※ 引述《ChrisL (EMPTY)》之銘言：
: 不相信餅酒成為耶穌基督的體血
: 是更不能被接受堪當聖職的
聖餐化質說，在西元110年，由宗徒若望(使徒約翰)的學生
安提阿的伊格那丟(Ignatius of Antioch)所提出。
西元150年，殉道者猶斯定(Justin the Martyr)也做出類似的描述，
稍後也有不少的教會領袖認同聖餐化質說。
西元110年，伊格那丟在他寫給士麥那(示每拿)教會的信中說：
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the
Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our
sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those,
therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of
their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that
they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep
aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in
public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in
which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection
has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantation#Patristic_period
In early writings, the elements of the Eucharist were sometimes spoken of as
"symbols" or "antitypes". However, it seems that there was likely no
intention of denying the belief in a transformation of the elements.[18][19]
Later, as the earlier conception of a "symbol" as that which conveys and is
what it represents gave way to the understanding of it as being other than
what it represents, the description of the bread and wine as symbols dropped
out or was denied.[18]
A letter by Saint Ignatius of Antioch(c 110) of about the same date as the
Didache is an early apologetic defense of the belief in the Eucharist as the
same body and blood in which Christ died and was raised again. Ignatius's
teaching was directed against the Gnostics. Writing to the Christians of
Smyrna, in about 106, he warned them to "stand aloof from such heretics",
because, among other reasons, "they abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His
goodness, raised up again."[21]
In about 150, Justin Martyr wrote of the Eucharist: "Not as common bread and
common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our
Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood
for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is
blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by
transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was
made flesh."[22]
The Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 380) says: "Let the bishop give the
oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receiveth say, Amen.
And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The blood of
Christ, the cup of life; and let him that drinketh say, Amen."[23]
Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) wrote:
Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I
receive the Body of Christ?" ... Let us prove that this is not what nature
made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater
than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. ... We
observe, then, that grace has more power than nature, and yet so far we have
only spoken of the grace of a prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man
had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine
consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that
sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if
the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall
not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You
read concerning the making of the whole world: "He spoke and they were made,
He commanded and they were created." Shall not the word of Christ, which was
able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things
which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new
nature to things than to change them. But why make use of arguments? Let us
use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the
truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord
Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily
conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that
which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body
of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not
according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and
buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself
proclaims: "This is My Body." Before the blessing of the heavenly words
another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He
Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name,
after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the
heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice
speaks."[24]
Other fourth-century Christian writers say that in the Eucharist there occurs
a "change",[25] "transelementation",[26] "transformation",[27]
"transposing",[28] "alteration"[29] of the bread into the body of Christ.
--
上月球!月球是中國人吳剛不可分割的一部分
抓嫦娥!此女意圖分裂中國領土脫離中國掌握
殺玉兔!玉兔為資產階級之玩物!日帝之玩偶!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.166.249.42
※ 編輯: Geigemachen 來自: 118.166.249.42 (10/14 20:37)
※ 編輯: Geigemachen 來自: 118.166.249.42 (10/14 20:37)
※ 編輯: Geigemachen 來自: 118.166.249.42 (10/14 20:42)