I think I see where you’re going with it, though...
:)
But the type of bread is indeed a perennial debate.
Now, I mean neither of you any offense by what I'm about to say. I understand what happens when you're coming from a tradition in any domain, and the way that it becomes simple to debate others over minutiae. From within the tradition, it appears substantial. From outside, not as much.
But I have to say that I consider this debate utterly ridiculous. It is just cosmically absurd to me that the creator of the entire universe would be particular about the way the bread for a particular ritual is made. This is just too Jewish for me to think God is partial to this or that bread. I mean, I suppose I could see a case being made about the nature of the microorganisms in the bread and how the total matrix of the food has to be such and such a way for transubstantiation to take place. I mean, I guess.
I mean, I suppose I could see a case being made about the nature of the microorganisms in the bread and how the total matrix of the food has to be such and such a way for transubstantiation to take place.
Closer than you may think ... remember all those times The Lord talks about “a little leaven, leavening the whole lump” and all. It’s a symbol used by Christ on numerous occasions in every Gospel; and the fact that it did and does result in debates to this day, indicates it may be more important that you realize.
The typological symbolism of leaven is corruption, since that’s what it literally is; a form of corruption. But the big idea of using ”corruption” both in the making of the Bread and also the Wine in one sense (both being yeasts) is symbolic of the transformation of what was “intended for evil”, for the Ultimate Good.
Now, I’m coming from the place where the primary objection against using azymes for the Eucharist, represents a backsliding into Judaism, a step backward into Legalism. The dough which is supposed to be used for the Body of Christ - just like with the case of His human ancestry - contains this ”corruption”. Just a little bit, though, to leaven the lump.
Are you going to hell for using azymes ? I personally doubt it. But I do argue that it’s a degradation of the Holy Tradition, relative to what we Received.
But it’s a different approach I guess to the importance attached to the specific details of the Tradition we received. Some might ask, “does it really matter?” The Orthodox virtually always answer “yes!” emphatically to that question.
(Responding to points from both of you here)
If you get the time and inclination, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on this connection you're establishing between the pope as office and these metaphysical principles
The metaphysical principle I referred to was that act requires potency, but potency does not require act; which is to say, if we observe actuality in a subject, in some respect, then we know that that subject must also possess the potency in that same respect (else there would have been nothing to be actualized); but if we observe a respect of potency in a subject, this alone is not sufficient to conclude that there is actuality in that same respect at that same time; there could be, but this is not necessarily so.
So linking with the office of the supreme pontiff, it just is Church teaching that the pontiff always has this potency, but only under certain conditions is it actualized. These conditions are laid out clearly in the First Vatican Council:
"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when 1. in exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."
So if these conditions are not all met, the infallibility is not assured - and therefore, the pontiff can err. If a pope makes a casual remark about doctrine to a room full of people, it is not infallible, because he was not directly and explicitly addressing the entire Church, but merely that room. If he makes a remark that does not pertain to faith or morals, but only, say, politics, then the infallibility does not apply, since the third condition would not be met. There are actually some in the Traditionalist sphere who argue that some of Pope Francis' writings lack magisterial authority at all because he addresses them, not to the Church (the Christian people over whom he has authority), but rather to the entire world.
If the Church taught that the pope was infallible under all conditions, it would reduce to absurdity, and would rightly be rejected.
There appears to be a bit of convenient back-and-forth here, i.e. between the less substantive position of a viceregency alone and the literal Vicar of Christ on earth.
I think you must either think too little of the viceregency, or too highly of the Vicar of Christ, for, to me, both refer to precisely the same thing. By virtue of Christ's authority, He has appointed in time that there always be a single supreme representative of Him on earth, and this representative, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, can under specific circumtances (i.e. at times when the knight is compelled to draw his sword) declare with infallibility on matters of faith and morals. That is what the viceregency is; that is who the Vicar of Christ is.
It's hard to conceive of a Vicar of Christ on earth which can be such a thing and exist in such a way that at one moment, he is speaking blasphemy, and in another he is speaking with Christlike authority.
The Vicar of Christ is always the Vicar of Christ, in actuality; but the charism of infallibility is only always present in potency, while being merely sometimes present in act.
The Didache predates the gospels, and we see a quite different focus of the eucharistic rite here, with no mention of the blood or body of Christ, but of the wine as symbol for the Vine (or branch cf. Jeremiah XXIII 5) of David's House and the bread as a reunification of its crumbs in one body of followers.
As Aquinas writes of the sacraments, they all are as they are because they fulfil a meaningful symbolic representation, but they are not merely symbolic. They are simultaneously signs of heavenly things, and actually heavenly things.
Tradition holds as prophsying the perpetual sacrifice of the Eucharist (clean oblation, Who is Christ Himself) daily throughout the world.
If I take a historical view of the Christ (but not merely a historical version of him), it's hard to see how Christ did not establish an eternal kingship in the Spirit, and abolish any and all need for priestly offices.
Christ Himself is Head Priest, of the order of Melchizedek, and His Apostles are the beginning of His priesthood. Pentecost was the descent of the Holy Spirit onto this priesthood. That He breathed on them and gave them the power to forgive sins, that he beseeched them to baptize the world; these are priestly orders, priestly callings.
Is "eternal kingship of the spirit" supposed to sympathize with the Protestant model? But they all claim their beliefs are Spirit-inspired, and they all contradict each other. My point about the East-West schism signalling the inability of even a council of bishops to agree ties into this. Neither the Protestant model nor the Orthodox model have proven capable in potency of preserving the unity of the faith; only the Catholic model, with a Vicar of Christ Himself, can accomplish this.
then something of an institution is implied (even if not laid out explicitly).
I think the emphasis on the role of bishops in the New Testament is fairly explicit about the hierarchical (and therefore temporal / institutional) aspect of the Church that Christ was establishing.
But if we view things from the latter perspective, why wouldn't Christianity have the power to say, 'Yeah, that ritual you have there? Christ is the one way, the one truth, the one life. That ritual literally belongs to us now.'
Exactly. All Truth is Christ's.
Just want to mention that the bread-and-wine of the Eucharist hearken back to Melchizedek, in Genesis.
KOWA of course is correct; and as I've argued before there is evidence to believe that Genesis, at least as a story, is much older in the world than its written manuscripts (see first 5 minutes of ) - so from this perspective, even the matter of the sacraments is authentically and originally Christian.
That is interesting. I was not aware of that - the OT is my biggest weak spot. If it is the true source of the signs for the bread and wine, that would make it the earliest reference for a eucharistic rite that I am aware of. I want to say that Genesis is supposed to date from around 1500-1300 B.C.
See above. If the Genesis story did indeed influence the early Chinese ideographs, then Genesis would date to at least 2500 BC.
One thing I am wary of - just taking the scripture on its own - is that to bring out bread and wine to celebrate Abram doesn't appear to be a eucharistic rite, but rather something merely celebratory.
I think it is important to note that it is a priest bringing out the bread and wine. ()
that he might have been drawing on Melchizedek instead of a Hellenized version of Jewish table tradition
Christ was obviously perfectly familiar with the Scriptures. And that He was drawing on Melchizedek is not something we have to guess at; St. Paul confirms as much, as KOWA began to indicate, Christ is a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (, , )
I'm highly doubtful that Christ Himself ordered this as a sacrament to the apostles at the Last Supper. It's certainly possible that Christ would have, in teaching at the Passover table, made a reference to the Passover lamb and to the blood that they were to mutually spill as sacrifices. That just makes sense. But it doesn't make sense that Christ would have told the apostles to drink His blood and eat His body, that is, unless Christ himself (in the decades of his early life the Bible omits) was exposed to the same Hellenism that Paul had been.
I really don't think Hellenism has to have anything to do with it. It all comes from the Old Testament, from Melchisedek to the Passover lamb. Everyone knows Jesus Christ is the new and final Passover Lamb - the Lamb of God. The early Hebrews had to do three things at Passover with the lamb: sacrifice (kill) the lamb; mark their doorposts with its blood; and eat the lamb. Noteworthy: it had to be a lamb without blemish (sinless Christ) ().
So Christ was killed; His blood was drained, marked the Cross, and by this Blood all are saved (just as the blood on the doorposts saved the Hebrews); and Christians must eat the lamb - consume the Body and Blood of Christ.
And it isn't just the Last Supper. It is John 6 as well (). Christ said He is heavenly bread, like the manna the Hebrews ate in the desert. The Jews object, saying "How can this man give us flesh to eat?"
Christ had plenty opportunity to clarify at this time, to say something like "I'm speaking symbolically, silly", but no, he doubles down in John 6:54:
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
You know it's serious when He starts with "Amen, amen" - "truly, truly".
And in John 6:56 it says "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed." All these "amens" and "indeeds" seem to preclude mere symbolic interpretation (but as always, this does not mean there are not meaningful symbolic interpretations!)
First the Jews took offence. Then Christ's very disciples (not the Twelve) do in John 6:61:
"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
Jesus again has ample opportunity to reassure them that He is not speaking literally, but again He doubles down: "Doth this scandalize you?" etc.
And finally, the disciples leave Him on account of this teaching:
"After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him." (John 6:67)
When they turned their backs to leave, finding this teaching "too hard to hear", did Jesus then reassure them He wasn't being literal? No, instead He turned around and asked the Twelve:
"68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?" (John 6:68)
But Peter, ever with the beautiful answers, being the firstborn, answered:
"Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
And so they believed. As we believe, to this day.
Note that I am not arguing from this that any of this is undeniable - although I do think it is clear. But people are always able to deny even what is clear. That's why we have the Church, so that its authority can enable a true faith that need not doubt. My argument above, comparing papal doctrine to the Eucharistic one, was simply to show that, just because one can deny its presence in Scripture, does not mean it is not true. The Church believes what she has always believed, and has the full and appropriate understanding of Scripture that any layman opening the Bible will not have.
Peace, it must be said that while your comments are always insightful, sometimes your apologetics are exquisite.
That being said, I truly would have wished to be a fly on the wall for the first Vatican Council, to have heard clearly the objections to the concept of ex cathedra infallibility. With it being the case that I was not that fly, and that I lack an educated means to posture as an aficionado of Church history or theology, I can only bring the fruits of my own spectrum-y thought on the matter.
So to narrow the scope of the concern (this really isn't a critique but a legitimate line of questioning), the problem as I see it is entirely epistemological.
Essentially it is part of Catholic magisterium that a Pope cannot but be infallible when he speaks from his highest authority, to the Church as a whole, on matters of dogma.
So the epistemic question is: when is this condition of 'highest authority' satisfied?
I'd start with perhaps the most obvious point: this constitution appears to suggest, as dogma, that the Pope literally cannot (as in, even if he desired to) contradict the remainder of the magisterium when speaking ex cathedra.
The question: why? Is it taken to be the case that his mouth is prevented from permitting the utterance to leave it? Or does the limitation occur earlier, in the mind?
Perhaps more interestingly, is this a limitation of free will? What literally prevents this from occurring, and must it be taken on faith alone that it is the case? Or, is it an a posteriori claim that since it has never happened by anyone's interpretation, then it is so unlikely to happen that it can be called impossible (perhaps for some reason contained in the magisterium itself that prevents its corruption by any decree?).
Second, what verifies when this state of 'highest authority' obtains?
You see the concern, I have no doubt. It is admitted (and of course it must be in recent years) that the Pope can say fallible things - truly, even heretical things. Therefore, some of his uttered judgements are not exercised on the highest authority, but some state of affairs can obtain by which the same man calls on his highest authority, and by the same speech act (qua speech act), now speaks magisteria into reality as a result of the new state of affairs.
Now, in answering this within the epistemological scope, we have to be clear on one reasoned assumption: the Pope is a mortal man. This means that the Pope, while likely having a good deal of intellect and exemplary theological and church historical knowledge, more or less has a similar experience of being-in-the-world as you or I do. I mean by this that he is not walking about and sporadically shifting between human consciousness and Christ-consciousness depending on the context. In other words, he is fully human.
Now, take the example of Pope Francis. The same man can, at one time, approve of homosexual union in one instance, and disapprove of it in another instance. This is just for the sake of example (I'd not like to focus on the particulars of it).
Let's imagine then that Francis sought to call on his highest authority. We take it that the same mind is present: the same person, as it were, with the same judgment. Precisely what changes and why in order to summon the highest authority? Does he enter a trance state? Does something speak through him? Is this the result of an incantation that summons more Holy Spirit than he otherwise walks about channeling in his day-to-day as Vicar of Christ?
Or is it really as mundane as a prudential distinction whereby the Pope is just expected to tighten his belt and be super cautious at some moments, versus others where (I guess) he thinks he can speak differently than he would from his highest authority? Is that a bit like not thinking mom is looking while you are on the playground so you can grab-ass a bit?
Perhaps the only other way I can think to put it is what makes the moment? What changes to guarantee infallibility in the moment that a Pope speaks this way, when the same man is capable of being quite fallible in every other context?
(post is archived)