early christian cities

[dairygirl4u2c]

be honest. :ph34r:

[Myles Domini]

I'd say since nobody actually questioned the doctrine of the real prescence until Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century that they are.

[cmotherofpirl]

another silly poll
It really doesn't matter what we think.
Read the Church Fathers and find out.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Myles' date='Mar 2 2005, 12:16 PM'] I'd say since nobody actually questioned the doctrine of the real prescence until Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century that they are. [/quote]
Early heresies were about the divinity of Christ, and God's nature, and no record of the questioning of the Eucharist and the Real Presence by Christians came up until the 11th century. The closest thing were the Donatists who in 312 AD said that the transformation of the bread into the Body depnded on the priest, and that is still a light year away from the rejection of the Eucharist and the Real Presence.

God bless,
Mikey

[argent_paladin]

It really depends on what you mean by "represents". Christianity in the Roman Empire was dominated by three cities: Antioch and Alexandria in the East (after the desctruction of the Temple, Jerusalem ceased to be an important Christian center, though was given nominal respect) and Rome in the West (North Africa was also important but after it was sacked in the early 5th century, it never recovered). These three cities represented all the Christian cities, they were metropoles and we have plenty of evidence from ECFs from these traditions. Constantinople arose later, in the 4th century and confirmed the previous tradition.
So, no, we don't have writings from every single town that had a Christian in it. But we do have evidence from the three great traditional centers of Christianity in the Empire. We also have evidene from the Church outside of the Roman Empire, in Armenia and Persia.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]
another silly poll
It really doesn't matter what we think.
Read the Church Fathers and find out.[/quote]

Simply reading the ECFs would not solve this problem, unless you mean read the dates they were written and where. Then figuring out where christianity was back then.

Plus, the only reason I ask is to expose that type of thinking and to expose those at phatmass who don't want to admit what they don't know.



[quote]These three cities represented all the Christian cities[/quote]

What about Egypt where St. Mark went to? I'm pretty sure there's other places too.


See, you all are saying that because you have not seen any documentation to say that early churches did not believe in the real presence, that no early cities denied it. Couldn't it be that we just don't have the documentation? Have you all looked at where the ECFs were and then looked at where all the major cities and such were as in my question? This is a research project that should be partook upon, which I doubt that many people here have done. So, perhaps it will come down to places that we don't konw what they believed. Then we'd have to make due with what we have, which will pretty much leave us back where we started. Who knows.

Even if I'm wrong, I doubt anyone here has looked into it. Is it too much to be honest and admit you don't know? I admit I don't know. I have to look into it. And I will! Anyone care to look with me?

Edited March 3, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Archangel]

Did all the ECFs believe in the Real Presence?

[Aloysius]

the ECFs were the ones teaching the Christian faith... so everyone they taught would believe in the real presence... small heresies rose and fell (a couple really big ones, arianism and manichaeianism) but the central pool of Christianity is reflected by the writings of its leaders.

[MichaelFilo]

You see some people DO know. By the way, the job of every Catholic isn't to be an apologetic wiz. I think thats something that is easily forgotten. Apologetics is the defence of the Church, but having Faith alone is good enough for any Catholic that the Church is Truth, and that she is the Body of Christ. A Church member is expected to know the tenets of the Faith, but apologetics and the writings of the ECF's is not something that is mandatory to everyone in the Faith. As a Protestant, the apologetics plays an important role, as all Protestants find it interesting since they can agree about so little they must know what they believe and why, and then they have to back it up. Catholics have only to know what they believe, and live it, and if the problem of a questioning person comes up the person can be referred to someone who knows more. Each person has a role in the Church, not all of us are ECF and bible scholars. Mother Theresa is a fine example of that point.

God bless,
Mikey

[dairygirl4u2c]

Also, make note all, that just because you don't know doesn't mean I've proven you wrong. I'm sure you realize that, but I haven't seen any body say I don't know or vote I don't know yet, other than me. (yes it was me!)

[MichaelFilo]

You don't have to see it for yourself, the ECFs wouldn't be wrong about something as important and central as the REal Presence. Any smaller pocket of Christianity that didn't believe in the Real Presence probably wasn't Christian very long, since denouncing the REal Presnece is the fall of any Christian community.

God bless,
Mikey

[Myles Domini]

[quote]
These three cities represented all the Christian cities



What about Egypt where St. Mark went to? I'm pretty sure there's other places too.[/quote]


Alexandria is in Egypt, indeed in St Mark's day it was the capital of Egypt and had a huge Jewish community thats why he went there. If you study the Canons of Nicea you will see that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were regarded by all Christians both within and without the Roman Empire as the centres of doctrinal orthodoxy. All missions to the East (that is outside of the Roman Empire) were launched by Antioch. There are even Chinese Nestorians from the 5th century because of it and we all know about the West Syrian rites of India. These cities acted as the backbone of doctrinal Orthodoxy and the Bishops who came to Nicea from sundry parts confirmed their privelleges:

[quote]Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. [/quote]

The three ancient primatal See's acted as the unifying centre of Catholicism and Rome was the ultimate aribiter as can be seen from St Ignatius' writings, St Irenaeus' writings, and appeals to Rome that came from the other two primatal See's over doctrine. Christianity did not spread in a haphazard way and never has. What you must understand is that the centres of Christianity were always responsible for the evangelisation that took place in their immediate jurdistiction. After the Apostolic age drew to a close these Sees dominated the evangelisation. All evangelisation in the West was launched from Rome, in the South from Alexandria in the East from Antioch (and later on in the North from Constantinople) complete the puzzle with Aelia aka Jerusalem and you have the 5 Patriarchates. These held Christianity together in union and there is no Church you'll find today with true apostolic succession be they in China, India, Iran, Serbia, Russia, France, Portugal, Egypt, Ethiopia etc. Orthodox or Catholic that doubts the real prescence.

The early Church as you can see from Canon 6 of Nicea was not a mere collection of communities loosely gelled together each having different beliefs. The ancient primatial Sees organised the evangelisation of new places and confirmed them in the faith according to their venerable apostolic traditions derived from St Peter, the ultimate reference point for which was Rome.

[quote]You don't have to see it for yourself, the ECFs wouldn't be wrong about something as important and central as the REal Presence. Any smaller pocket of Christianity that didn't believe in the Real Presence probably wasn't Christian very long, since denouncing the REal Presnece is the fall of any Christian community.[/quote]

This is exactly right and St Ignatius of Antioch says as much in his letter to the Smyranens. As Bishop of Antioch, one of the primatal Sees, he was very concious that he had the reign over the East and his apostolic doctrine acted as a guard for the faith of the churches attached to the Syrian Church. Here is a list of all the different particular rites of the Catholic Church: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe..../conference.htm[/url]

I wouldnt vote I dont know because there is no historical evidence contrary to the fact. When the Christians of Kerala, India were rediscovered by the Portugese explorers in the 16th century they still believed in the real prescence in spite of being seperated from the Western world for ages. People had simply assumed that with the advent of Islam Indian Christianity no longer existed. No matter how far afield from the Roman Empire and what Christological err's they might have made there is no local Church that dates back to the apostolic age that doubts the real prescence and there really cant be. Because if they were you'd know that Church was not apostolic.

Jews celebrate covenants with sacrifice: Abraham had a Ram, Moses had a Lamb, David offered bread and wine when he conquered Salem--Melchizedek's city where he too offered bread and wine--etc.etc. Jews seal covenants by sacrifice and not just by sacrifice by sacrificial meal. The sacrifice offered is consumed by all parties. When Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood he was validating the sacrifice. As the sacrifical lamb himself He had to be consumed. Its all over Scripture and this is the very Jewish nature of our religion. His body is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed. You couldnt go to a Jewish Passover and not eat Lamb. If you'd have been in Egypt when the Angel of Death was doing his thing and had decided not to eat the Lamb but have beef instead then you're eldest would die and if you were eldest so would you. Jesus' body and blood had to be consumed in order to maintain the new covenant and the rules still apply. This is why the Apostles were so horrified at the thought that Gentile Christians might eat the food sacrificed to idols. Because that was an affirmation of polytheism it was trying to have covenants with many gods instead of the one true God. It was also besmerching God's body as Paul makes clear in his Corinthian letter.

Every church with valid apostolicity will believe in the real prescence and the only way they could possibly believe otherwise is if they have abandoned the Jewish covenantal understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifical offering that is the Christian Paschal meal. Of my studies of Apostolic Christianity both Orthodox and Catholic I havent found one such a church even amongst the ancient heretics.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Myles

[dairygirl4u2c]

wow thanks myles. that's a really impressive post. usually we end up debating hypotheticals which is way too complicated. i've asked this question before and gotten no substantial response. thanks for some facts. i'll look into those and get back to you.

[epiclesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 2 2005, 10:31 PM']

Plus, the only reason I ask is to expose that type of thinking and to expose those at phatmass who don't want to admit what they don't know.




[/quote]
Interesting confession.

The question wasn't really asked to be answered - there was another agenda.

[argent_paladin]

And in fact, it is not necessary to prove that each separate city of Christendom believed in the real presence. It is only necessary to show that it was the belief and practice of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria (in Egypt) and Antioch (in Syria). This is so because all the other parts of Christendom were in formal communion with one another. Therefore, what was believed in one part was believed in the other parts.
At the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 around 300 bishops were in attendance, representing every part of the Empire: Alexandria, Antioch, Ancyra, Jerusalem, Carthage, Oannonia, Gaul, Calabria, Cordoba, Rome, Oersia, Scythia, Egypt, Myra (St. Nicholas)

They had such reverence for the eucharist that they made rules that those who sinned were to undergo penance for 11 years before recieving the Eucharist again. They also denied communion to those who believed Christ was only a man (Arians).

It is clear that the Real Presence is assumed at the second ecumenical council at Constantinople in 381.