| From the treatise on the Trinity by Saint Hilary of Poitiers |
|---|
| The unity of the faithful in God through the incarnation of the Word and the sacrament of the Eucharist (born 300 AD) |
|---|
If the Word has truly been made flesh and we in very truth receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, are we not bound to believe that he abides in us naturally? Born as a man, he assumed the nature of our flesh so that now it is inseparable from himself, and conjoined the nature of his own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which his flesh is communicated to us. Accordingly we are all one, because the Father is in Christ and Christ in us. He himself is in us through the flesh and we in him, and because we are united with him, our own being is in God.
He himself testifies that we are in him through the sacrament of the flesh and blood bestowed upon us: In a short time the world will no longer see me; but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will understand that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you. If he wanted to indicate a mere unity of will, why did He set forth a kind of gradation and sequence in the completion of that unity? It can only be that, since he was in the Father through the nature of Deity, and we on the contrary in him through his birth in the body, he wishes us to believe that he is in us through the mystery of the sacraments. From this we can learn the perfect unity through a Mediator; for we abide in him and he abides in the Father, and while abiding in the Father he abides in us as well – so that we attain unity with the Father. For while Christ is in the Father naturally according to his birth, we too are in Christ naturally, since he abides in us naturally.
He himself has told us how natural this unity is: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. No-one can be in Christ unless Christ is in him, because the only flesh which he has taken to himself is the flesh of those who have taken his.
He had earlier revealed to us the sacrament of this perfect unity: As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. He lives because of the Father, and as he lives because of the Father so we live because of his flesh.
Every comparison is chosen to shape our understanding, so that we may grasp the subject concerned by help of the analogy set before us. To summarise, this is what gives us life: that we have Christ dwelling within our carnal selves through the flesh, and we shall live because of him in the same manner as he lives because of the Father.
comment 33 : http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/real-presence-does-it-mean-cannibalism/
First I would correct the notion that believers in a state of grace have only the Third Person indwelling. Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (Jn. 14:23) All three Persons of the Blessed Trinity indwell each person who is in a state of grace. The Eucharist is “highly regarded” and “made such a big deal of” because the Eucharist is Jesus, who is God. And God should always be “highly regarded” and recognized as “a big deal,” because He is that Deal than which no greater Deal can even be conceived. The three Persons of the Trinity do not compete for regard, nor does the presence of one divine Person rightly make us nonchalant or indifferent to the presence of another divine Person. Rather, each Person of the Trinity deepens our love for the other two Persons of the Trinity. The Eucharist is unique as a mode of divine presence because in the Eucharist Christ is present substantially and sacramentally under the species of bread and wine, whereas the indwelling of the Trinity is not by substantial presence but by mutual indwelling in the soul. That is, mutual indwelling is through having the beloved in one’s intellect (as known), and in one’s will (as loved), as St. Thomas explains here. The omnipresence of God, by contrast, is as the mover and sustainer of all beings. (See Summa Theologica I Q.8.) So Christ’s Eucharistic presence is unique in comparison to His omnipresence by power, and His indwelling by grace.
and from comment 24 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/augustine-on-adams-body-and-christs-body-is-reformed-theology-truly-augustinian/comment-page-1/#comment-7107 :
Of course, we do receive Christ spiritually, i.e. in our heart and mind. But we also receive Christ into our mouth and stomach. But we deny Capharnaitism. The Catholic position is thus a middle position between the error of Capharnaitism and the error of denying that in the Eucharist we eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Yes Christ is present locally in the Host and Precious Blood, but in the mode of substance, not in the mode of an extended body. Yes we masticate Him, but as He is present in the mode of substance (i.e. His sacramental mode of presence); we do not masticate His body in its mode as extended body, as it is in Heaven seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come in glory. We are not chewing on His arm or leg. To think like that is to think like a Capharnaite. The Capharnaite error is still an error, even after Jesus ascended into heaven. The mode by which He gave Himself to His disciples on Holy Thursday at the institution of the Eucharist, is the same mode by which He gives Himself to us today in the Eucharist.
This is a common Protestant myth that the Mass was considered a sacrifice only by the late 2nd century. Actually, the Eucharist was believed to be a sacrificial offering even before the death of the apostles. Consider these quotes from early Christian writings:
From the Didache (~A.D. 70):
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]“.
From Clement’s letter to the Corinthians (80 to 100 AD):
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release”.
From Ignatius’s Letter to the Philippians (~110 AD):
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God”.
When I read Justin and Irenaeus writing about the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist in the late 2nd century, it seems to me they were simply continuing to express the faith passed on by the apostles almost 100 years earlier. The writings of Clement and Ignatius are particularly important, because we know both these men were taught directly by the apostles Peter and John
Could you comment on Nestorius and Theodore’s ( and maybe Theodoret’s ) view of the Eucharist in light of their Christology?
This might be going a little off topic, but I think that it still relates to the idea of grace and nature, so I will make an effort here. If the moderators want to stop the discussion or move the topic elsewhere, I defer to their judgment.
For obvious reasons, the Nestorians could not take an overly literal view of the Eucharist, so while they still claimed to affirm the real presence, they practically appealed to a “spiritual” sense that was not overly literal. For that reason, they accused the orthodox Alexandrians of “cannibalism” for not seeing the true spiritual meaning. This charge from Nestorius is quoted in St. Cyril’s fourth tome against Nestorius.
I will speak the words too of offence. Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them; Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you: the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said, they imagined of their unlearning that He was bringing in cannibalism.
I will speak the words too of offence. Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them; Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you: the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said, they imagined of their unlearning that He was bringing in cannibalism.
This “loftiness” is the spiritual meaning, which Nestorius is accusing Cyril of being unable to perceive. He is essentially saying that the real presence is not an actual presence of the Lord’s flesh.
The Doctor of the Incarnation provides a devastating counter-blow:
And how is the thing not plain cannibalism, and in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say that the Word out of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the mode of that sending was the Incarnation? For then, then we shall see clearly, that the Flesh which was united to Him and not another’s flesh, avails to give Life, yet ‘because it has been made the very own of Him who is mighty to quicken all things,’ For if this visible fire infuses the force of its natural inherent power into those substances with which it comes in contact, and changes water itself though cold by nature into that which is contrary to its nature and makes it hot; what wonder or how can one disbelieve that the Word out of God the Father being the Life by Nature rendered the Flesh which is united to Him, Life-giving? for it is His very own and not that of another conceived of as apart from Him and of one of us. But if thou remove the Life-giving Word of God from the Mystical and true Union with His Body and sever them utterly, how canst thou shew that it is still Life-giving? And Who was it who said, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me and I in him? If then it be a man by himself and the Word of God have not rather been made as we, the deed were cannibalism and wholly unprofitable the participation (for I hear Christ Himself say, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for as far as pertains to its own nature, the flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, sick itself of the decay that is its own): but if thou say that it is the Own Body of the Word Himself, why dost thou speak portentously and utter vain things, contending that not the very Word out of God the Father has been sent, but some other than of Him, “the visible,” or His Flesh, albeit the God-inspired Scripture every where proclaimeth One Christ, full well affirming that the Word was made Man as we and defining herein the tradition of the right Faith.
And how is the thing not plain cannibalism, and in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say that the Word out of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the mode of that sending was the Incarnation? For then, then we shall see clearly, that the Flesh which was united to Him and not another’s flesh, avails to give Life, yet ‘because it has been made the very own of Him who is mighty to quicken all things,’ For if this visible fire infuses the force of its natural inherent power into those substances with which it comes in contact, and changes water itself though cold by nature into that which is contrary to its nature and makes it hot; what wonder or how can one disbelieve that the Word out of God the Father being the Life by Nature rendered the Flesh which is united to Him, Life-giving? for it is His very own and not that of another conceived of as apart from Him and of one of us. But if thou remove the Life-giving Word of God from the Mystical and true Union with His Body and sever them utterly, how canst thou shew that it is still Life-giving? And Who was it who said, He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me and I in him? If then it be a man by himself and the Word of God have not rather been made as we, the deed were cannibalism and wholly unprofitable the participation (for I hear Christ Himself say, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for as far as pertains to its own nature, the flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, sick itself of the decay that is its own): but if thou say that it is the Own Body of the Word Himself, why dost thou speak portentously and utter vain things, contending that not the very Word out of God the Father has been sent, but some other than of Him, “the visible,” or His Flesh, albeit the God-inspired Scripture every where proclaimeth One Christ, full well affirming that the Word was made Man as we and defining herein the tradition of the right Faith.
Thus, Cyril emphasizes that by the Eucharist we are really participating in that grace that the Word of God gave to human nature by assuming it. This we can do because it is His proper flesh, not that of an assumed man. The Nestorian view must then be more like cannibalism, in that we would participate in flesh that is not the very flesh of the Word of God but only that of the assumed man. This affirms Cyril’s proper understanding of the relationship between nature and grace and the difference between the hypostatic union between God and man in Jesus and our participation in that union by grace.
also found here
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2015/08/a-catholic-assessment-of-gregg-allisons-critique-of-the-hermeneutics-of-catholicism/
As Sokolowski puts it,
This fact [of identification] is brought out by a remarkable comment of St. Thomas, who observes that in the Eucharistic Prayer Christ is quoted not as saying, ‘This bread is my body’, but ‘This is my body’. If Christ had said ‘this bread” was his body, then the thing referred to would still be bread, but the simple demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ without a noun implies that it is not bread any longer.[73]
No comments:
Post a Comment