this? If you believe God created anyone sinless since the fall of Adam and Eve, you completely fail to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have absolutely no bases for your argument. The doctrine of immaculate conception is completely unbiblical, unreasonable, and was completely unknown to the early church. The apostles never taught it, the early Christians never heard it, and it never happened! The only believable thing you said about your doctrine is, “…we do not know…” Finely, I hope you had fun knocking down the straw man you built. I haven’t said anything about it before, but now it is getting tiring. First you suggest that since I said our sins are place upon Christ, I must believe His sacrifice was only for sins committed. Once you have decided that for me, you assert that I must believe babies commit sin. Straw man built. Then you say, “that’s not consistent with Scripture.” Straw man successfully knocked down; congratulations. The rest of your post simply continues with that assertion and culminated in your ridiculous request that I explain to you why little children don’t need a savior. You not only knocked the straw man down, you pummeled him beyond recognition. You must be proud. “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1Thessalonians 5:21)
	Catholic - God bless you IHW. I’m done.
	Response - God bless you too, Thessalonian. And to Seminarian and all who have participated here, thank you and God bless! I’m done too!

My comments on the debate:

One of my favorite quotes regarding the so-called immaculate conception, comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia where they are quoted as saying, “In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.”

This quote shows the arrogance behind the leadership of the Catholic Church. If anyone, including early church fathers, are not in agreement with the mighty Catholic Church, they must be in error. But I guess arrogance and stubbornness are about the only way one could defend such a ridiculous doctrine. And this is exactly what I found from my Catholic opponent.

My opponent was firm in his belief that the cross of Christ kept Mary from sin, but could not tell me how, because he doesn’t know. Eventually he would have admitted this because there is simply no way around it.

We know that the Christ’s sacrifice was for our sins. He entered the Holy Place by His own blood for the sins of His people. This is what the high priest did on the Day of Atonement each year for the sins of Israel. Christ is the true High Priest who takes away the sins of the world. Mary was no doubt included with Israel when the high priest offered the blood for their sins. And likewise, Mary’s sins were forgiven by the true and righteous sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

Ignatius of Antioch and the “Real Presence Doctrine”

 Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters that are extant.  The situation Ignatius was in while composing his seven epistles is unique to say the least.  Showing his love for Christ and His church, Ignatius selflessly and voluntarily presented himself before the Emperor Trajan as a Christian bishop and was subsequently charged and condemned to death by wild beasts. 

All seven letters were written while Ignatius was a Roman prisoner in rout to Rome where he was to be killed. Four of the letters were written during a stop in Smyrna where Pollycarp was bishop; they consist of his letter to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, and the Romans.  The remaining three letters to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp were written from Troas where they tarried a few days. 

The works of Ignatius can be somewhat confusing because of what are called, long recensions.  The long recensions are longer versions of Ignatius’ letters that were created in the late fourth or early fifth century.  Even the authenticity of the short (or shorter) recensions is in question by some scholars.  Nevertheless, I will treat the short recensions as authentic because they are generally believed to be authentic, and I have found a clear reference to one of them in the writings of Irenaeus.

From Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans, there is a quote that has become somewhat famous in Catholic apologetic circles.  The quote has been credited for convincing many former Protestants that the Catholic Church is Christ’s true church, not that any of these people needed Ignatius to help them get there; they were headed there anyway.  But the quote is believed to be quite powerful in persuading Catholic leaning inquisitors.  Here is the quote:

“They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” (From Chapter 7)

As always, in order to understand the quote, the context must be considered.  Who are “they?”  Why do they not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ?  And what does Ignatius mean by eucharist and prayer?

Who was Ignatius referring to?  Prior to making the above statement, Ignatius identified the heretics in a couple of different places.  “He [Jesus] suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians.” (ibid, Chapter 2) And, “For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.” (ibid, Chapter 5)

The they Ignatius was talking about are Dosetists (Greek dokesis).  The word means “to seem.”  Docetism claimed that Christ did not exist in human form.  And, as Ignatius points out, they claim He only seemed to suffer, to which Ignatius replied, “they only seem to be Christians.”

They do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ because they didn’t believe he truly suffered.  And the eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: “our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.“  In other words, the eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord.  Ignatius goes on to say this:

“Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.”

It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius.  They attempt to make it look as though the Dosetists objected to the eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ.  That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ.  That sacrifice is what the eucharist is all about.  It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Dosetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ’s passion. 

There is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ.  That is merely assumed by those who already believe it.  We should also keep in mind that Ignatius was about to be martyred, and this letter to the Smyrnaeans was written to exhort the church to keep the unity in truth, obeying the Gospel of Christ, and to be aware of heresies like Docetism.  If there had been anything like the sacrifice of the mass or eucharistic adoration existing during that time, Ignatius would have certainly included something about it in this letter. 

In his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius wrote, “If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].  Take ye heed, then, to have but one eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood.”  (Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapters 3 and 4)

There is only one sacrifice for sin, one flesh of Christ, and one altar in heaven, and one truth which is in Jesus Christ.  He exhorted the Philadelphians to come together to give thanks and praise, to celebrate the passion of Christ in unity and love.  This exhortation is echoed in His letter to the Ephesians where he said, “Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.” (To the Ephesians, Chapter 13)

Notice, he didn’t exhort them to come together to participate in offering up Christ in an un-bloody sacrifice.

Most of Ignatius’ letters were exhortations to peace, unity, and vigilance, but his letter to the Romans was quite different.  The thing that troubled Ignatius most was the potential hindrance of his martyrdom by the Christians in Rome.  Ignatius wanted to make clear to the church in Rome his desire to be martyred. Fortunately for us, doing so provided opportunity for him to expound a bit on his understanding of the bread of Christ.

“I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 4)

Ignatius identifies himself as wheat and bread of God.  This comes from the biblical understanding of the eucharist celebration.  The Apostle Paul said, “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1Cor. 10:17)  That bread representing not only the body of Christ that was broken for us, but also our oneness with him.  And, the Lord promises we too will suffer persecution because if we are one with Him, the world will hate us as it does Him.  A better explanation is found in the words of Irenaeus who referenced Ignatius’ words:

“And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff, indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is, those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire [for purification], they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: “I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.” (Irenaeus Against Heresies, 5:28)

By calling himself the wheat of Christ and the pure bread of heaven, Ignatius identifies himself to be in union with Christ’s passion.  And this is what Ignatius wanted more than anything, to partake of the bread of God; that is, to be martyred for his faith and live forever more with Christ.  He eloquently explained to the church in Rome that he desired the ultimate prize: eternal life made possible by the flesh and blood of Christ.

“For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (To the Romans, Chapter 7)

Ignatius speaks of the Spirit of God within him (there is within me a water) beckoning him to come.  He had no delight in corruptible food such as earthly bread, but rather the living bread come down from heaven, namely, the flesh of Christ that was sacrificed for the sins of the world.  And for drink he desired not corruptible wine, but the incorruptible blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins.  Ignatius was about to encounter his Lord face to face!

Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous.  It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda.  Unfortunately it will continue to be the case.  But for those who truly desire truth and are willing to take the time, the agendas of some will not prevail over truth. 

Justin Martyr And The “Real Presence Doctrine”

 Of Justin’s extant writings, three are referenced here: the first and second portions of his apology written to Emperor Antoninus (138-161), referenced as first apology and second apology, and Justin’s Dialog with Trypho the Jew.  

In Justin’s first apology, he gives a rather detailed description of the celebration of the eucharist for the purpose of contrasting it with certain pagan distortions of truth. 

“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.  And this food is called among us eukaristia [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 Savior, 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.” (First Apology, 65-66)

Earlier in his apology Justin defended against accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood.  Here, in his description of the eucharist, he is making it clear that Christians do not partake of flesh and blood in any carnal way, but rather bread and wine mixed with water: “to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water.“  Justin then asserted that though Christians partake of bread and wine, it is not common bread or common wine, but that the bread and wine are connected to Christ who became incarnate and was sacrificed at Calvary for those who believe.  This food, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water, which by transmutation nourishes the body, is what the Christians call the flesh and blood of Christ.  The accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood are, therefore, refuted by Justin. 

Justin gives an example of what the pagan government did tolerate and even honor, while persecuting Christians for what appeared to them to be a similar behavior.  Among them were certain men who performed evil magic and were honored and revered by the pagan leaders.  Justin even names some of these men: a Samaritan named Simon for whom they erected a statue in his honor with the inscription, “To Simon the holy God.”  Another was Meander, a disciple of Simon who persuaded his followers that they would never die.  And also someone much more familiar to us today, Marcion, who, among other heresies, denied that God was the creator of the universe.

All these, Justin explained, are called Christians.  But only the true Christians who hold the apostolic teachings are persecuted by the authorities.  And in summing this up, Justin wrote:

“And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.” (ibid, 26)

To put it in context, Justin first referred to the eating of human flesh a shameful deed; then he explained that the eucharist celebration does not involve consuming human flesh in any way.  The bread and wine mixed with water are symbolically the body and blood of Christ.  The accusation that Christians ate human flesh was used to persecute Christians, while others who may have actually done that were not persecuted.  The purpose of Justin’s explanation of the eucharist was to counter the accusation that Christians ate human flesh.

Justin continues to make his point in his second apology.  Here Justin shows that feasting on human flesh is contrary to the Christian mindset. 

“For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds.” (2^nd Apology, Chapter 12)

Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies.  In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the eucharist as he did in his first apology.  To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church.  With regards to the eucharist, he said:

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, ‘I said,’ 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.”

This is the very definition of the eucharist - a celebration of the remembrance of the Lord’s passion in which Christians offer thanks and prayer.  The offering of fine flour was part of what the cleansed leper was required to offer.  Justin tells Trypho that this offering was a type of the bread of the eucharist.  He goes on to explain what the bread of the eucharist represents, thus by similarity, what the fine flour presented by the leper represented.

The bread represents what Jesus offered in the past, that is, His suffering flesh, which He endured for the sake of those who believe on Him.  According to Justin, the fine flour presented by the leper pointed forward to the same thing.  But the Catholic Encyclopedia does not agree.  Under the topic of “The Sacrifice of the Mass,” they say this:

“A heated controversy had raged round the conception of Justin Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in his “Dialogue with Tryphon” (c. 117) he characterizes “prayer and thanksgiving” (euchai kai eucharistiai) as the “one perfect sacrifice acceptable to God” (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai).” [i]

Unwilling to accept Justin’s definition, the Catholic encyclopedia continues with an objection: “Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior real sacrifice of the eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same “Dialogue” (c. 41) he says the “food offering” of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf. Leviticus 14), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the eucharist, which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His sufferings.“

The problem with this reasoning is Jesus never commanded the bread to be offered, but rather taken or received (lambano); “Take, eat, this is My body.”  He then commanded His disciples to do this (poiein) in remembrance of Him; that is, to break bread in remembrance of Him and offer the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, not offer the bread as a sacrifice.  The encyclopedia article continues to become more desperate as it goes on:

“He [Justin] then goes on: ‘of the sacrifices which you (the Jews) formerly offered, God through Malachias said: ‘I have no pleasure, etc’. By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which we Gentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of the bread of eucharist and likewise of the chalice eucharist, he then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him.’ Here ‘bread and chalice’ are by the use of toutesti clearly included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the Christian sacrifice.”

You know you are in trouble when you have to resort to defining common Greek words like toutesti (that is).  Perhaps the Catholic quire will believe it, but certainly not anyone seeking the truth.  Justin continues to develop his point as the dialog progresses.  Justin makes his point even more clear in chapter 70 where he connects a prophecy of Isaiah with the eucharist.

“They [the words of Isaiah] are these: ‘Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; those that are near shall know my might. The sinners in Zion are removed; trembling shall seize the impious. Who shall announce to you the everlasting place? The man who walks in righteousness, speaks in the right way, hates sin and unrighteousness, and keeps his hands pure from bribes, stops the ears from hearing the unjust judgment of blood closes the eyes from seeing unrighteousness: he shall dwell in the lofty cave of the strong rock. Bread shall be given to him, and his water[shall be] sure. Ye shall see the King with glory, and your eyes shall look far off. Your soul shall pursue diligently the fear of the Lord. Where is the scribe? where are the counselors? where is he that numbers those who are nourished,–the small and great people? with whom they did not take counsel, nor knew the depth of the voices, so that they heard not. The people who are become depreciated, and there is no understanding in him who hears.’ Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

Justin explicitly stated that bread (not the flesh) is given by Christ in remembrance of His flesh, and that the cup is in remembrance of - not is - His own blood.  If Justin believed in transubstantiation i.e. the real presence, he would have certainly stated it here, instead he refutes it. 

In ending his exhortation to Trypho on the subject of sacrifice, Justin affirmed the definition of true Christian sacrifice in this statement:

“Ezekiel says, ‘There shall be no other prince in the house but He.’ For He is the chosen Priest and eternal King, the Christ, inasmuch as He is the Son of God; and do not suppose that Isaiah or the other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar on His second advent, but of true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks.” (ibid, chapter 118)

Truly it is as Justin said, “giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.” (ibid, chapter 117)

---

[i] Catholic Encyclopedia; Sacrifice of the Mass

Irenaeus of Lyons and the Real Presence Docrtine

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons France (Gaul) in the mid second century. He wrote his Against Heresies around 180 A.D. an invaluable work that details Gnostic practices and beliefs and furthermore soundly and biblically refutes them. In addition to Against Heresies, there are several fragments extant that mostly come from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.There are many aspects of gnosticism Irenaeus labored to refute, but for the purpose of this article I will highlight one. Gnostics believed that humans were divine souls trapped in a material world created by evil entities. Irenaeus contended that the world and everything in it was divinely created by God. And it was elements of the creation that Christ commanded to be received as His body and blood for a memorial of His sacrifice.Bread and wine are created things that nourish our created bodies. These elements of creation, Irenaeus taught, are established as the body and blood of Christ whose blood was shed truly and physically. The Gnostics maintained that Christ’s body was not created like ours denying His human nature. Therefore, it did not make sense to them that the body could be eternally saved; but Irenaeus asserts that the body will be resurrected incorruptible.This is the context in which Irenaeus describes the eucharist. Irenaeus likens the rebirth of the believer to the eucharist and vise verse.

“Then, again, how can they [the Gnostics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the eucharist, and the eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”

Again, the context is the resurrection of the believer. Irenaeus is speaking of Christians when he said, “the fleshed nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood.” That is, those who believe on He who was crucified for their sins are nourished with the body and blood of the Lord. Their bodies will not remain in corruption because they will be resurrected. For we offer to Him His own, that is of His own creation. But offerings in the flesh are only pleasing to God when the flesh is united with the Spirit. The flesh united with the gift of the Holy Spirit offers to God the praises of thanksgiving. Flesh void of the gift of the Holy Spirit cannot offer anything to God.

Irenaeus transfers this reality to the bread of the eucharist by claiming that the bread, which is of God’s creation, receives a Spiritual aspect upon receiving the invocation. The bread, he states, is “no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” Earthly, because it is bread which is of the creation, and heavenly, because it is blessed and received by those who themselves are both earthly (in the flesh) and heavenly (born of the Spirit).

Irenaeus clearly denies the notion held by the Catholic Church that the bread is no longer bread; he calls it, “no longer common bread.” Compare this to what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in an answer to a relevant question.

“Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present-body, blood, soul, and divinity-the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, “This bread is my body,” but “This is my body” (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).” (Emphasis mine)Irenaeus said the bread was no longer common bread, thus maintaining its status as bread; and the Catholic bishops say it is no longer bread at all. The earthly aspect of the bread from the Irenaeus quote is acknowledgment that the bread is of the creation. The spiritual is attached to the eucharist itself, which is the celebration of the passion of the Lord and the unity of the body of Christ. The Catholic Church is in opposition to Irenaeus’ understanding of the eucharist elements.Not only does Irenaeus deny the change in substance in the bread and wine, he also illustrates in the following quote that the universal church recognized that the alter whereby we offer our gifts to God is in heaven. And heaven is where our adoration is directed, not towards the eucharistic elements.

“Thus is it, therefore, also His will that we, too, should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission. The altar, then, is in heaven (for towards that place are our prayers and oblations directed); the temple likewise [is there], as John says in the Apocalypse, “And the temple of God was opened: ” the tabernacle also: “For, behold,” He says, “the tabernacle of God, in which He will dwell with men.”

There is also a fragment extant from Irenaeus that sheds a bit more light on the question of the eucharistic bread’s substance. Apparently during the persecutions at Lyons, one of the accusations placed upon Christians was the charge of cannibalism. This charge was made because the non-Christians heard that the Christians ate the body and blood of Christ. This fragment from Irenaeus shows that the Christians indeed did not consider that the eucharist was the literal body of Christ.

“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: ‘How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?‘”

             (Fragment 13)

The slaves had heard from their masters that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and so confessed it to be. But Irenaeus clarifies for us that the slaves confessed in ignorance by saying they imagined it was actually flesh and blood. Irenaeus’ point is made even clearer in Blandina’s reply to the Greeks’ attempt to make he and Sanctus confess the same. The slaves themselves would not even eat the meat that was permitted them to eat much less the literal flesh of Christ. To Irenaeus the idea of real presence in the eucharist as believed by Catholics today was ridiculous.

Tertullian of Carthage And The “Real Presence Doctrine”

 Tertullian was from Carthage, a city located near modern day Tunis Tunisia in Northern Africa. During Tertullian’s time, the culture of Carthage was distinctly Roman. The Christian church there was likely under the jurisdiction of the church in Rome because of its close proximity. The western churches during Tertullian’s day were inconsiderable next to the chief churches of Antioch and Alexandria where Clement resided. But Tertullian exemplifies the same passion, intelligence, and dedication as his eastern brother Clement did, but with a bit more bluntness and attitude. When one reads Tertullian’s work, one can appreciate the struggles of the early church, particularly with regards to living under constant threats from the pagan government.

I once heard a Catholic who was introducing a former Protestant speaker say, “The water runs clearer closer to the spring.” What he meant by that was that the early church fathers were closer to the apostles than we are, so we should listen closely to what they had to say. His reason for saying it, of course, was to introduce a speaker who was about to testify how studying the early church brought him into the Catholic Church. The funny thing was, the speaker never mentioned any early church reference that couldn’t be readily found on any Catholic apologetics website’s borage of out-of-context quotes - “So much for studying.”

The saying, however, certainly fits Tertullian. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is not persuaded by Tertullian, who in his treatise on baptism strongly condemned the practice of baptizing infants and small children. It appears that the Catholic Church finds some of that clear water too bitter to drink. But whether one agrees with Tertullian or not, it can be shown that he, similar to Clement, demonstrates in his writings the absence of anything like the real presence doctrine existing during his time.

Tertullian wrote a work called “The Resurrection of the Dead” in which he expounded on the unique relationship of the soul and the flesh. Tertullian taught that the two were separate entities that worked together to serve God. Tertullian strives to produce several examples of the conjoined soul-flesh relationship which sometimes reveals his philosophical tendencies rather than solid biblical teaching. And it is one of these examples that Catholic apologist target for “real presence” support.

“The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service. Those sacrifices, moreover, which are acceptable to God–I mean conflicts of the soul, fastings, and abstinences, and the humiliations which are annexed to such duty–it is the flesh which performs again and again to its own especial suffering.”

Exactly what Tertullian believed regarding the flesh and soul of Christians would no doubt make for interesting discussion. But the thing Catholic apologists really want to present here is the fact that Tertullian refers to the eucharist elements as the “body and blood” of Christ. But this is completely inadequate for their purpose. One would be hard pressed to find Christians who didn’t refer to the elements as the body and blood of Christ; even in the same way Tertullian did in his treaties on prayer where he said, “Will not your Station [day of fasting] be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved?“

I think many Catholics are under the impression that only they refer to the eucharist in this way. The Lord instituted the memorial by saying, “this is My body” and “this is the cup of the new testament that is in My blood; do this in remembrance of Me.” It is profoundly Christian to refer to the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ because the eucharist is the celebration of the passion of our Lord. But that does not mean that the bread and wine used in the eucharist celebration are the literal body and blood of Christ.

Later, in chapter 13, Tertullian gives us a glimpse into his interpretation of the bread of life discourse (the biblical bases for the real presence doctrine) while expounding on the topic of flesh and soul.

“For the soul-flesh, or the flesh-soul, is but one; unless indeed He [Christ] even had some other soul apart from that which was flesh, and bare about another flesh besides that which was soul. But since He had but one flesh and one soul,–that “soul which was sorrowful, even unto death,” and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world,”–the number is unimpaired of two substances distinct in kind, thus excluding the unique species of the flesh-comprised soul.”

Notice the use of the past tense in the sentence “and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world.” If Tertullian believed in a doctrine like the real presence, he would not have used the past tense. Rather Tertullian would have used the present tense, or perfect see which would have been translated “is the bread…” since the act of eating it is ongoing. Also, the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world is not the glorified body of Christ as the real presence doctrine asserts, but the flesh of Christ was that sin offering for the life of the world before He was received into glory.

The biblical support for the real presence doctrine relies on the interpretation that Jesus was referring to eating His physical flesh when He said, “and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” Since Tertullian referenced the event as having occurred in the past, he could not have believed that Jesus was saying He would give his flesh to be literally eaten, but rather that He gave His flesh sacrificially at the cross for the life of the world.

There are a few other places in Tertullian’s works that Catholic apologists like to use for support of the real presence doctrine. One quote often used is found in a work called “The Chaplet.” The quote used is often presented like this:

“We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground.”

The purpose is to convey the notion that Tertullian is imploring caution in the handling of the eucharistic elements because they are believed to be the actual body and blood of Christ. But if that were true, why does he call them cup and bread? Tertullian often refers to the elements as the body and blood of Christ, so why not here? Perhaps the problem is Catholic editing. Here is the same quote properly translated:

“We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.”

The context from which this quote is taken doesn’t even suggest that Tertullian is speaking of the eucharist.

We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike.

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors.”

“We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday.”

“We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.”

“At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.”

These things Tertullian is describing are unwritten customs that were practiced at the time. There is nothing to suggest he believed or even heard of real presence.

Clement of Alexandria And The “Real Presence Doctrine”

Clement of Alexandria flourished at the close of the second century when he succeeded Pantaenus in the catechetical school of Alexandria. It is believed by some that Clement compiled his “stramata” (miscellaneous writings) about the time he was 40 years old. If true, he would have been born while Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were still writing, and while Polycarp was still alive. As a teacher of Christian philosophy, Clement instructed Origen who wrote during the mid third century. Among Clement’s writings are three books called, “Paedagogus” (The Instructor). In these works Clement goes far beyond simple explanations and examples. His thoughts build one upon another in a continuous development of Christian instruction. Such is the case in a well used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.“

Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine. Those whose faith is built on the word of God, however, will notice that Clement presents the somewhat obscure metaphors in the first half of the quote, and then explains them in the second half. The explanation is consistent with Paul’s teachings about putting off the old man and putting on Christ. (Eph. 4:21-24, Col. 3:9-10) But even if Catholics were to read just a few lines further beyond the quote, they would find words that would challenge their assumptions.“

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…“

The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “eat My flesh and drink My blood,” is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time. Giving a little context to the quote presented on Catholic websites, however, does little or nothing to sway a devout Catholic. When I presented the added context to one Catholic, he reacted with, “I admit I am completely bewildered by the Clement of Alexandria quotes you present I do not understand them and they seem to be very figurative, but they are not denying the real presence there either.” (Emphasis mine)

Well, yes they do. If the doctrine hinges on Jesus’ words, “eat My flesh and drink My blood” being literal, then Clement is indeed denying the real presence doctrine.From a Catholic apologist at “StayCatholic.com” I received this:

“It looks like he is saying that he believes in the “Real Presence” but that he can also see some symbolism in it as well. Remember he said: “Hear it ALSO in the following way.” The word also obviously includes both views. This wouldn’t necessarily constitute a contradiction. Even in Scripture we have passages that have meanings on a number of levels.” (Emphasis his)

Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language. I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors. And earlier in that chapter Clement said this:

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”

Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.

 “‘I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.“

And Clement concludes the chapter with this: “Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.“Clement reiterates his instruction in Book 2 and uses it to define the eucharist.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.”

Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.

Clement expounds on these things elsewhere in his writings as well. One example is found among the stramata in Book 5, chapter 10:

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.“

Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” Jesus told His disciples, “I have meat to eat you know not of …My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me, and finish His work.” Likewise, we desire the pure food of Christ as our nourishment and source for well-being and growth. Clement wonderfully instructs those younger in the faith on this intimate relationship between Christ and His church, things the carnal mind just can’t grasp.

The before mentioned apologist from StayCatholic.com also presented a bit of a disclaimer. He said, “The Church would have a problem with him [Clement] if he denied the “Real Presence.” And he hasn’t done that.”

Clement indeed does deny the real presence in his writings and the Catholic Church does have a problem with him. From the time the Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint. But Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius. Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

So what are the Catholic Church’s issues with Clement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.” ¹ In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols.

The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. As previously mentioned, Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.” Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

It is interesting how easily Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

In plain English, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.” And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.‘”

And leading up to this explanation, Origen expounded in more detail:

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’“

There are several reference from Origen that demonstrate his understanding of the eucharist and the bread of life discourse, and none of them agree with Catholic doctrine. However, it is not uncommon for Catholic apologetics sites to use references from Origen that are used to support the real presence doctrine. These references, however, are far from their context and taken from writings of doubtful authenticity known as Origen’s homilies. Unable to rely on the homilies for the topic of real presence in the eucharist, it’s no wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia decided to pass over Clement and Origen.

Text week, Tertullian of Carthage!

The Catholic Church’s Problem With Clement of Alexandria

 From the time the Catholic Church began to honor saints and martyrs with feast days up until the 17th century, Clement was venerated as a saint. But Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop Clement of Alexandria from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius. Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the Martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

So what are the Catholic Church’s issues with Clement? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement had faulty interpretations. What does that mean? According to a quote used by the encyclopedia from Tixeront (a 20th century Catholic scholar), it means (at least in part) that Clement “used allegory everywhere.”  In a nutshell, the Catholic Church has a problem with Clement’s use of metaphors and symbols.

The Catholic Church is in quite a predicament when it comes to Clement. They cannot accept his metaphorical teachings, and they cannot deny the evidence showing that he was orthodox. Clement was highly admired and praised as a great Christian teacher by prominent figures in the early church. If Clement’s teaching that the bread of life discourse was to be understood metaphorically was erroneous, why do we not find any protest against him by the ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries? What we do find is praise for his skill of teaching and his knowledge of Scripture.

After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.” Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox.

It is interesting how easily Catholic apologists will discount any church father’s testimony if it doesn’t agree with Catholic doctrine. What is worse is that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a respected source for this type of information, completely dodges Clement and Origen on the topic “The Sacrifice of the Mass.”

“Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrifice of the Mass)

In plain English, the reason the Catholic Encyclopedia passed over Clement and Origen is because they both clearly taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Eat My body and drink My blood.”

www.one-fold.com/earlychurch_rp.htm

The Church is One

 The church indeed is one; the church indeed was founded by Christ; the church indeed are the children of God from Adam to the last at His glorious appearing.

Those who are of His church, who walk in the Spirit “are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” (Eph. 2:19-21)

Paul, having been sent to preach to the Gentiles, laid the foundation of the Gospel of Christ for us to build upon. Paul knew what he had been called to do and he knew it was the work of God in him. Indeed he also knew his letters were inspired by God.

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.” (Eph. 3:1-7)

We are not saved by simply accepting the Lord Jesus into our hearts. The word is received into a variety of hearts — some like the stone pathway, some like the shallow soil, some like the weed infested ground, and some in the good soil. If the heart that receives the word of God is like the good soil, he will bear fruit beginning with the fruits of repentance. For such a one can echo the inspired words of Paul, who said:

“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

To Anoint the Most Holy

 [Daniel 9:24]  The literal translation is to anoint the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies. This is a reference to the inner sanctuary of the Temple of God. Once a year, the high priest would enter the inner sanctuary to atone for his sins and the sins of the nation. Once in the Most Holy Place, the priest would sprinkle the blood from the sacrifice of the brazen alter onto the arc of the covenant and the mercy seat above it. “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22)

It is difficult for some to see Jesus having already entered the Holy Place since He never entered the temple sanctuary. But that Holy Place was made with hands (by man).  It was merely a model of the true temple of God which is in heaven (Mark 14:58, Heb. 9:11); this is the Holy Place Christ entered.  Nothing could be clearer than what the writer of Hebrews said concerning this.

The high priest anointed the Most Holy Place with the blood of animals for the sins of the people. The animal’s blood foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice and had to be repeated every year:

“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Heb. 9:11-12)

The temple and the inner sanctuary the high priest entered every year was a model of the “greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands.” Christ entered not the temporal Holy Place, but the actual Holy Place in which the temporal was a model. He anointed the Holy place with His own blood, not the blood of animals. And He didn’t have to do it over and over again for the sins of Israel; he did it once for all who would believe on Him.

The Chronology of Revelation

Revelation is not a chronological book from beginning to end.  There are three major somewhat chronological sections from chapter 4 to chapter 18, all describing the same events from different perspectives.The first section spans from chapter 4 to chapter 11.  Here John is caught up into the Temple of God.  He sees the throne of God, the 24 elders, the Lamb of God slain, the seals being opened, the multitude worshiping, and the angels with trumpets standing before God to signal His wrath and judgment.  This section concludes with the kingdoms of the earth becoming the kingdoms of Christ depicted also in chapter 19.  Chapter ten, however, breaks from chronology and reveals for us the conclusion of Daniels vision of Christ descending to the earth, and also John is commanded to prophecy again, this time from an earthly perspective, which begins in chapter 12.

The second section spans from chapter 12 to chapter 16.  Here John sees the dragon waiting to devour the Christ as soon as He was born, Christ ascending into heaven, Satan being cast out of heaven because Christ is triumphant, and the wickedness of Satan’s war with those who hold the testimony of Christ; the church.  Here the glorious appearing is depicted symbolically as Christ reaping the harvest and an angel reaping the grapes of wrath.  He also sees the bowls of God’s judgment; seven angels standing outside the temple pouring out God’s wrath as signaled (I presume) by the trumpets blown by the angels standing before God.  This section concludes the same as the first.

The third section spans chapter 17 to 18.  These chapters give details concerning the trials and tribulations of the church not detailed in the two previous sections.  It also details the wrath of God upon Mystery Babylon and depicts Christ’s glorious appearing as an angel coming down from heaven lighting the earth with His glory (18:1)