EricB:
there were small groups that went against the flow; and they were often powerless and silenced.
Oh Noooooo......Don't tell me you subscribe to the whole "Trail of Blood" myth.
For instance; you want to talk about disciples of John, Polycarp and his disciple Polycrates fought to preserve the Quartodeciman practice of communion, against the pagan, solar based "Easter Sunday" tradition being pushed by the bishops of Rome. It was the Easter tradition that prevailed in the "Church universal", and soon all traces of the older practice were completely gone; so right there, we see a difference between the "traditions handed down", and the energing catholicism. (This is a good example I have long forgotten to point out).
It's interesting that you choose to point out a dispute about when the church should celebrate Pascha/Easter (a matter of church discipline) to distract from the fact that your interpretation of the eucharist has no basis in the first 1500 years of the Church. Although the "Quartodecimian controversy" (as part of a complex of several disputes of the date for Easter over the centuries) might take a thread in itself, suffice it to say your take on it is somewhat simplistic and one-sided. Most scholars recogize diveristy of practice from the beginning. Those who were in Asia observed the 14th of Nissan (the day of the Lord's crucifixion) irrespective of upon what day of the week it fell. Others, including those in Rome (and including Irenaeus, another one of the disciples of Polycarp), thought it appropriate to celebrate the Lord's resurrection on the day of the week He rose from the dead. What's "pagan" about that?
(But if you are going to throw around the old "paganization-of-Christianity" canard, why stop there? There are many who believe that the whole idea of a dying-and-rising saviour god-man was borrowed from similar figures from pagan mythology, and that Christianity should be rescued from this early "paganization" and the Bible reinterpreted accordlingly. Is it then just a case of special pleading for
you to draw the line of "paganization" where
you want it and not where others might draw it?)
What's interesting about the disputes in the early church is that although folks disputed about when to celebrate Pascha (and other matters of church discipline); whether or not Gentile converts should be circumcised, etc; whether Christ was God or not (and if so, in what way); there is
no record of a dispute
about the nature of the Eucharist (other than Ignatius commenting that the Docetist heretics didn't believe it). Those who wrote about it were unanimous in believing in the real presence. I suppose all of these hypothetical small, powerless groups of proto-Zwinglians were silenced by those powerful wicked catholics (even well
before they attained "worldly power" under Constantine) without leaving a trace of historic evidence that they even existed.
Well, there's definitely a point to that. Paul and John showed that the mystery of iniquity and spirit of antichrist were working right as they wrote. Yet the true Gospel would be preached, right before the end.
But no where in Scripture does it say the true Gospel would be
lost completely only to re-emerge and be proclaimed "before the end". That is quasi-Mormonism. (Unless again you want to imagine that hypothetical communities of Baptists--or SDAists, or JWs, or CoCers, take your pick--remained undetected in their caves all this time)
Rather than "change" being "obiously inplied"; a spiritual metaphor is being mistaken, with some mystical meaning, that is really uncalled for, being read into it.
So what exactly is the difference between a "
spiritual metaphor" and some "
mystical meaning", and why are you so sure that one was
mistaken for the other? Webster defines "
mystical" as: "having a
spiritual meaning that is neither apparent to the senses or obvious to the intelligence". So why do you try to draw a hard and fast distinction between the two, other than that
you seemingly prefer to attribute one exclusively to Christianity and the other to gnosticism/paganism?
But can one really do that? There are many who suggest that when the biblical prophets were seeing their visions that they were having "mystical" experiences. And some would (and indeed,
could) describe the Christian's "born again experience" as "mystical" since Webster's 2nd definition of the word is: "involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality". If such can be an accurate description for a Christian's "born again experience", why couldn't it be also for the Chrisitian's encountering Christ in the eucharist?
Regarding "spiritual metaphors", there are many modern interpreters of scripture over the past couple of centuries who suggest that Christ's resurrection wasn't physical, but was a "spiritual metaphor" for the hope of man. Indeed, these same interpreters would look at all the biblical miracles as, not literal occurances, but metaphors for a "spiritual truth". Given that, and the fact that early Christianity was allegedly "paganized" by borrowing from other dying-rising savior god-man myths, why shouldn't we join with this modern group of scholars, which seeks to rescue true Christianity from all these superstitious, pagan accretions, and interpret the Bible with this "spiritual" understanding in mind, unfettered by any tradition?
So, again, how are you so certain that the early Christians, all and in the same way, mistook a "spiritual metaphor" for a "mystical meaning" (without leaving a trace of a dispute), whatever you suppose the alleged difference between the two to be?
Actually; there is a theory, that "communion" WAS any meal that Christians ate together, and that would make sense.
And that's all that it is; A
theory, divorced from the historical evidence of the common traditional understanding of the church. And, again, how can you be certain that your "theory" (or private interpretation), based as it is on a 16th century innovation, is the one guided by the Holy Spirit as opposed to the common traditional understanding of the Eucharist being the interpretation that is so guided?
[ April 20, 2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]