The Conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, Part 2

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

We analyze the Eucharistic theology of the man who Cameron Bertuzzi says influenced him the most to become Roman Catholic

0 comments

00:05
And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the
00:13
Pope's authority. I mean, the
00:19
Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.
00:35
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.
00:47
And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church. When I made that decision to become
00:52
Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together with the papacy and the
01:01
Blessed Mother and tradition and the Eucharist. Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were.
01:16
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
01:27
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
01:41
Catholic Church. Hello to everyone. This is your host,
01:47
Timothy F. Kaufman, and you're listening to episode 13 of The Diving Board, the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, part two.
01:55
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
02:03
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
02:14
Church of the Apostles and their followers. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.
02:20
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
02:33
Jesus Christ founded. It most certainly is not. Roman Catholic apologist
02:38
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.
02:56
Matt Fradd made the claims that the symbolic, figurative view of the Eucharist was unheard of until the 11th century, a remarkable falsehood.
03:04
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
03:15
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.
03:27
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.
03:37
Fradd claimed that John 6 was the only time Jesus lost disciples because of his teachings, which is not true.
03:43
The rich young ruler was an enthusiastic fan, addressing Jesus as teacher, but walked away because of Jesus' teachings.
03:51
Fradd claimed that Jesus was morally obligated to correct people who had misunderstood his teachings, which is not true.
03:57
In fact, some of Jesus' teachings were intentionally cryptic in order to hide his meaning.
04:04
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.
04:14
We concluded last time with an exposition of John 6 from a scripturalist perspective, evaluating
04:20
Jesus' words in the light of scripture, to show that John 6 must be understood figuratively.
04:27
Isaiah 55 1 -4 is an invitation to eat and drink the words of God. And Jesus invoked
04:34
Isaiah 55 at the introduction to his bread of life interaction in John 6. Carrying the metaphor of Isaiah into John 6,
04:42
Jesus' invitation to eat and drink him was a figurative invitation to believe his doctrines, and in particular the doctrine of the resurrection.
04:50
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.
04:57
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
05:04
Eucharist. So we'll pick up next time on the influence of various apologists on Cameron Bertuzzi's ultimate willingness to concede the papacy.
05:12
But today we'll continue with some of the additional arguments Matt Fradd made for the literal reading of the
05:17
Body of Christ and Blood of Christ references in the New Testament, and examine some of his claims from the early church fathers.
05:25
Recall that Matt Fradd said the early church fathers were unanimous in their belief in the Real Presence doctrine of Roman Catholicism.
05:32
The earliest Christians are unanimous on it. The earliest Christians are unanimous on it.
05:39
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
05:47
Corinthians about eating this bread and drinking this cup unworthily. Here is
05:53
Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 11 verses 27 to 29
06:00
Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
06:06
Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.
06:12
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
06:18
Lord's body. Again, that's 1 Corinthians 11, 27 to 29.
06:24
Now let's listen to Matt Fradd's interpretation of this passage in which he says that Paul clearly held to the
06:31
Real Presence doctrine and in fact believed that it was homicide to drink unworthily from the cup and eat unworthily of the bread.
06:39
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.
06:50
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.
06:58
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.
07:08
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.
07:17
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.
07:26
We certainly agree that Paul's warning to the Corinthians was dire but Fradd adds his own
07:31
Roman Catholic spin to Paul's admonition and thus thinks that Paul is arguing in favor of the Roman Catholic position.
07:37
That is, Matt Fradd thinks Paul is defending the real presence of Christ in the bread and the cup in this passage.
07:44
I do think it supports my view. I think Paul believed in the real presence of Christ.
07:51
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.
08:02
Now it is very important to grasp this point from Matt Fradd and ultimately the position that Cameron Bertuzzi came to embrace.
08:09
Namely that Paul believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and to make our particular point here
08:14
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.
08:26
It must really have contained the body and blood of Christ. But 1
08:33
Corinthians 11 27 -29 no more proves the real presence of Christ's blood in the cup than 2
08:39
Samuel 23 17 proves the real presence of the blood of the mighty men in the vessels they brought back to David from Jerusalem.
08:47
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.
08:57
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?
09:08
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.
09:21
To drink it unworthily would be a manifest sign of disrespect to those men's literal blood.
09:27
It is a metaphor for disrespecting what the cup signifies. It is not proof that its contents are literal.
09:34
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.
09:44
But after the cup has been consecrated, it is supposed to contain literally Christ's blood. According to the
09:50
Catechism of the Catholic Church, the bread and wine of the supper are not consecrated until Jesus' words are spoken over them.
09:57
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1412 says, The essential signs of the
10:02
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
10:12
Last Supper. This is my body which will be given up for you. This is the cup of my blood.
10:17
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.
10:29
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.
10:39
In other words, at the institution of the supper, which we are supposed to imitate, the apostles drink from an unconsecrated cup.
10:46
Matthew says, According to Luke, Jesus did not say,
11:08
And Mark indicates that they partook of the cup before the consecration, for they all drank of it before Jesus said,
11:20
Paul's account of the supper in 1 Corinthians 11 23 -26 cannot be otherwise, since he received that knowledge from Jesus himself, who was actually present and actually said the things that were quoted.
11:32
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.
11:44
And in the case of the wine, they didn't have little plastic cups to distribute back then, so just like the
11:49
Last Supper, people partook of the wine while it was still unconsecrated. In other words, not one
11:55
New Testament account of the Last Supper has the real presence of Christ in the cup at the time the communicant receives it.
12:02
And therefore it was impossible, even theoretically, to injure the literal blood of Christ to drink it unworthily.
12:09
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.
12:20
In all these cases, dating from 150 AD, 210 AD, 238 AD, and 250
12:26
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.
12:41
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.
12:54
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.
13:17
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.
13:27
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.
13:37
He wrote, In this case, notice that Tertullian said
13:49
Jesus made it his own body after giving it to his disciples. From Tertullian's other writings, we know that he separates the
13:56
Eucharist as an offering of praise and prayer from the Eucharist as a supper. He does that in On Prayer, chapter 19.
14:03
And in his writing on The Shows, chapter 25, he indicates that the people say
14:08
Amen over the offerings. Thus, we see in Tertullian not only the separation of the offering from the consecration, with an
14:16
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.
14:25
And to our point, he says here that the bread is distributed before the words are spoken. This is my body.
14:32
Now, let's look at Origin of Alexandria in 238 AD. This is his work against Celsus, book 8, chapter 33.
14:47
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.
14:55
Again, that's Origin against Celsus, book 8, chapter 33. And remember, in this case,
15:03
Thanksgiving and prayer refers to the Thanksgiving prayer, as in we give thanks to the Creator along with Thanksgiving and prayer, which is what
15:11
Justin referred to as the thanksgiving for the things wherewith we have been supplied, which is just gratitude for the harvest.
15:18
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
15:28
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.
15:35
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
15:44
AD in his letter to Fabian of Antioch about Novatus the Schismatic in Rome. Here Cornelius is complaining about Novatus the
15:53
Schismatic, and Cornelius does not like the fact that Novatus is changing out parts of the liturgy, replacing the
15:58
Amen and the consecration with oaths of loyalty to Novatus. Let's pick up in mid -thought with Cornelius' letter as recorded by Eusebius.
16:06
This is from Eusebius' Church History, Book 6, Chapter 43, paragraphs 18 -19.
16:12
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 them until he has sworn in this manner,
16:25
Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never forsake me and return to Cornelius.
16:31
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.
16:44
Knowing what we do of the early liturgy, namely that it consisted of a Eucharist offering, an
16:49
Amen based on 1 Corinthians 14 -16, and a consecration that was performed by reciting
16:54
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.
17:03
Normally there would be a tithe offering to which people would respond saying Amen. After the tithe offering and after the people have said
17:09
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.
17:19
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.
17:31
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.
17:39
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.
17:51
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.
18:02
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.
18:16
And therefore the whole Roman Catholic argument falls apart. The Roman Catholic position on 1
18:22
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
18:31
Christ's blood. That's what Matt Fradd is saying, but that is not how Jesus instituted the supper.
18:37
According to Matt Fradd's personal understanding of the liturgy, and indeed according to Roman Catholicism's actual liturgy,
18:43
Jesus was too late consecrating the cup because his disciples had already drunk from it. Listen to what
18:49
Mark wrote in his gospel. But remember
19:05
Matt Fradd's argument. The reason Paul warns against drinking unworthily is because Jesus is present.
19:11
Body, blood, soul, and divinity in the cup. Because the priest has made it into Jesus Christ by consecrating it.
19:18
Drinking Jesus' literal body, blood, soul, and divinity unworthily is homicide. And since it cannot be homicide to damage a symbol,
19:26
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.
19:43
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.
19:52
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
20:02
Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11, 27 -29, the early church did not do that.
20:09
What did the early church do with 1 Corinthians 11, 27 -29? This is
20:15
Paul's language from 1 Corinthians. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the
20:21
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.
20:29
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
20:35
Lord's body. So what did the early church do with this? Well, they actually did something amazing.
20:42
They interpreted Paul's words in chapter 11 by reading his words from chapter 10 and his words from chapter 12.
20:49
Namely, 1 Corinthians 10, verses 16 -17, where Paul says that we, all of us, each other, are the body of Christ.
20:58
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
21:06
For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1
21:12
Corinthians 10, verses 16 -17. They also interpreted 1
21:18
Corinthians 11 in the light of 1 Corinthians 12, 25 -27, where Paul says that we are all one body, the body of Christ.
21:25
That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another.
21:33
And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it. Or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.
21:40
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Again, that's 1 Corinthians 12, 25 -27.
21:48
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
21:59
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.
22:10
What is fascinating about those early interpretations is how they applied Paul's symbolic allegorical language of 1
22:17
Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 12 to inform their understanding of John 6 and the institution narratives of Matthew 26,
22:25
Mark 14, Luke 22, and particularly the partaking unworthily narrative of 1
22:31
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
22:44
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
22:54
Alexander of Alexandria, the mentor of Athanasius, set the stage for us as he explains in 324
23:01
A .D. 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.
23:17
This is from Alexander's treatise On the Soul and Body and the Passion of the Lord, paragraph 5.
23:25
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.
23:49
Again, that's Alexander of Alexandria On the Soul and Body and the
23:54
Passion of the Lord, paragraph 5. What we find is that the early church understood that in the celebration of the
24:01
Lord's Supper we show forth his death until he comes. That's 1 Corinthians 11, 26.
24:07
And the purpose of his death was to unite the scattered members of the body of Christ. Now let's turn to the early church's interpretation of 1
24:15
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
24:25
Corinthians 12, 27 ye are the body of Christ and members influenced their understanding of 1
24:32
Corinthians 11 about not discerning the Lord's body by disrespecting the bread. This is from the
24:38
Didache, chapter 9, early in the 1st century. Now concerning the thanksgiving, thus give thanks.
24:46
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.
24:56
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.
25:05
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.
25:18
Notice how strongly the Didache draws from 1 Corinthians 10 and 12 in constructing that Eucharistic liturgy.
25:26
Now Irenaeus from 189 A .D. 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.
25:39
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.
25:58
The Lord receiving this as a gift from his Father does himself confer it upon those who are partakers of himself sending the
26:06
Holy Spirit upon all the earth. In that case he is saying that we are the grains and the
26:11
Holy Spirit is the water that holds us all together. Clement of Alexandria from 198
26:18
A .D. in his book The Instructor, book 1, chapter 6. Elsewhere the
26:25
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
26:47
Lord of flesh and blood for in reality the blood of faith is hope in which faith is held by a vital principle.
26:54
Again, that's Clement of Alexandria The Instructor, book 1, chapter 6.
27:01
Cyprian of Carthage, 256 A .D. in his letter to Magnus, paragraph 6. For when the
27:07
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.
27:26
Again, Cyprian, epistle 75, paragraph 6. His letter to Magnus. And then in epistle 62, paragraph 13, he says
27:35
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
27:44
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 in 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.
28:08
Again, epistle 62, paragraph 13. Here's Chrysostom in 396
28:13
A .D. 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
28:22
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.
28:49
Again, that's Chrysostom, homily 46 on the gospel of John paragraph 3. Now Augustine of Hippo, sermon 272 in 408
28:59
A .D. 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
29:10
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
29:39
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
29:56
Augustine of Hippo, sermon 272 in 408 A .D. Notice the magnitude of the influence of 1
30:02
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
30:12
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
30:37
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
30:56
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
31:29
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
31:42
Corinthians 11, 27 -29 remember, Matt Fradd said the only legitimate interpretation of 1
31:49
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
31:57
Roman Catholic believes that the passage on its face proves the necessity of believing in the real presence of Christ in the
32:03
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
32:15
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
32:33
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
32:47
His death but if anyone that is not initiated conceal himself and partake of the same he eats eternal damnation and recall
32:56
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
33:05
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
33:21
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
33:37
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.
33:54
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
34:03
Paul nor the early church actually believed Matt Fradd's nonsense because unlike Matt Fradd, the early church was in fact deep in history.
34:13
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
34:22
Here is Matt Fradd claiming that it is really obvious that the early church believed in the real presence doctrine citing
34:28
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
34:41
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.
34:51
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
35:00
I want to conclude by just a couple of excerpts from the early Christians because I know
35:05
Cameron you don't find this convincing but I suspect that some people will so the first Christian I want to take a look at is
35:15
Ignatius of Antioch who lived in the first century and who we have good reason to think knew
35:22
John the Apostle personally Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures in AD 350
35:30
I could go on and on and on but I will spare people. I would say though if you want to hold to the metaphorical view you have to explain away the clear teachings of Christ in the
35:43
Eucharist you have to believe that essentially for the first 1500 years
35:50
Christians got it wrong and I just think that's a pill too big to swallow and that's why
35:57
I think people should abandon the metaphorical view and agree with Catholics and Orthodox and others who talk about the real presence of Christ in the
36:08
Eucharist okay I want to address Ignatius and Cyril first since those are the only two that he mentions in this particular conversation but I want to go on and on too so I will briefly revisit some of the citations we use in the
36:22
Eucharist episodes with Marcus Grodi's conversion Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons and Cyprian of Carthage.
36:28
We won't go through each one in detail since that would be repetitive and the listener can go back and listen to the
36:33
Eucharist episodes at his convenience but I do want to provide a survey of the typical early church examples to which
36:39
Matt Fratt is referring when he says he could go on and on. Yes he certainly could go on and on as the
36:45
Roman Catholic apologist typically does but he would be wrong every time because he is not nearly as deep in history as he thinks he is so let's take a quick look at Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem who
36:57
Fratt mentions plus Justin Martyr Irenaeus of Lyons and Cyprian of Carthage whom he does not just to show how terribly shallow
37:04
Matt Fratt is in history. So here is Matt Fratt talking about Ignatius of Antioch.
37:12
Here's what he said in his letter to the Smyrnians in around AD 110 and here's what he says take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God.
37:30
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the
37:35
Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the
37:42
Father in His goodness raised up again. Now he's talking about the Gnostics. Now the reason the Gnostics denied the real presence of Christ in the
37:49
Eucharist is because they denied the real presence of Christ in Christ so you're obviously going to deny the
37:54
Eucharist Okay very quickly I'll summarize what was said in the Eucharist episodes when we were interacting with Marcus Grodin.
38:01
In the early church the Eucharist referred to the tithe offering for the widow, the orphan and the stranger the
38:07
Eucharistic sacrifice was really just the tithe offering and prayers of thanks in which the fruits of the harvest, bread, wine, flour, oil, fruit and berries were offered to God out of gratitude
38:20
Thanksgiving, Eucharist for His abundant provisions for His people The early church's shorthand for this was
38:27
Eucharist and prayer since that is what they were offering It was also called the sacrifice of the
38:32
Mass or in Latin Oblatione Missa which literally means the sacrifice of the dismissal because unbelievers, heretics, catechumens and the backslidden were dismissed from the service before the tithe offering
38:45
Only believers could participate At the conclusion of the offering the people said Amen, indicating that the sacrifice was over and quite notably, before any bread and wine was distributed for the celebration of the supper and before any bread and wine were consecrated for the meal
39:01
On the night before He died, Jesus consecrated the bread by confessing it to be His body and He consecrated the wine by confessing it to be
39:08
His blood So that's how the early church consecrated the Eucharist, by confessing the bread to be
39:14
Jesus' body Let that sink in for a second The heretics were dismissed from the
39:19
Eucharist which is the tithe offering for the widow, the orphan and the stranger including bread and wine from the harvest and other needful things and then that bread and wine were distributed for the supper and then those gathered would consecrate the bread simply by confessing the
39:34
Eucharist to be the body of Christ, which suffered, and the cup to be the blood of Christ, which was shed
39:40
Remember that in the earliest liturgies, to confess that the Eucharist is the body of Christ was not an acknowledgement that it had already been transubstantiated into the real presence of Christ, but was itself the original consecration
39:53
To confess that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ was to consecrate them
39:59
This brief summary of the early liturgy informs us of four critical data points First, that the
40:06
Eucharist offerings of the early church were for the poor. Second, the offerings were performed before any bread and wine were consecrated for the supper
40:15
Third, the supper came to be called the Eucharist because it was celebrated with bread and wine taken from the tithe offering
40:22
And fourth, the bread was consecrated by confessing it to be the body of Christ As Irenaeus of Lyons said in Against Heresies, Book 4,
40:31
Chapter 17 Paragraph 5, about the Last Supper And the cup likewise he confessed to be his blood
40:38
That's the consecration confessing the bread to be the body of Christ, and confessing the wine to be his blood.
40:45
And thus it is true that the early church offered the Eucharist as a tithe and it is also true that the early church celebrated the
40:53
Eucharist as a supper of consecrated bread and wine, Jesus' body and blood. But the
40:58
Eucharist they offered was not consecrated and the consecrated Eucharist of the supper was eaten, but not offered
41:03
And importantly, the consecration was performed by simply confessing the Eucharist to be the body of Christ That's what
41:11
Ignatius was referring to when he said the heretics don't confess that the bread is the flesh of Christ It means they don't consecrate it
41:17
It is a very subtle semantic shift that Roman Catholicism has leveraged for 1600 years to convince itself and others that the early church offered
41:26
Christ's body and blood in the supper And Matt Fradd has fallen prey to it, as has Cameron Bertuzzi The early church did not do what
41:33
Matt Fradd says, and to understand why it's important to understand the liturgy that the early church actually celebrated
41:40
Now, with that in mind, let us now return to the Eucharistic liturgy of Ignatius of Antioch Matt Fradd provided a partial quote omitting the most critical part of the passage in which
41:50
Ignatius describes the liturgy in terms of a tithe offering for the widow the orphan, and the stranger Ignatius referred to the heretics abstaining from the
41:58
Eucharist, and then Matt Fradd skipped over the part where Ignatius is describing the tithe offering, which is the offering for which the heretics would have been dismissed.
42:06
Skipping over that part Matt Fradd then proceeds to the part where Ignatius says the heretics do not confess the Eucharist to be the body of Christ So let's take a moment and read
42:14
Ignatius in his full context Now reading from Ignatius' Epistle to the
42:20
Smyrnaeans, paragraphs 6 and 7 But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which is come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God for they have no regard for love, no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed, or the bond, or the free of the hungry, or the thirsty They abstain from the
42:40
Eucharist and from prayer which is to say they abstain from the tithe offering because they confess not the
42:45
Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which is to say that they don't consecrate it because they didn't believe
42:50
Jesus had a body Did you hear that part about the widow the orphan, and the oppressed? By omitting that reference to the widow the orphan, and the stranger,
42:58
Fradd has made it look like the Eucharist here is a reference to the supper, and thus concluded that the heretics abstain from the
43:05
Eucharist as a supper because they don't believe in transubstantiation But when you read it in context and we understand that liturgy of the early church it is clear that Ignatius of Antioch simply stated that the heretics abstain from the
43:18
Eucharist offering because they do not love the widow, the orphan, and the stranger that are fed by the offering and they are dismissed from it because they don't participate in the consecration in which the
43:27
Eucharist is confessed to be the body of Christ because they were Gnostics, it would never say that Jesus had a body, and therefore they would never say of the
43:35
Eucharist, this is my body All of which Matt Fradd would know if he were deep in history as he claims he was
43:42
But he left out a significant part of the liturgy because he didn't know what it meant He didn't understand that when
43:47
Ignatius of Antioch referred to they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, they're abstaining from the tithe offering and he didn't understand that when others confess the
43:57
Eucharist to be the body of Christ they're just consecrating it they're not confessing the real presence of Christ Okay, let's continue with Cyril of Jerusalem This is about 350
44:07
A .D. Let's listen again to Matt Fradd In his catechetical lectures in A .D. 350 said, the bread and the wine of the
44:15
Eucharist before the Holy Invocation of the adorable Trinity was simply bread and wine but the invocating having been made the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine and the blood of Christ Okay, Fradd has quoted from Cyril's 19th catechetical lecture and his quote is accurate but once again it is only partial and requires additional context provided by Cyril himself, since Cyril was comparing the
44:39
Christian consecration to something else, and without that context you don't know what comparison Cyril is making.
44:46
The citation is quoted to make it look like Cyril believed that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ at the consecration that is, at the invocation but in context he's actually saying the bread and wine remain symbolic, but are consecrated for a holy purpose
45:03
Matt Fradd quoted him as saying, the bread and wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the holy and adorable
45:09
Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ but listen carefully as Cyril compares the invocation pronounced over pagan offerings to the invocation pronounced over the
45:23
Eucharist This is Cyril of Jerusalem catechetical lecture 19, paragraph 7
45:30
Moreover the things which are hung up at idol festivals, either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil, for as the bread and wine of the
45:43
Eucharist before the invocation of the holy and adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine while after the invocation the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan though in their own nature simple become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit
46:04
Again, that's catechetical lecture 19 paragraph 7 Yes, that's right,
46:10
Cyril of Jerusalem was comparing the Christian consecration of bread and wine to the pagan consecration of the pagan sacrifices
46:16
The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in the same way that meats offered to idols become profane
46:23
In other words the bread and wine become holy to be used for a holy purpose but they do not become literally the body and blood of Christ anymore than the pagan sacrifices literally become the devil
46:36
As evidence, just listen to what Cyril says about the consecration of oil during the liturgy He compares the consecration of oil during the same liturgy that the bread and wine are consecrated and says they both change in the same way and notice that the way they change is by becoming symbolic of something that is holy not by becoming that holy thing
46:57
Here is Cyril's catechetical lecture 21 paragraph 3 speaking of consecrated oil
47:03
But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment for as the bread of the
47:09
Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is mere bread no longer but the body of Christ so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment nor so to say common after the invocation but it is
47:22
Christ's gift of grace and by the advent of the Holy Ghost is made fit to impart his divine nature which ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and your other senses and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment your soul is sanctified by the holy and life -giving spirit again,
47:42
Cyril of Jerusalem catechetical lecture 21 paragraph 3 Yes, that's right at the consecration the oil becomes symbolic of the
47:50
Holy Spirit in the same way that the bread becomes the symbol of Jesus' body and the wine becomes the symbol of his blood
47:56
Remember this is the very same Cyril of Jerusalem who said Wherefore with full assurance let us partake of the body and blood of Christ for in the figure of bread is given you his body and in the figure of wine is given his blood
48:08
That's catechetical lecture 22 paragraph 3 Matt Fradd cited
48:13
Cyril of Jerusalem as if Cyril obviously believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and yet with a little investigation into his writings we are able to discover his actual thinking on the consecration during the
48:25
Lord's Supper. It is nothing like Matt Fradd represented it So there are the two citations used by Matt Fradd to support his thesis that in the early church the fathers were unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the
48:37
Eucharist Ignatius from 107 AD and Cyril from 350 AD Yet it can be shown quite easily that neither of these actually held to the real presence of Christ in the
48:46
Eucharist and yet Matt Fradd said that he could go on and on. I could go on and on and on.
48:53
I could go on and on and on. Okay let me help Matt Fradd out here a little bit because I too could go on and on Let's visit some of the other favorite citations on the real presence of Christ in the
49:03
Eucharist Justin Martyr from 150 AD Irenaeus of Lyons from 190 AD and Cyprian of Carthage from 250.
49:10
Let's start with Justin So the favorite passage of the Roman Apologist is Justin Martyr's first apology in which he says in paragraph 66
49:19
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these but in like manner as Jesus Christ our
49:25
Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation. So likewise we have 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 is made flesh
49:41
Again, Justin Martyr first apology, 66 Okay, that's
49:47
Justin Martyr in 150 AD appearing to say that the bread and wine are transmutated into the flesh and blood of Christ at the consecration.
49:54
You can probably see why on an initial reading the Roman Catholic Apologist loves this passage It appears to say that Justin believed in transubstantiation and the real presence of Christ But before we can understand what
50:06
Justin did write, we first must acknowledge what he did not write So let's first think about what he has written.
50:12
It is one thing to say that the bread and wine are changed by the consecration into the body and blood of Christ but quite another to say that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ and our blood and flesh are nurtured through a change that takes place in the bread and wine
50:28
The former would imply transubstantiation, but it is not what Justin wrote. The latter is what he wrote, but speaks rather of a change that occurs by digestion not by consecration
50:39
In this case, Justin has used the Greek word metabolin from which we derive our modern
50:45
English word for metabolism Justin uses the same term several other times in his first apology to indicate a change of mind a change of seasons, a change of face, and quite notably the change by which the elements will one day all be dissolved by fire
51:01
You can find those references in 1st Apology 12, 13, 16 and 20 All of these involve a total change by which one thing completely and visibly changes into another.
51:14
None of these can refer to the Roman Catholic Eucharist which is alleged to change substantially but not visibly into something else
51:21
What Justin is describing is not a substantial invisible change that occurs at the consecration, but rather a total change that occurs when what has been eaten for the supper is metabolized and turned into our flesh and blood the members of Christ's body
51:36
Thus, Justin has simply asserted that the food of the offering is called Eucharist, and when consecrated the bread and wine are
51:42
Jesus' body and blood, and that bread and wine, through the digestive process nourish our flesh and blood when we partake of it, becoming
51:50
Christ's body and blood, because we are his members On this we agree with Justin, as he is consistent with Paul For we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.
52:02
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular Of course we are That Justin did not believe in a liturgical offering of Jesus' body and blood is also proven by his description of what the early church actually offered
52:15
In his dialogue with Trifo, paragraph 117, when describing the sacrifice of the church,
52:21
Justin absolutely ruled out an offering of the body and blood of Christ by saying that the only thing the church offers is prayers and thanks
52:28
Again, this is dialogue with Trifo, paragraph 117 Now, that prayers and giving of thanks when offered by worthy men are the only perfect and well -pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit
52:41
Again, dialogue with Trifo, 117 That is not something Justin would have written if he believed the perfect and well -pleasing sacrifice the church offers is
52:49
Jesus' body and blood What is more, when discussing the prophecy of Malachi 111 which says, in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering,
53:00
Justin acknowledges that the bread and wine Jesus gave us to eat with thanksgiving were given in remembrance of his being made flesh, and in remembrance of his own blood
53:08
Now, citing Justin Martyr, dialogue with Trifo, paragraph 70 Now, it is evident that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our
53:18
Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of his being made flesh for the sake of his believers, for whom he also suffered, and to the cup which he gave us to drink, in remembrance of his own blood, with the giving of thanks
53:30
Again, Justin Martyr dialogue with Trifo, paragraph 70 This also we do not deny, but if Justin believed in transubstantiation, he would have said the
53:41
Malachi 1 prophecy refers to the flesh Jesus gave us to eat and the cup of his own blood he gave us to drink, but saying the bread was to remind us of his being made flesh, and the cup to remind us of his own blood is a different matter entirely
53:54
It is in no way consistent with the belief that the bread and cup were his own flesh and blood to be offered in the liturgy
54:01
Either Jesus gave us his own literal blood to drink, as Fran believes, or he gave us something else in remembrance of his own blood as Justin wrote
54:10
The two positions are mutually exclusive and Justin does not support Matt Fratt here. Justin confirms this for us elsewhere, when he says the
54:18
Malachi prophecy anticipated all the sacrifices which we offer i .e.
54:24
in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world. That's dialogue with Trifo, paragraph 117
54:34
Here he identifies the bread and wine as the offering of the church but then after the Eucharist offering is complete, the bread and wine are consecrated, at which time
54:42
Justin says the bread and wine are solely to stimulate our senses and bring to mind Jesus' body and blood in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the sufferings of the
54:54
Son of God which he endured is brought to mind dialogue with Trifo, 117 If the bread and wine are presented to the
55:03
Lord as a Eucharistic tithe offering, as the only perfect and well -pleasing sacrifice before the consecration and if the peoples then say
55:10
Amen at the conclusion of that offering as Justin represents and if the Eucharist is then distributed and only then is consecrated so that the solid and liquid food might stimulate our senses to remind us of Christ's sacrifice, we are at a loss to understand how
55:25
Justin's liturgy is very different from that of Protestants today For the same reason, we do not understand how
55:30
Justin's liturgy can possibly be construed to support Frad's medieval liturgy. It is clear that Justin did not believe that the real presence of Christ was offered in the
55:38
Eucharist, and it is clear that he did not believe that bread and wine were converted into the real presence of Christ at the consecration.
55:45
What he did believe as did many others, was that the bread and wine are transformed into our flesh and blood through the digestive process because we too are members of the body of Christ Okay, we won't take so long on these last two
55:58
Let's look at Irenaeus of Lyons from 190 AD. Roman Catholics love to appeal to Irenaeus against heresies, book 4, chapter 18 paragraph 5, in which he appears to say that at the invocation that is the consecration, the bread and wine take on two natures, both heavenly and earthly, as if to suggest that Irenaeus believed in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine
56:21
Let's read Irenaeus now, and I'm placing special emphasis on the word invocation for a reason
56:27
This is against heresies, book 4, chapter 18, paragraph 5 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
56:47
Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the
56:54
Eucharist are no longer corruptible having the hope of the resurrection to eternity Again, Irenaeus against heresies, book 4 chapter 18, paragraph 5
57:06
Man, that sure sounds like Irenaeus believed the bread and wine are changed at the invocation which is a reference to the consecration and that the church offers
57:14
Jesus' body and blood as the sacred offering of the church For we offer to him his own Those are the words of Irenaeus Well, the short story on this is that the translation
57:24
I read from is the Latin not from Irenaeus' original Greek Until the 18th century
57:30
Irenaeus' original work had been lost to history, and against heresies was only available in a poor barbaric
57:37
Latin translation in which the bread is alleged to change when it received the invocation M day, that is the invocation of God But in 1743
57:47
Irenaeus' Greek original entered circulation and corrected that Latin transcription error
57:53
It turned out that Irenaeus had not written epiklēsintōtheō which is the invocation of God in reference to the supper as they had expected, but rather had written eklēsintōtheō the summons of God in reference to the tithe, which is a reference to Malachi 3 .10
58:11
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse That's the verse in which the Lord summons the tithe
58:18
Thus, in Irenaeus' mind, a real change in the nature of the bread occurs at the moment it becomes a tithe offering not at the moment it is consecrated
58:27
Unbelievably, and irresponsibly the scholars assured themselves that the differences between the Latin and Greek were negligible, and that Irenaeus must surely have meant to refer to the consecration rather than the tithe of which he was plainly writing
58:40
Thus, to bring Irenaeus' Greek back into conformity with the arid Latin, translators discreetly substituted epiklēsintōtheō, or invocation, where Irenaeus had written eklēsintōtheō, or summons
58:55
That illicit redaction is now widely accepted as authoritative by the translators profoundly changing the meaning of Irenaeus.
59:03
Instead of saying for as the bread which is produced from the earth when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread but the
59:09
Eucharist He actually said for as bread which is produced from the earth when it receives the summons of God is no longer common bread but the
59:17
Eucharist It is a reference to the fact that when the bread and wine, among many other needful things are set aside as a tithe for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger they become the
59:27
Eucharist the tithe offering, earthly in that they are the product of our earthly toil but heavenly in that they are set aside for heavenly purposes, that is for caring for the poor
59:38
And to our point, the widespread claim that Irenaeus believed the bread and wine become the real presence of Christ at the moment of consecration is manifestly untrue, and the scholars actually know this, but perpetuate the lie because it is more consistent with their assumptions, which is precisely why
59:54
Matt Frad says with such confidence that the early writers were unanimous on the real presence, when in fact they were actually unanimous in their understanding that this is my body, and this is my blood were symbolic
01:00:06
Let's conclude with Cyprian of Carthage from 250 AD This will be the last one, and we'll conclude the episode on this.
01:00:15
Cyprian of Carthage in 250 AD wrote that Jesus' passion is the sacrifice we offer
01:00:22
Here he is in epistle 62 paragraph 17 We make mention of his passion in all sacrifices, for the
01:00:29
Lord's passion is the sacrifice which we offer Well, there you have it that the early church believed in the
01:00:35
Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass, in which the suffering of Jesus Christ is offered to the Father in the
01:00:40
Lord's Supper, in which Christ is said to be truly present and truly offered in the sacrifice Right?
01:00:47
Well, that is indeed what it sounds like but only if you don't know Cyprian of Carthage.
01:00:53
Once you get to know him, you realize he did not mean what Roman Catholics assume First, Cyprian of Carthage was a novice, barely out of paganism before he was made metropolitan bishop
01:01:03
And in his mind, there was no difference between an offering and a commemoration. He used the concepts interchangeably
01:01:11
For example, in epistle 59 paragraph 4, he said we should commemorate our brethren by offering them in the sacrifices
01:01:19
This is epistle 59 paragraph 4 But that you may have in mind in your prayers our brethren and sisters who have labored so promptly and liberally for this needful work that they may always labor and that in return for their good work you may present them in your sacrifices and prayers
01:01:37
I have subjoined the names of each one and moreover I have added the names of my colleagues and fellow priests who themselves also, as they were present contributed some little according to their power in their own names and in the name of their own people.
01:01:51
And besides our own amount, I have intimated and sent their small sums, all of whom in conformity with the claims of faith and charity you ought to remember in your supplications and prayers.
01:02:02
That's Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 59 paragraph 4. This letter was written because several of the brethren with Cyprian had collected money and sent it to them.
01:02:11
Cyprian had added some of his own money and that of the other bishops and priests. Of those Christians who contributed the money
01:02:18
Cyprian says that they should be presented in your sacrifices But Cyprian goes on and makes clear that he means that they should be remembered in your sacrifices, saying you ought to remember them in your supplications and prayers
01:02:30
In fact, Cyprian followed exactly this pattern in epistle 62 from which we quoted earlier.
01:02:35
After saying we make mention of his passion in all sacrifices, for the Lord's passion is the sacrifice which we offer he then says in the very next sentence we offer the cup in commemoration of the
01:02:46
Lord and his passion. Thus when Cyprian says the Lord's passion is the sacrifice we offer he is saying the
01:02:53
Lord's passion is the sacrifice we commemorate No Protestant would disagree with that And we know this is what
01:03:00
Cyprian meant because we also know from Cyprian himself that he knew very well that the Lord's supper was not a sacrifice of Christ's body and blood and that the sacrifice of the church was a sacrifice of praise.
01:03:11
First listen in the very same epistle, epistle 62, Cyprian denies that Jesus had his own blood in the cup the night before he died
01:03:20
Now citing paragraph 7 of that epistle, and keep in mind that the whole point of the epistle is that some
01:03:26
Christians had been recently found to be celebrating the Lord's supper with water instead of wine in order to avoid being detected as Christians by the wine stains on their lips.
01:03:37
In response Cyprian says we ought to have wine in the cup because that is what Jesus had in his cup.
01:03:43
We'll pick up where Cyprian has quoted Genesis 49 11 about the blood of the grape and Isaiah 63 too about the wine press
01:03:50
Now citing Cyprian epistle 62 paragraph 7 The treading also and the pressure of the wine press is repeatedly dwelt on because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes first be trodden and pressed so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed and had first drunk the cup of which he should also give believers to drink.
01:04:16
Epistle 62 paragraph 7 Now let me just say the obvious. This is from the same epistle in which
01:04:22
Cyprian says we must offer what Christ offered and his passion is what we offer in the sacrifices and nevertheless
01:04:28
Cyprian says neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed.
01:04:34
In other words, Christ could not have given his disciples his blood to drink unless he had first been crucified and therefore whatever
01:04:41
Christ offered in the cup on Thursday could not be his blood. That is not something you would say if you truly believed
01:04:47
Christ had offered his own blood in the cup and gave it to his disciples to drink the night before he died.
01:04:52
Additionally, when Cyprian of Carthage was writing about the fulfillment of Malachi 1 .11 he insisted that the prophecy is fulfilled in the offering of the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise.
01:05:03
In treatise 12 paragraph 16 Cyprian of Carthage says the prophecy of Malachi 1 .11 was also prophesied in Psalm 50 verse 14 offering to God thanksgiving and in Psalm 50 verse 23 whoso offereth praise glorifyeth me.
01:05:18
Just think about that. Cyprian of Carthage finally gets down to talking about Malachi 1 .11 and the sacrifice of the
01:05:25
Gentiles and he says it is thanksgiving and praise consistent with Hebrews 13 .15
01:05:31
making no mention of Christ's body and blood being offered. That is not something you would say if you believe the sacrifice of Malachi 1 .11
01:05:39
is fulfilled in the offerings of Christ's body and blood by the church. Okay, we have tried the patience of our listeners enough today and we'll wrap up on that point.
01:05:49
Remember, we are covering this material because the most influential person in Cameron Bertuzzi's conversion was
01:05:55
Matt Fradd, who said it was so obvious that 1 Corinthians 11 .27 is about disrespecting the literal body and blood of Christ.
01:06:02
What else could Paul possibly mean? I do think it supports my view. I think
01:06:08
Paul believed in the real presence of Christ. And yet the evidence from the early church does not bear that out.
01:06:15
The early writers understood 1 Corinthians 11 .27 to be symbolic and interpreted through the lens of 1
01:06:21
Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 12 in which Paul says, we are Christ's body and his members which is why we ought to love and respect and defer to one another because of Christ.
01:06:31
And Matt Fradd said that the early church was unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, citing Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem as if the evidence was abundant and that he could go on and on and on with it.
01:06:43
I could go on and on and on. Well, maybe we should put Matt Fradd to his own test. To dismiss what the people who knew the apostles personally had to say
01:06:55
I think would be foolhardy. So I find their testimony really powerful. When Christians and Catholics and Protestants get into debates like this we all have our favorite
01:07:04
Bible verses at the ready, right? And I think we can stick to the Bible if you want but one powerful way of figuring out what it means is to see what the earliest
01:07:11
Christians believed it to mean. If he disagrees with me on the meaning of the passages let's go back to the early church fathers and find out what they said.
01:07:21
Well, that's what we've done today. Honestly, Matt Fradd does not know what he is talking about because he is very, very shallow in history.
01:07:29
The only reason Catholics can go on and on is because they are so shallow in history. When Matt Fradd said
01:07:36
Ignatius of Antioch believed in the real presence it was because Matt Fradd does not understand the ancient liturgy in which the
01:07:42
Eucharist was the tithe offering for the poor and the bread and the wine of the Eucharist were consecrated by confessing them to be
01:07:48
Jesus' body and blood. He said Cyril of Jerusalem believed in the real presence because, Cyril said, after the invocation the bread becomes the body of Christ.
01:07:57
But Fradd apparently does not know the context in which Cyril explicitly states that at the invocation the bread becomes
01:08:03
Christ in the same way that the oil is made fit for holy use and in the same way that pagan sacrifices become profane at the pagan invocations.
01:08:13
In other words, the invocation simply makes the objects over which it is spoken suitable for their respective purposes but does not actually change them into something they were not before.
01:08:23
Something Cyril makes abundantly clear elsewhere when he says the body of Christ is given to us under the figure of bread and his blood is given to us under the figure of wine.
01:08:32
Because we Protestants could go on and on, I went on and on myself with sources Matt Fradd thinks support him.
01:08:39
But Justin Martyr said the only thing we offer to God is thanks and praise, making no mention of Christ's body and blood as the offering.
01:08:45
And Irenaeus said the bread takes on a heavenly reality not when it is consecrated, as the scholars would have us believe, but when it is summoned by the
01:08:53
Lord for a tithe offering to become the Eucharist. And Cyprian of Carthage acknowledges that Jesus' blood was not even in the cup the night before he died and therefore could not have been offered by him.
01:09:04
And when he described the fulfillment of the Malachi 111 prophecy, he too listed only thanks and praise.
01:09:10
The one time Cyprian said Jesus' passion is what we offer, he was using the term offer as commemorate, something the
01:09:16
Roman Catholic would know if he were truly deep in history. In any case,
01:09:22
Matt Fradd thinks he knows and is quite confident that he is correct and that Protestants are all wrong, but Matt Fradd is the one who is wrong here and all he has done is show how ignorant he is.
01:09:32
And now Cameron Bertuzzi has joined him in his ignorance. Well, we'll let them wallow in their ignorance until the next episode, playing with their soap bubbles and splashy toys as they triumphantly claim in the bathtub that they are so deep in history.
01:09:45
But we know better. In our next episode, we'll review the arguments for the papacy that Cameron Bertuzzi has found so convincing.
01:09:52
And once again, we'll find that Bertuzzi's Roman Catholic apologist friends are very, very shallow in history.
01:09:58
I am your host, Timothy F. Coffman, and you've been listening to Episode 13, The Conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, Part 2.
01:10:06
And this is The Diving Board. We'll see you next time.