We must now consider the testimonies of the ancient fathers cited by the Papists in order to prove their opinion regarding the Mass and the Melchizedekian priesthood and what it consisted in.
#1 - Clement of Alexandria
"This is in reality righteousness, not to desire other things, but to be entirely the consecrated temple of the Lord. Righteousness is peace of life and a well-conditioned state, to which the Lord dismissed her when He said, “Depart into peace.” [Mark 5:34] For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted righteous king; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace.”" (Stromata, Book 4, Chapter 25)
As I showed in the previous article, the bread and wine that Melchizedek were not a propitiatory sacrifice, thus even if we grant that Melchizedek bring bread and wine is a type of the Eucharist, this does not prove the doctrine of Rome's Mass. Notice that Clement says that Melchizedek "gave bread and wine", not "offered up [or sacrificed] bread and wine" (which is the interpretation needed for the Papist argument to have any merit whatsoever).
#2 - Cyprian
"Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies, and says, And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine.
Now he was a priest of the most high God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son: Before the morning star I begot You; You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek;
which order is assuredly this coming from that sacrifice and thence descending; that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?" (Epistle 62 to Caecilius)
Though the fathers were holy men, they were not infallible. It would seem Cyprian is contradicting himself in this regard. He elsewhere teaches against transubstantiation (a doctrine which must be true in order for the Sacrifice of the Mass to make any sense):
"For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ."
Cyprian understands the relationship between the wine and the blood of Christ (the sign and the thing signified) to be the same as that which is between the water of baptism and the Christian people, which is not that of a change of substance.
#3 - Eusebius of Caesarea
"Since, then, Christ neither entered on His priesthood in time, nor sprang from the priestly tribe, nor was anointed with prepared and outward oil, nor will ever reach the end of His priesthood, nor will be established only for the Jews but for all nations, for all these reasons He is rightly said to have forsaken the priesthood after Aaron’s type, and to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. And the fulfillment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Savior Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today in sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek’s. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Savior Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood. This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says: ‘And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.’ And thus it followed that only to Him with the addition of an oath: ‘The Lord God swore, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’" (Demonstration of the Gospel, Book 5, Chapter 3)
I respond by noting the following things:
[1]. Eusebius says that the Christian priesthood is "spiritual", and thus the sacrifice must be spiritual as well, which contradicts transubstantiation. Plus, Eusebius says only that the elements "represent the body and blood of Christ".
[2]. Eusebius in book 1 of this same treatise says the following:
"Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgive ness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood....And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice" (Demonstration of the Gospel, Book I, Chapter 10)
The last sentence in particular refutes the view of the Papists on this matter.
#3 - Ambrose of Milan
Bellarmine cites two passages from the work On the Sacraments, which is in fact a pseudo-Ambrosian work, as is acknowledge by the society which reprinted and published this work.
Erick Ybarra cites a passage from Ambrose's work On the Mysteries, which is indeed authentic:
"So, lest any one should say this, we will take great pains to prove that the sacraments of the Church are both more ancient than those of the synagogue, and more excellent than the manna. The lesson of Genesis just read shows that they are more ancient, for the synagogue took its origin from the law of Moses. But Abraham was far earlier, who, after conquering the enemy, and recovering his own nephew, as he was enjoying his victory, was met by Melchizedek, who brought forth those things which Abraham reverently received. It was not Abraham who brought them forth, but Melchizedek, who is introduced without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days, nor ending, but like the Son of God, of Whom Paul says to the Hebrews: that He remains a priest for ever,
Who in the Latin version is called King of righteousness and King of peace. Do you recognize Who that is? Can a man be king of righteousness, when himself he can hardly be righteous? Can he be king of peace, when he can hardly be peaceable? He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last. The sacrament, then, which you received is the gift not of man but of God, brought forth by Him Who blessed Abraham the father of faith, whose grace and deeds we admire. We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superior. In very truth it is a marvelous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, So man ate angels’ food.
But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ" (Ambrose, On the Mysteries, Chapter 8)
Nowhere in here does Ambrose teach that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice or anything of the sort. He does indeed view the bread and wine of Melchizedek as a type of the Eucharist, but as we showed above, that does not prove the Papist view.
#4 - Jerome
“Turn back to Genesis, and you will find that this was the city over which Melchizedek held sway, that king of Salem who, as a type of Christ, offered to Abraham bread and wine, and even then consecrated the mystery which Christians consecrate in the body and blood of the Savior” (St. Jerome, Letter 46)
I respond by making the same point I made above about the bread and wine of Melchizedek as a type of the Lord's Supper.
"After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Mechizedek, the Priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own body and blood." (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, Book 4, Chapter 26)
Jerome does indeed seem to teach here that the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek was a sacrifice, but nonetheless that word "sacrifice" has many meanings, besides a propitiatory sacrifice, which is what RC apologists have to prove.
#5 - St. Augustine
"He was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High, about whom many and great things are written in the epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, which most say is by the Apostle Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole wide world" (City of God, Book 16, Chapter 22)
Yet Augustine elsewhere says this:
"The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ." (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 20.18)
Thus, St. Augustine teaches that there is one sacrifice of Christ, which is remembered by Christians in the celebration of the Eucharist. He did not say that it was the same sacrifice offered again in an unbloody manner (which is the teaching of Session 22 of the Council of Trent).
No comments:
Post a Comment