Clement of Alexandria on Salvation and Real Presence

I came across a question of Catholic Answers that apologist Tom Nash attempted to answer.  Here is the question:

“I am seeking material that supports St. Clement of Alexandria’s belief in the Eucharist not as a metaphor. His writings seem to infer he did not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”

Nash responded by quoting a portion of Clement’s writing where he presumed the impression came from.  Then he simply posted another quote from Clement as if that was satisfactory.  He essentially said, here is what Clement said in a different place, now go along and stop asking silly questions.

I guess we can’t blame Nash for doing that since it is his job to retain Catholics, not lose them.  If he were to engage in the context of Clement’s writings, he would most certainly find himself backed into a corner with no way out. 

When he challenged my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence,” he did so using information exclusively drawn from tracts on the Catholic Answers website.  My counter response was to write three in-depth articles on Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus.  To this, Nash had nothing to say but to point his readers, once again, to the tracts on the website.

It was blaringly obvious to me that Nash had no understanding or need of the early church writings, except to use them as propaganda.  The person asking the question, presumably a Catholic, had obviously been reading something from Clement’s work that was persuading him or her to the opinion that Clement was not a proponent of the real presence doctrine.  I’m convinced that Nash would not have known where to find that impression from Clement had he not been informed of my article.

In book one, chapter six of his work, The Instructor, Clement continually stresses the proclamation of the Gospel as the only food necessary for the soul. 

Clement taught that the Word, that is, He who was from the beginning with God and who is God, is the source of nutrition to the believer in Christ.  Christ is the Word and source of our nutriment.  He is the Vine and we are the branches.  We receive no nutriment or bear any fruit unless we abide in the Vine.  Clement further taught that the way we receive the nutriment of the Word, is through the proclamation of the Gospel. 

“We may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat and assimilates to the soul itself, nourishment of this kind.”

This parallels with Paul’s analogy of the foundation upon which the church is built.  He said the foundation was the apostles, prophets and Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.  We, as living stones, are built up together for a dwelling place for God in spirit, i.e., His temple.  Out nourishment is the Word Himself, and the means by which we receive the Word is through the Gospel.

Clement illustrated how Jesus used the metaphor of consuming His flesh and blood the same as Paul used milk and meat to convey our spiritual nutriment.

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise.”

He said this concurrently with the above quote.  So the “this” he is referring to is the milk and meat through the proclamation of the Gospel.  He said it was a description by Jesus that was presented distinctly by metaphor to describe the drinkable properties of faith.  He knew this to be true because Jesus explained that the words He spoke were spirit and life. 

The bread of life discourse itself was a distinction between carnal nutriment and Spiritual nutriment.  There were those at the discourse who could not see past the carnal because they didn’t believe in Jesus.  Clement picked up on this as well.

“Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: For that which is in Him is life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears My words, and believes in Him that sent Me, has eternal life, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed from death to life.’ Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak.”

The biblical quote is from John 5:24, and Clement uses it as a lead-in to show that salvation is solely the product of faith, which can also be derived from the bread of life discourse.

“Now the Lord Himself has most clearly revealed the equality of salvation, when He said: For this is the will of my Father, that every one that sees the Son, and believes in Him, should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.’ As far as possible in this world, which is what he means by the last day, and which is preserved till the time that it shall end, we believe that we are made perfect. Wherefore He says, He that believes in the Son has everlasting life. If, then, those who have believed have life, what remains beyond the possession of eternal life? Nothing is wanting to faith, as it is perfect and complete in itself. If anything is wanting to it, it is not wholly perfect.”

Clement proclaims loud and clear that faith in Jesus alone is the means of salvation.  Most Catholics don’t know this because it’s never presented to them, and the ones who do don’t want the rest to know.  What they do present, however, are quotes like the following:

“Eat 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.”

That is a Catholic apologist’s use of early church writings.  Anything that sounds like it might support Catholic doctrine is used with no regard for context.  Coincidentally, this quote comes from the same book and chapter from which the above quotes were taken.  How then could one reconcile the idea that Clement was suggesting that the suitable food is the eucharist when one reads the context of the work? 

It’s easy to cherry-pick quotes out of context, and even easier to accept them as proof because it makes one feel as though the early church writers support their beliefs.  It’s lazy, pure and simple.  It’s lazy on the part of the one who accepts it, and it’s deceitful on the part of the one who provides it. 

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church teaches that receiving the eucharist is essential for salvation.  Clement does not.  Rather, Clement taught that Gospel instruction nourishes up to eternal life.  See for yourself…  

“Wherefore also I have given you milk to drink, he [Paul: 1Cor. 3:2] says; meaning, I have instilled into you the knowledge which, from instruction, nourishes up to life eternal. But the expression, I have given you to drink, is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. For my blood, says the Lord, is true drink. In saying, therefore, I have given you milk to drink, has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk?”

As much as Catholic apologists like to point out that Jesus’ blood it true drink, you will never find this quote on a Catholic website.  The nutrient is knowledge, and instruction is the conduit and eternal life is the result.  The Lord’s blood as true drink truly symbolizes the actual spiritual nutrition from Christ the Vine that leads to eternal life.  Like that of milk and meat, the Lord’s blood is another metaphor for Gospel instruction.  As Clement said previously, the Lord was describing, distinctly by metaphor, the drinkable properties of faith and promise.

And what of the cherry-picked quote that sound so authentically Catholic?  Well, try reading it in context.  Not just the context around it, but the entire context of Clement’s lesson.  The quote below gives the entire stance from which it is taken.  When reading it, keep in mind that the “milk” didn’t suddenly change meaning.  The nourishment didn’t suddenly become the eucharist.  In fact, Clement made no reference to the eucharist in the entire lesson.  Not once did he make a connection between the bread of life discourse, which he referenced several times, and the eucharist.  Not one time! 

“And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat 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.”

It takes a true ideologue to read Clement and conclude that he supported the Catholic doctrine of real presence.  The truth is that his writings refute the catholic doctrine of real presence.  Clement clearly believed in salvation by faith alone.  He believed that our spiritual nutrition comes from knowledge in Christ through the proclamation of the Gospel, like branches to the Vine.  The mystery isn’t transubstantiation, it’s spiritual growth through knowledge.  But I guess those without knowledge must have their own mysteries, and they are plentiful.

Answering the C.A. Tracts: Christ in the Eucharist

From the Catholic Answers website:

Here at Catholic Answers, one of the most effective methods for countering attacks and clearing up misconceptions about the Catholic Faith have been our tracts. They have been around since the beginning of the apostolate and have resulted in many thousands of conversions. These tracts provide a real point of contact for someone in discovering the truths of the Catholic Faith.

There is a continuous onslaught of Catholics asking the C.A. apologist to explain why something they were told by a Protestant is not true. Catholic Answers biggest fear is that Catholics will be drawn away from the Catholic Church by listening to Protestants, and the tracts on their website play an important role in making sure that does not happen. So wouldn’t it be interesting if Catholics start asking their apologists to answer challenges to their tracts?

If the tracts are the go-to source for clearing up misconceptions, where will they tell them to go when the tracts themselves are shown to be deceitful? Now I’m not talking about misunderstanding or opposing interpretations I’m talking about very intentional well-crafted deceit. For example…

My Response to Tom Nash Part 3

Irenaeus of Lyons

The primary thing Tom Nash did not do in his response to my article, was to explain anything. He completely relied on the mindset of Catholics to interpret excerpts from Irenaeus as they have been conditioned to do. In contrast I have provided context and explanations which I think are preferred by reasonable people.

Let’s start with a quote from Irenaeus that Mr. Nash considered to stand on its own in support of Catholic real presence:

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”

To properly expound on this quote we need to take in context. However, not a lot of context is required in order to understand the point Irenaeus is trying to make. Just going back to the beginning of the paragraph (5.2.2) where the quote was taken helps a great deal. It starts with this sentence:

“But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption.”

The heretics to whom he was referring were those who believed that the material world was evil including the flesh and blood of man. They saw the world as imperfect, flawed, and evil, not because of the fall of Adam and Eve, but because they believed it was created that way. They could not reconcile a perfect God creating an imperfect world. Their view of Jesus was that He was a mere man who became divine as a result of His spiritual virtue. They believed He became the manifestation of Christ at the moment of His baptism.

A response to Catholic Apologist Tom Nash of Catholic Answers Part 2

In part one of my response to Tom Nash, I answered to his claims regarding Ignatius of Antioch. Here, in part two, I will address his claims regarding Justin Martyr.

In my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence,” I give context and some background on Justin Martyr’s two apologies. It is by no means comprehensive, but it does help to better understand why Justin wrote these works. But as for squashing the claim that his works affirm the notion of real presence, well, that can be done with a single phrase from Justin: “Deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced.”

Here is the context…

My Response to Catholic Apologist Tom Nash of Catholic Answers Part 1

Brian Culliton

An article recently appeared on the Catholic.com website that responds to my article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence.” The article was written by Catholic apologist, Tom Nash, who posted it in the website’s online magazine section. Here is a link to the article: The Early Church Believed in the Eucharist

My article, “Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence” is a contextual approach to the early church writings. The article was written in 2009. I am currently working on a new revision to the article that will provide more background on the writers, an even more comprehensive look at what they believed about the eucharist, and a couple additional works that lend well to the topic, but carry with them a level uncertainty as to their dates, which of course will be fully disclosed.

It is my opinion that Mr. Nash did an inadequate job of refuting the conclusions of my article since he failed on every point to incorporate any context. Essentially, Mr. Nash relied on isolated quotes to suggest to his readers that what these quotes say sounds very Catholic. On that point I agree. It’s the reason why Catholic Answers lists strings of them without contextual support. But to me context is everything, and I am certain that every other fair-minded individual out there would agree.

The Council of Jerusalem

Unlike any other book of the New Testament, the book of Acts is a historical work, and the so-called council of Jerusalem is a historical event. All too often historical events get interpreted through the lens of one’s current ideology. In the case of the Jerusalem council, the long-held interpretation that the apostles and elders came together to decide whether Gentiles need circumcision, was interpreted through the lens of post-Nicene church leaders who themselves asserted similar authority and needed a Scriptural example for doing it.

Unlike Christians in the past who were denied Scriptural examination, we have the privilege of not only examining Scripture, but to do it in any language or translation we like. So when Christians today propagate the same interpretations held by those who formed them for selfish gain, it astonishes me. It astonishes me because Luke, the author of the book of Acts, took valuable time and effort to lay the foundation of what transpired in Jerusalem nearly two millennia ago; context that is largely ignored.

A new page on the Onefold Blog details the event in context. Beginning with Paul’s conversion to the faith, the article walks the reader through the context laid out by Luke and adds historical insight. It follows Paul and Peter along different paths and demonstrates that they, and the other apostles and elders, had been of the same understanding regarding Gentiles for nearly twenty years prior to the meeting in Jerusalem. It examines the underlying issue in the Jerusalem church that grew like a cancer and eventually culminated in the largest controversy of the apostolic church.

To read the article, click here, or navigate through the menu above.

Thank you!

Brian Culliton
Onefold admin

Steve Ray: The Paradigm of Catholic Apologists and Authors

I came across the blog of Catholic apologist and author, Steve Ray, where I found this question from one of his visitors, Wade Fowler, on March 11, 2015:

“Hey Steve….came across this blog….and I find myself perplexed and out of my league. I read Crossing the Tiber, but no longer have my copy… Can you help me reconcile what this blog is saying using the ECFs.

Here is the link. Please peruse it when you have time. I am very interested in your response.

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence

Thanks and God bless.”

Steve Ray’s answer:

A Critical Response to “The Church Fathers on Transubstantiation”

I was recently made aware of a website called, Called to Communion,” in particular to an article written by a gentleman named, Tim Troutman. The article is titled, “The Church Fathers on Transubstantiation.” Mr. Troutman’s objective was to prove that the early church fathers affirm a change in substance of the elements of the Eucharist into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, though admitting that it is not expressly stated in any patristic source.

In his introduction he points to a type of evidence which he states is a “simple identification of the consecrated species with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.” He goes on to explain, “Because unconsecrated bread is not called the Body, and consecrated is called the Body, this directly implies a belief that a supernatural change has taken place at the point of consecration.” It seems much could be implied from approaching the early church works from this viewpoint. I would say it implies that they referred to it as the Lord’s body and blood simply because the Lord Himself did, and for no other reason than that. In fact, we will see from the first quote used by Mr. Troutman, that this is exactly what we find. But Mr. Troutman’s first claim is the most important; the claim that the early church fathers affirmed a change in the elements.

The Bread of Life: Why Many Disciples Walked Away

Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, authored an article titled, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism — The Eucharist,” which can be read here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0003.html. The subject of the article was John chapter six, the bread of life discourse.

Mr. Keating has a fair amount of respect among Catholics who visit my blog, which is why I want to address his article here. He is the champion of using early church writings out of context, avoiding context within Scripture, and using references of which he seems to have little familiarity to support his arguments. It was his plethora of out-of-context quotes published on his website, Catholic Answers, that inspired me to write a lengthy contextual article on the early church view of the eucharist. Here I just want to respond to some of his arguments on the bread of life discourse. I want to pick up where he commented on why Jesus didn’t go after His departing disciples.

Open Discussion on Justification

This post is for the purpose of discussing the topic of justification on the request of Nick from Nick’s Catholic Blog. I invite Nick to begin the discussion.