The Conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, Part 2

And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the Pope's authority. I mean, the Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.

As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself. And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church.

When I made that decision to become Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together with the papacy and the Blessed Mother and tradition in the Eucharist.

Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were. Why should they make the same journey home that you made?

I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you and maybe it would end up in the Catholic Church.

The Program’s Thesis and the Speaker’s Conversion Story

Hello to everyone. This is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and you're listening to episode 13 of The Diving Board, the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, part two. The Diving Board focuses on testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the Church of the Apostles and their followers. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.

And as we continue to show in each episode, those Roman Catholics who think they're getting deep in history are actually very, very shallow in it, embracing the late 4th century and medieval novelty as if it were the church Jesus Christ founded.

It most certainly is not. Roman Catholic apologist Matt Fradd was highly influential in Cameron Bertuzzi's conversion to Roman Catholicism. In the previous episode, we examined the claims of Matt Fradd and showed that Matt Fradd outran his coverage and delved into matters with which he was not familiar, espousing positions that he had not sufficiently examined.

Matt Fradd made the claims that the symbolic, figurative view of the Eucharist was unheard of until the 11th century, a remarkable falsehood. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Nobatian of Rome, and Augustine of Hippo begged to differ as they all took John 6 figuratively and the institution narratives symbolically.

Fradd also claimed that Jesus always corrected people who took his figurative language literally, which is not true. The woman at the well took his water of life language literally in John 4. And Jesus did not correct her, even though she misunderstood him twice.

Fradd claimed that John 6 was the only time Jesus lost disciples because of his teachings, which is not true. The rich young ruler was an enthusiastic fan, addressing Jesus as teacher, but walked away because of Jesus' teachings.

Fradd claimed that Jesus was morally obligated to correct people who had misunderstood his teachings, which is not true. In fact, some of Jesus' teachings were intentionally cryptic in order to hide his meaning.

And Matt Fradd claimed to be steeped in history, which is definitely not true either. And Cameron Bertuzzi fell for all of it, thinking that he too was deep in history. We concluded last time with an exposition of John 6 from a scripturalist perspective, evaluating Jesus' words in the light of scripture, to show that John 6 must be understood figuratively.

Isaiah 55 and the Figurative Reading of John 6

Isaiah 55 1 -4 is an invitation to eat and drink the words of God, and Jesus invoked Isaiah 55 at the introduction to his bread of life interaction in John 6. Carrying the metaphor of Isaiah into John 6, Jesus' invitation to eat and drink him was a figurative invitation to believe his doctrines, and in particular the doctrine of the resurrection.

If you have not listened to episode 12, you are encouraged to go back and listen to that first, and then come back for episode 13. I originally intended to address the Eucharist in the first episode and the papacy in the second, but there is just so much to cover on the Eucharist, so we'll pick up next time on the influence of various apologists on Cameron Bertuzzi's ultimate willingness to concede the papacy.

But today we'll continue with some of the additional arguments Matt Fradd made for the literal reading of the Body of Christ and Blood of Christ references in the New Testament, and examine some of his claims from the early church fathers.

Recall that Matt Fradd said the early church fathers were unanimous in their belief in the Real Presence doctrine of Roman Catholicism.

The earliest Christians are unanimous on it. The earliest Christians are unanimous on it.

We demonstrated last week why that claim is so patently false. Now let's continue this week as we look at Paul's warning to the Corinthians about eating this bread and drinking this cup unworthily. Here is Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 11 verses 27 -29. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. Again, that's 1 Corinthians 11 verses 27 -29. Now let's listen to Matt Fradd's interpretation of this passage in which he says that Paul clearly held to the Real Presence doctrine and in fact believed that it was homicide to drink unworthily from the cup and eat unworthily of the bread.

He says, let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. And I quoted verse 27 where he says if you drink of the Lord in an unworthy manner you're profaning the body and blood.

And in St. Paul's time, this expression, to answer for the body and the blood of someone meant to be guilty of murder. Shedding that person's blood. You're guilty of his blood. So if I take a photo of Cameron Bertuzzi and I tear it in half I've done something disrespectful, but I haven't committed homicide.

And it sounds like the language St. Paul is using is that of you're profaning the body and blood and that this is the language of homicide.

We certainly agree that Paul's warning to the Corinthians was dire but Fradd adds his own Roman Catholic spin to Paul's admonition and thus thinks that Paul is arguing in favor of the Roman Catholic position.

That is, Matt Fradd thinks Paul is defending the real presence of Christ in the bread and the cup in this passage.

I do think it supports my view. I think Paul believed in the real presence of Christ. And if Paul is using the language of homicide here that would make sense not if this were a symbol but it would make sense if the bread and the wine were truly the body and blood of Christ.

Now it is very important to grasp this point from Matt Fradd and ultimately the position that Cameron Bertuzzi came to embrace. Namely that Paul believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and to make our particular point here Matt Fradd believed that Paul was saying to the Corinthians that they would be guilty of homicide for drinking from the consecrated cup unworthily and it can't be homicide to damage just a symbol.

It must really have contained the body and blood of Christ. But 1 Corinthians 11 27 -29 no more proves the real presence of Christ's blood in the cup than 2 Samuel 23 17 proves the real presence of the blood of the mighty men in the vessels they brought back to David from Jerusalem.

David would not drink of it for he had not risked life and limb to procure it himself. To drink unworthily would disrespect the great price those men were willing to pay for it. So to drink of something that symbolized their sacrifice would make him guilty of their blood.

He said, is this not the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? David was not saying the blood of those mighty men was literally in the jar. He was saying that the water in the jar signified but was not really the blood of those mighty men who had procured it at a great risk to themselves.

To drink it unworthily would be a manifest sign of disrespect to those men's literal blood. It is a metaphor for disrespecting what the cup signifies. It is not proof that its contents are literal. What is more, according to Matt Fradd, it is drinking unworthily from a consecrated cup that is as bad as murder because before the cup is consecrated it only contains wine.

But after the cup has been consecrated it is supposed to contain literally Christ's blood. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the bread and wine of the supper are not consecrated until Jesus' words are spoken over them.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1412 says,. The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat, bread, and grape wine on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper.

This is my body which will be given up for you. This is the cup of my blood. Again, that's the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1412. At the uttering of those words, the bread and wine are alleged to become the literal body and blood of Christ.

But the problem for Matt Fradd is that in the Gospel accounts of the Lord's Supper, the cup is not consecrated until after it has already been distributed and consumed. In other words, at the institution of the supper, which we are supposed to imitate, the apostles drink from an unconsecrated cup.

Matthew says,. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. That's Matthew 26, 27. Before saying the consecrating words, This is my blood. According to Luke, Jesus did not say, This cup is the New Testament in my blood.

That's Luke 22, 20. Until after the cup had already been distributed and consumed. That's Luke 22, 17. And Mark indicates that they partook of the cup before the consecration, for they all drank of it before Jesus said, This is my blood of the New Testament.

Mark 14, verses 23 to 24. Paul's account of the supper in 1 Corinthians 11, 23 to 26 cannot be otherwise, since he received that knowledge from Jesus himself, who was actually present and actually said the things that were quoted.

That's 1 Corinthians 11, 23. This particular nuance of the scriptural liturgy of the supper is why in the early church, the consecration of the elements often occurred after they had already been distributed.

And in the case of the wine, they didn't have little plastic cups to distribute back then, so just like the Last Supper, people partook of the wine while it was still unconsecrated. In other words, not one New Testament account of the Last Supper has the real presence of Christ in the cup at the time the communicant receives it.

And therefore, it was impossible, even theoretically, to injure the literal blood of Christ to drink it unworthily. The blood wasn't even in the cup yet. To emphasize that point, let us take a look at the liturgies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian of Carthage, Origin of Alexandria, and Cornelius of Rome.

In all these cases, dating from 150 AD, 210 AD, 238 AD, and 250 AD, respectively, it is plainly obvious that the early writers did not believe they were handing over Jesus' literal body and blood because they did not believe it had even been consecrated until after it was distributed, and sometimes even after it had already been consumed.

Justin Martyr, in his first apology, has the minister thanking God for the fruit of the harvest, distributing the bread and wine, and even has some of the deacons collecting leftovers from the meal before ever mentioning the consecration.

This is Justin Martyr, 150 AD, from his first apology, paragraph 65. 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.

Again, that's Justin Martyr, first apology, 65. Notice in that case, Justin doesn't even mention the consecration as occurring before the bread and wine are distributed. Tertullian, in 210 AD, against Marcion, book 4, chapter 40, has a similar description, and notice again that the bread is distributed before the consecration is spoken.

He wrote,. Then, having taken the bread and given it to his disciples, he made it his own body by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. In this case, notice that Tertullian said Jesus made it his own body after giving it to his disciples.

From Tertullian's other writings, we know that he separates the Eucharist as an offering of praise and prayer from the Eucharist as a supper. He does that in On Prayer, chapter 19. And in his writing on The Shows, chapter 25, he indicates that the people say amen over the offerings.

Thus, we see in Tertullian not only the separation of the offering from the consecration, with an amen in between them, but also that the bread and wine are not consecrated until after the offering is complete, or even until after they are distributed.

And to our point, he says here that the bread is distributed before the words are spoken, this is my body. Now, let's look at Origen of Alexandria in 238 AD. This is his work against Celsus, book 8, chapter 33.

But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings which we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us, and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.

Again, that's Origen against Celsus, book 8, chapter 33. And remember, in this case, thanksgiving and prayer refers to the thanksgiving prayer, as in we give thanks to the Creator along with thanksgiving and prayer, which is what Justin referred to as the thanksgiving for the things wherewith we have been supplied, which is just gratitude for the harvest.

It's the thank offering that accompanies the tithe. But when he says this bread becomes by prayer, a sacred body, he is referring to the consecratory prayer, which is what Justin referred to as the prayer of his word, which, as we heard from Tertullian, is just the recitation of the words, this is my body.

We covered this in a lot more detail in the Eucharist episodes, but it is worth pointing out again. Okay, now let us turn to Cornelius of Rome in 250 AD in his letter to Fabian of Antioch about Novatus the Schismatic in Rome.

Here, Cornelius is complaining about Novatus the Schismatic and Cornelius does not like the fact that Novatus is changing out parts of the liturgy, replacing the Amen and the consecration with oaths of loyalty to Novatus.

Let's pick up in mid-thought with Cornelius' letter, as recorded by Eusebius. This is from Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, chapter 43, paragraphs 18 to 19. For when he has made the offerings and distributed a part to each man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear, in place of the blessing, holding his hands in both of his own, he will not release him until he has sworn in this manner, Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never forsake me and return to Cornelius.

And instead of saying Amen as he takes the bread, he says, I will never return to Cornelius. Notably, Cornelius does not complain that Novatus had corrupted the order of the liturgy, but only that he had corrupted each step.

Knowing what we do of the early liturgy, namely that it consisted of a Eucharist offering, an Amen based on 1 Corinthians 14, 16, and a consecration that was performed by reciting Christ's words, This is my body and this is my blood, we can easily reconstruct the valid liturgy that Novatus is alleged to have co-opted.

Normally there would be a tithe offering to which people would respond saying Amen. After the tithe offering and after the people have said Amen, a part of the offering would be distributed to each person, at which time the bread and wine would be consecrated by saying, This is my body and this is my blood.

It is clear, therefore, that even in the mid-third century and even in Rome, the liturgy was similar to what we saw with Justin, Tertullian, and Origen, and in fact the very liturgy we saw in the scriptures.

A Eucharist offering, an Amen, a distribution of the bread and wine, followed by a consecration by calling them the body and blood of Christ. And sometimes that consecration occurred after the bread or wine had already been consumed, especially since the distribution of the cup was by drinking and not just by placing it in somebody's hands.

Now, these are four different expressions of the liturgy, from Justin, Tertullian, and Origen, by affirmation, and Cornelius by way of negation, all showing something very important. Distribution occurs before the consecration, and because the distribution of the cup is by each communicant drinking from the cup in his turn, then each participant was drinking from a cup that had not yet been consecrated and could not yet have been consecrated, and therefore the whole Roman Catholic argument falls apart.

The Roman Catholic position on 1 Corinthians 11 .24 is that it is homicide to drink unworthily from the cup because the wine in the cup is consecrated and is purported, therefore, to be Christ's blood.

That's what Matt Fradd is saying, but that is not how Jesus instituted the supper. According to Matt Fradd's personal understanding of the liturgy, and indeed, according to Roman Catholicism's actual liturgy, Jesus was too late consecrating the cup because his disciples had already drunk from it.

Listen to what Mark wrote in his gospel. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.

Mark 14 .23 -24 But remember Matt Fradd's argument. The reason Paul warns against drinking unworthily is because Jesus is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the cup, because the priest has made it into Jesus Christ by consecrating it.

Drinking Jesus' literal body, blood, soul, and divinity unworthily is homicide, and since it cannot be homicide to damage a symbol, Paul must have really believed in transubstantiation. At least, that's what Matt Fradd is saying.

And if Paul is using the language of homicide here, that would make sense not if this were a symbol, but it would make sense if the bread and the wine were truly the body and blood of Christ.

And yet Paul knew very well that those who drank unworthily from the cup were drinking unworthily from an unconsecrated cup, and were thus disrespecting a symbol. The very thing Matt Fradd says was impossible.

Now, what is so fascinating about this passage of Scripture is that while Roman Catholics defer to their own medieval liturgy to interpret Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 .27 -29, the early church did not do that.

What did the early church do with 1 Corinthians 11 .27 -29? This is Paul's language from 1 Corinthians. So what did the early church do with this? Well, they actually did something amazing. They interpreted Paul's words in chapter 11 by reading his words from chapter 10 and his words from chapter 12.

Namely, 1 Corinthians 10 verses 16 -17, where Paul says that we, all of us, each other, are the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 10 verses 16 -17. They also interpreted 1 Corinthians 11 in the light of 1 Corinthians 12 .25 -27, where Paul says that we are all one body, the body of Christ.

Again, that's 1 Corinthians 12 .25 -27. This analogy between the bread representing Christ's body and we being Christ's body was so special to the early church that they used this to inform the liturgy of the supper and their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.

You may recall that in our previous episode, we recited evidence from the early church indicating a symbolic interpretation of the eat my flesh or this is my body language. What is fascinating about those early interpretations is how they applied Paul's symbolic allegorical language of 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 12 to inform their understanding of John 6 and the institution narratives of Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and particularly the partaking unworthily narrative of 1 Corinthians 11.

What they concluded was that if we, though many, are the body of Christ and Jesus said this is my body and Paul said that we must not disrespect the body, then the warning about the body in 1 Corinthians 11 must truly refer to us.

Let's take a listen again at some of the earliest interpretations, but before we do, let's let Alexander of Alexandria, the mentor of Athanasius, set the stage for us as he explains in 324 AD that the purpose of the incarnation and the passion of Christ was that he might gather together all of the scattered members of the body of Christ for we were scattered in death but he has brought us back together and united us through his passion.

This is from Alexander's treatise On the Soul and Body and the Passion of the Lord, paragraph 5. Therefore God sent down from heaven his incorporeal Son to take flesh upon him in the virgin's womb and thus, equally as you, he was made man to save lost man and collect all his scattered members for Christ, when he joined the manhood to his person, united that which death by the separation of the body had dispersed.

Again, that's Alexander of Alexandria On the Soul and Body and the Passion of the Lord, paragraph 5. What we find is that the early church understood that in the celebration of the Lord's Supper we show forth his death until he comes that's 1 Corinthians 11, 26 and the purpose of his death was to unite the scattered members of the body of Christ.

The Early Church’s Symbolic Reading of the Supper

Now let's turn to the early church's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and this time, notice how greatly Paul's language of 1 Corinthians 10, 17 that we being many are one bread and one body and 1 Corinthians 12, 27 ye are the body of Christ and members influenced their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 about not discerning the Lord's body by disrespecting the bread.

This is from the Didache, chapter 9 early in the first century. Now concerning the thanksgiving, thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup, we thank you, our Father for the holy vine of David your servant which you made known to us through Jesus your servant to you be the glory forever.

And concerning the broken bread we thank you, our Father for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant to you be the glory forever even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was gathered together and became one so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.

Notice how strongly the Didache draws from 1 Corinthians 10 and 12 in constructing that Eucharistic liturgy. Now Irenaeus from 189 AD this is from Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 17, paragraph 2 and notice that Irenaeus compares the making of bread to the making of unity among the brethren.

Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the comforter who should join us to God for as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter nor can a loaf possess unity. So in like manner neither could we, being many, be made one in Christ without the water from heaven.

The Lord, receiving this as a gift from His Father does Himself confer it upon those who are partakers of Himself sending the Holy Spirit upon all the earth. In that case he's saying that we are the grains and the Holy Spirit is the water that holds us all together.

Clement of Alexandria from 198 AD in his book The Instructor, book 1, chapter 6. 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 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 by a vital principle. Again, that's Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor, book 1, chapter 6. Cyprian of Carthage, 256 AD in his letter to Magnus, paragraph 6.

For when the Lord calls bread which is combined by the union of many grains His body, He indicates our people whom He bore as being united. And when He calls the wine which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and collected together His blood, He also signifies our flock linked together by the mingling of the united multitude.

Again, Cyprian, epistle 75, paragraph 6. His letter to Magnus. And then in epistle 62, paragraph 13 He says,. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone nor wine alone unless each be mingled with the other just as on the other hand the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one so that in the like manner as many grains collected and ground and mixed together into one mass make one bread so in Christ who is the heavenly bread we may know that there is one body with which our number is joined and united.

Again, epistle 62, paragraph 13. Here's Chrysostom in 396 AD homily 46 on the gospel of John, paragraph 3. We become one body and members of his flesh and bones. Let the initiated follow what I say. In order, then, that we may become this not by love only, but in very deed let us be blended into that flesh.

It is effected by the food which he has freely given us desiring to show the love which he has for us. On this account he has mixed himself up with us. He has kneaded up his body with ours so that we might be a certain one thing like a body joined to the head.

Again, that's Chrysostom, homily 46 on the gospel of John, paragraph 3. Now, Augustine of Hippo Sermon 272 in 408 AD. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ listen to the apostle Paul speaking to the faithful.

You are the body of Christ member for member. If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table. It is your own mystery that you are receiving.

In the visible object of bread many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful so scripture says form a single heart and mind in God. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made.

Individual grapes hang together in a bunch but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how at his own table the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated.

All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them but an indictment that condemns them. Again, that's Augustine of Hippo Sermon 272 in 408 AD.

Notice the magnitude of the influence of 1 Corinthians 10 17 and 1 Corinthians 12 27 on the early church's understanding of Paul's warnings about being guilty of the body and blood of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11.

As Alexander observed Jesus died to gather together the scattered members of the body of Christ. And if we, though many grapes have been gathered together into one cup or we, though many grains have been gathered into one loaf we need to be really careful about how we come together to eat and drink from that cup.

Indeed, we should be careful and the early church was not wrong on that point. Paul's solution to the problem of disregarding the body and blood of Christ was not to institute kneeling during the liturgy to respect the real presence of Christ but rather to insist that people eat somewhere else if they couldn't control their appetites and wait for everyone to arrive for a communal meal to respect the real presence of the brethren.

This is 1 Corinthians 11 33 -34.

He says.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat wait for one another if anyone is hungry let him eat at home so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. Translation. When you disrespect the brethren you disrespect the death of Christ who brought us together.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the real presence of Christ from the early church. Not at all. In fact, all of these interpretations rely on a symbolic interpretation of the cup and the loaf. It symbolized us Christ's body His blood His members who have been joined together by Him.

In any case we'll remind the listener that at least in the early church the symbolic view of the supper did not nullify 1 Corinthians 11 27 -29. Remember, Matt Fradd said the only legitimate interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 is that Christ is truly present in the cup.

Otherwise it couldn't be homicide to drink unworthily. Based on that interpretation the Roman Catholic believes that the passage on its face proves the necessity of believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I think Paul believed in the real presence of Christ and I think this does show that.

We simply respond that the early church did not agree. The Apostolic Constitutions invoke 1 Corinthians 11 29 to explain why the uninitiated ought not receive the supper. But the author explicitly rejects the literal interpretation insisting that the uninitiated eats eternal damnation by receiving a symbolic representation of Christ's body and blood.

This is what it says in the Apostolic Constitutions. We also, our Father, thank Thee for the precious blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us and for His precious body wherever we celebrate this representation as Himself appointed to us to show forth His death.

But if anyone that is not initiated conceal himself and partake of the same he eats eternal damnation. And recall Origen took the symbolic view of the supper too saying that it is not the bread itself but the word spoken over it that benefits the communicant.

But he invoked 1 Corinthians 11 27 to make the point that you can eat and drink symbol unworthily. This is from his commentary on Matthew. 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 symbolic body. And as we just read from Augustine he too took the symbolic view and said explicitly that to eat and drink unworthily was to disrespect the price Jesus paid to bring us together because the bread and the wine signify us.

All of these refer to eating and drinking symbols unworthily and none indicate a belief in the real presence of Christ in the bread or the wine. Or that it was a condition of reception to believe such things.

Remember, Matt Fradd said it was really obvious from 1 Corinthians 11 27 that Paul must have believed in the real presence of Christ. But neither Paul nor the early church actually believed Matt Fradd's nonsense because unlike Matt Fradd the early church was in fact deep in history.

Ignatius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Alleged Early Consensus

Okay, very quickly I want to revisit a couple of Matt Fradd's references on the Eucharist and the early church because we didn't get to cover them in the last episode. Here is Matt Fradd claiming that it is really obvious that the early church believed in the real presence doctrine citing Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem and that he could go on and on with such citations but he just doesn't want to take up too much time in his conversation with Cameron Bertuzzi.

And remember this is Matt Fradd's debate with Cameron Bertuzzi while Cameron still held to the metaphorical view of the supper a debate which in hindsight was very influential in Cameron Bertuzzi's conversion.

Here is Matt Fradd claiming that he could provide many, many more citations of evidence from the early church that they all unanimously believed in the real presence doctrine.

I want to conclude by just a couple of excerpts from the early Christians because I know Christian Cameron you don't find this convincing but I suspect that some people some people will. So the first Christian I want to take a look at is Ignatius of Antioch who lived in the first century and who we have good reason to think knew John the Apostle personally Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures in AD 350.