Symbolic language of the Eucharist in the Fathers

[Father David Moser]

I have moved this personal query to the forum as I am sure that there are many others here better qualified to give comment on it.

Fr David

Bless Father,

i was at a book store today, and i looked at some book of early Christian beliefs, and i looked at the portion on The Holy Eucharist, and i read some of St. Clement of Alexandria, and at times it seems some of His writings had an almost symbolical language, like for example:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"'The Lord expressed this by means of symbols in the Gospel according to John when He said, "Eat My flesh and drink My blood," depicting [Greek word given] plainly the drinkable character of FAITH and the promise by means of which the Church, as a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows and is welded together and compacted of both, of FAITH as the body and of HOPE as the soul, as also the Lord of flesh and blood.' [Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:38]

'[After the more explicit passage cited above] But you are unwilling to understand it thus [referring to John 6:51ff], but perhaps more generally [Greek given]. Hear it also as follows: The Holy Ghost uses flesh as a picture [Greek given] for us, for by Him was the flesh created. Blood signifies [Greek given] for us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been poured into our life.' [Clement of Alexandria, ibid 43]

'The blood of the Lord is twofold. In one sense it is fleshly, that by which we have been redeemed from corruption; in another sense it is spiritual, that by which we have been anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of the Lord's immortality; and the Spirit is the strength of the Word, as blood of flesh.

'As then wine is mixed with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture, nourishes to faith; and the other, the Spirit, guides to immortality. And the mingling of both -- of the drink and the Word -- is called Eucharist, renowned and beauteous grace; and those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in both body and soul, since the will of the Father has mystically united the divine mixture, man, by the Spirit and the Word.

'For in truth the Spirit is joined to the soul that is moved by it, and the flesh, for the sake of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.'" [Clement of Alexandria, Paed II:ii:19,20] (Stone, volume 1, page 25-26)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so i was just wondering Father, why some of The Fathers spoke in this way? the protestants try and tell us that the fathers had a symbolic view of The Holy Eucharist, which we know they didn't, but, i am confused why they spoke like this.


Kissing your Right Hand,

anthony

[Father David Moser]

The Eurcharist is, of course, the True Body and True Blood of Christ. However, just because it is real doesn't mean that it is also symbolic. The comments of St Clement show us some of the symbolism which surround certain parts of the rite of the Eucharist - but just because there is symbolism which teaches and instructs us about the spiritual life doesn't deny that there is reality.

Fr David Moser

[Peter S.]

Maybe the word symbolic has changed its meaning during the ages? But not everywhere. It is much more connected to the word reality, then I am used to hear.

[Aidan Kimel]

The great historian of dogma, Adolf von Harnack, gives us a clue to understanding the symbolic language of the early Church Fathers: "At that time, ‘symbol’ denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies." This is quite different than the understanding of symbol found in most Protestant churches.

[James]

The great historian of dogma, Adolf von Harnack, gives us a clue to understanding the symbolic language of the early Church Fathers: "At that time, ‘symbol’ denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies." This is quite different than the understanding of symbol found in most Protestant churches.

I was also taught this -- that to the Fathers "symbol" denoted a concrete expression of something. Similarly, what we often refer to as the Creed is also called the symbol of faith.

Fr. James

[Owen Jones]

Forgive me, but you cannot analyze symbols...

[Owen Jones]

These discussions always trouble me because the term "symbol" tends to be reified, rather than understood experientially. I remember reading St. Gregory of Nyssa's "Life of Moses" and being struck by the fact that this guy knew what a symbol was. And it also struck me that this was the problem with all of the religion and theology I had encountered to date: that people did not know what a symbol was, because they no longer were capable of living symbolically. And that perhaps there was hope that there was a Church somewhere that still existed that lived symbolically.

Man is a symbol. Mankind is not a thing, it is a symbol. It is a pointer. As one philosopher put it: man is an eschatalogical index. It points beyond itself. Until we feel that, we are always going to be caught up in these fallacious debates about the nature of a symbol.

[Peter S.]

These discussions always trouble me because the term "symbol" tends to be reified, rather than understood experientially. I remember reading St. Gregory of Nyssa's "Life of Moses" and being struck by the fact that this guy knew what a symbol was.

Isn't it so because he and other Church Fathers where experts in typological/(allegorical) interpretation of the Bible? They had the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and thats why they where experts.

Peter