The Eucharist and Theurgy

[Traditio]

I was reading an article today, "The Chaldean Oracles," by John F. Finamore and Sarah Iles Johnston, in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, and I came across a bit that I found of interest:

Marius Victorinus, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Synesius of Cyrene all talk about the "symbola," a technical term of Platonic theurgy. The Pseudo-Dionysius specifically uses the term in reference to the Eucharist, and the article seems to imply, though it does not explicitly say, that the other two were speaking in the same context.

The symbola, in Platonic theurgy, was a material element which had a natural kinship to a given deity who was to be summoned. So, suppose that Hecate has a natural kinship to gold: you get some gold, make a statue, consecrate the statue, and perform the theurgic rite...this actually calls down Hecate into the statue.

To my mind, if (relatively) early Christian writers (St. Augustine too, perhaps?) spoke in terms of the Eucharist as a symbola, this is a decisive argument in favor of transubstantiation.

Here we have a piece of bread and a cup of wine, symbola, material tokens which have some special relationship to the God who is to be invoked (after all, "He took bread...He took wine" at the Last Supper). The priest consecrates them and speaks the words that Jesus did: he performs the rite ordained by the Lord Himself.

And now bread and wine are no longer present: Jesus Himself, the Incarnate God, is present in the hands of the priest.

 

[chair]

And all this warmed up neoplatonic philosophy mixed up with ancient mythology seems completely normal land reasonable to you.

 

[bybee]

And all this warmed up neoplatonic philosophy mixed up with ancient mythology seems completely normal land reasonable to you.

He has obviously not really thought this through? Using a Pagan idea as proof of the validity of a Christian belief?
Or is it merely an opportunity for intellectual high fallutism?:think:

 

[Selaphiel]

My issue with transsubtantiation (not the real presence) is that it is first of all an unnecessary metaphysical explanation of a mystery (which was Luther's primary criticism).

Secondly, I think there is a remnant of docetism in it. Bread and wine suddenly just become appearances while the real substance is the body and blood of Christ. That does not correlate very well with the relationship between God and the material world in the doctrine of the incarnation.

God became man in Jesus Christ, but Jesus remained fully human. To say that the divinity consumes the material (which is what is stated if you claim that the substance of bread and wine is transformed) in the eucharist is implicit docetism. Just as saying that the God would have to consume human nature in an "incarnation" is the docetic heresy.

It is the reverse of reformed criticism, but with the same result, an implicit disdain for the material. It assumes the incompatability between the material and the divine, an assumption destroyed by the doctrine of the incarnation.

I think Luther was right about this. The real presence is "in, with and under" the bread and wine, a sacramental union between the material and the divine. Christ is really present in the bread and the wine, without consuming them.

 

[jamie]

Is eucharist leavened or unleavened?

 

[RBBI]

Why do you need it to be, is my question. Peace

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And now bread and wine are no longer present: Jesus Himself, the Incarnate God, is present in the hands of the priest.

Why does the sacrifice need to be re-presented?

The Father already accepted it, and raised up Christ to sit beside him.

 

[Wick Stick]

I guess we're dabbling in Hermeticism.

You've misidentified the symbola. It isn't the bread & wine. But if you read further, into chapter 12, Paul tells us exactly what constitutes the body, and what we all have been made to drink of.

Jarrod

 

[Traditio]

And all this warmed up neoplatonic philosophy mixed up with ancient mythology seems completely normal land reasonable to you.

Mr. Chair [a pewdiepie reference, let us note]!

I want to note that I'm making a very limited, narrow point in this thread. Ultimately, my question is: "How did Christians in the 4th and 5th centuries understand what they were doing?"

Marius Victorinus was a convert from pagan Neoplatonism to Christianity. He was very much imbued with Neoplatonic thought, especially the thought of Plotinus and Porphyry, and I see no reason why he would not himself have practised Neoplatonic theurgy.

[Incidentally, I think that at least some passages of St. Augustine (in particular, where he talks about the Neoplatonic attempt to find "intermediaries" to God in the Confessions) can be read in terms of pagan theurgy.]

Marius Victorinus, the Pseudo-Dionysius, etc. presumably would have been aware of Neoplatonic theurgy. What did Marius Victorinus think he was doing in converting to Christianity? I think that the reasonable assumption is that he saw himself as exchanging one form of theurgy (i.e., the pagan theurgy) for another form of theurgy (i.e., the Christian form of theurgy practised in the sacraments of the Catholic Church).

These authors very clearly saw similarities and analogues between pagan and Christian practise.

An upshot of this is that, I think, protestants should not be so quick to read ancient authors, see the word "symbol" or "symbolic" and say: "SEE? THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IN TRANSUBSTANTIATION!"

Well...no. "Symbol" had a technical meaning in pagan theurgy, and it implied the real presence of the deity who was to be summoned/invoked.

 

[Dialogos]

I want to note that I'm making a very limited, narrow point in this thread. Ultimately, my question is: "How did Christians in the 4th and 5th centuries understand what they were doing?"

I have a better question.

What did Christians in the first century understand about what they were doing?

Scripture, incidentally answers this question handily.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."2
25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
(1Co 11:23-26 ESV)

So scripture says that they remembered the Lord and proclaimed the Lord's death until he comes.

No need for the elements to become a sin offering repeatedly put before God to atone for sin.

 

[Zeke]

I have a better question.

What did Christians in the first century understand about what they were doing?

Scripture, incidentally answers this question handily.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."2
25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
(1Co 11:23-26 ESV)

So scripture says that they remembered the Lord and proclaimed the Lord's death until he comes.

No need for the elements to become a sin offering repeatedly put before God to atone for sin.

Trouble is though we have next to nothing from that period except assumptions, Religious/political speculations. Plus the historic interpretation wasn't the top dog until much later, I believe the Priest fed that to the people yet retained the Esoteric meaning to themselves.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The eucharist is rank idolatry it is equivalent to the sin of Jereboam son of Nebat in Kings by which he made all Israel to sin.

 

[Traditio]

What did Christians in the first century understand about what they were doing?

This simply isn't a discussion that I'm particularly eager to have:

1. If you quote the scriptures, I'll simply answer you that the scriptures admit of more than one possible reading, and that it's positively hubristic of you to think that those who believe in transubstantiation are so illiterate and so foolish as not even to have considered the verses in question.

2. I don't know enough about 1st century Christians, apart from the scriptural authors, to comment.

What I do think I have established, however, is that at least some 4th-5th century Christians had such views as I have described.

Did it originate with them? I think that this is unlikely. Marius Victorinus probably converted, at least in part, because he was already aware of the Christian form of theurgy, i.e., the Catholic mass.

So when did it originate? When did authors recognize it as something novel?

So far as I can see, the answer is that it started with Jesus at the last supper.

You disagree? Then show me an author in between the 1st and 5th centuries who claimed that transubstantiation was a novel doctrine.

 

[jamie]

So far as I can see, the answer is that it started with Jesus at the last supper.

And yet you don't know if the bread was leavened or unleavened.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The eucharist is rank idolatry it is equivalent to the sin of Jereboam son of Nebat in Kings by which he made all Israel to sin.

The Monstrance is pretty cool. Baal worship.

 

[Wick Stick]

The Monstrance is pretty cool. Baal worship.

Looks like S2P just Baal'ed on this conversation. :rimshot:

 

[daqq]

The Monstrance is pretty cool. Baal worship.

Looks like S2P just Baal'ed on this conversation. :rimshot:

Perhaps Baal is much more often the mountain in the mirror, that is, the old man twin self. Perhaps even Petros looked at Kephas in the mirror staring back at him, and said, "Get thee behind me Saulos", and there came forth Paulos, a son and the spiritual fruit of the kingdom of Elohim, (apparently the same parents as one named Rufus, a "Kurenaios", hehe). But I suppose that is all for another thread another time. Oh well.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Perhaps Baal is much more often the mountain in the mirror, that is, the old man twin self. Perhaps even Petros looked at Kephas in the mirror staring back at him, and said, "Get thee behind me Saulos", and there came forth Paulos, a son and the spiritual fruit of the kingdom of Elohim, (apparently the same parents as one named Rufus, a "Kurenaios", hehe). But I suppose that is all for another thread another time. Oh well.

The tribe of Dan hired themselves some priests of Baal that look suspiciously like those of Rome.

 

[Zeke]

Perhaps Baal is much more often the mountain in the mirror, that is, the old man twin self. Perhaps even Petros looked at Kephas in the mirror staring back at him, and said, "Get thee behind me Saulos", and there came forth Paulos, a son and the spiritual fruit of the kingdom of Elohim, (apparently the same parents as one named Rufus, a "Kurenaios", hehe). But I suppose that is all for another thread another time. Oh well.

Or Janus was looking back at Peter from the mirror, along with Mithra/Archigallus.