Can I compare Protestants to Gnostics seeing how both (i think) deny the real presence?

[PRmerger]

No, you have to show which council, or Father taught these. When was the creed first written that way?

Jon

Huh?

Aren’t you the one who is stating that the Roman Catholic Church did to the original Church what Luther did to the Roman Catholic Church regarding transubstantiation and the filioque?

That means you have to show where the Roman Catholic Church changed her teaching.

 

[susanlo]

Huh?

Aren’t you the one who is stating that the Roman Catholic Church did to the original Church what Luther did to the Roman Catholic Church regarding transubstantiation and the filioque?

That means you have to show where the Roman Catholic Church changed her teaching.

Augustine
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
**
Augustine**
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.”

Augustine
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
“Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit.”

I have more quotes and some from different early theologians, but these are the most detailed.
Not everyone believed in a literal conversion of the substance in the early centuries. That idea did clearly win over in time.

 

[PRmerger]

Augustine
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
**
Augustine**
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm
“For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.”

Augustine
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
“Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit.”

I have more quotes and some from different early theologians, but these are the most detailed.
Not everyone believed in a literal conversion of the substance in the early centuries. That idea did clearly win over in time.

No, Susan.

What is being requested is an earlier teaching of the Church that contradicts the teaching on Transubstantiation and the filioque.

 

[Darryl_B]

No, Susan.

What is being requested is an earlier teaching of the Church that contradicts the teaching on Transubstantiation and the filioque.

On top of that I get the impression that susanlo is pulling out citations from St Augustine looking for specific “words” without actually trying to understanding the context of what St Augustine is really saying. St Augustine is trying to go deeper into the profound. It is an injustice to simplify him into a “metaphoric” rather than “metaphysic” background.

 

[porthos11]

I only want to compare a protestant to a gnostic when it comes to the Eucharist. I want to draw a comparison in this regard only.

But i want to make sure its a fair comparison.

It is not a fair comparison.

In fact, recent discoveries of previously lost Gnostic texts tell us (ref. "The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 2) tell us that the early Church Fathers were too kind in their labeling of Gnosticism as heterodox or heretical. Gnosticism is not Christian heresy; it is not Christian at all. It’s a non-Christian religious system that drew on Christian terms, perhaps to legitimize it in the eyes of the Christian community.

Protestantism, insofar as it retains the beliefs of the Creed, is Christian heresy, but it is Christian.

So no, the comparison is not fair.

 

[susanlo]

On top of that I get the impression that susanlo is pulling out citations from St Augustine looking for specific “words” without actually trying to understanding the context of what St Augustine is really saying. St Augustine is trying to go deeper into the profound. It is an injustice to simplify him into a “metaphoric” rather than “metaphysic” background.

I provided links to the complete writing with each of the quotes. You may read them and tell me what you understand them to say. I am not claiming to be a theologian or church historian. I am just sharing what I see. If you disagree with my understanding of Augustine I am open to hearing a different explanation. I am curious to learn more - that is my goal. Sometimes people from different backgrounds can learn things they wouldn’t learn from those that agree with them.

The 3rd quote is a short sermon on the Eucharist. It is actually pretty understandable and is a rather beautiful description: earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

The middle quote was a letter written by Augustine addressing concerns that parents were making sacrifices to gods to heal their baptized sick child. Eucharist is mentioned in passing. This is a little harder to follow and less relevant to this discussion, but you should still check it out: newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

The 1st one I had listed is titled “On Christian Doctrine.” It seems to be Augustine’s clarification on matters and his teachings. It is longer, but it is very specific. Augustine was writing after Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose wrote about “the mysteries” in the 4th century describing the Eucharist as a literal change of substance. It seems Augustine is refuting this concept with quotes like:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
This is in Chapter 9, paragraph 13. Chapter 10 is titled “How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.” Chapter 16 paragraph 24 is where my original quote was taken from.
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Do you know of anything else by Augustine that could be relevant to his understanding of the substance of the Eucharist?

 

[PRmerger]

I provided links to the complete writing with each of the quotes. You may read them and tell me what you understand them to say. I am not claiming to be a theologian or church historian. I am just sharing what I see. If you disagree with my understanding of Augustine I am open to hearing a different explanation. I am curious to learn more - that is my goal. Sometimes people from different backgrounds can learn things they wouldn’t learn from those that agree with them.

The 3rd quote is a short sermon on the Eucharist. It is actually pretty understandable and is a rather beautiful description: earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

The middle quote was a letter written by Augustine addressing concerns that parents were making sacrifices to gods to heal their baptized sick child. Eucharist is mentioned in passing. This is a little harder to follow and less relevant to this discussion, but you should still check it out: newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

The 1st one I had listed is titled “On Christian Doctrine.” It seems to be Augustine’s clarification on matters and his teachings. It is longer, but it is very specific. Augustine was writing after Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose wrote about “the mysteries” in the 4th century describing the Eucharist as a literal change of substance. It seems Augustine is refuting this concept with quotes like:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
This is in Chapter 9, paragraph 13. Chapter 10 is titled “How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.” Chapter 16 paragraph 24 is where my original quote was taken from.
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Do you know of anything else by Augustine that could be relevant to his understanding of the substance of the Eucharist?

No, Susan.

Please give something authoritative from the Catholic Church.

You should know that our Church, unlike other Christian churches, has an authoritative voice.

That makes it quite easy to demonstrate exactly what our teachings are.

So, again, if you could offer something from the Catholic Church which shows a change in teaching from the Filioque and transubstantiation.

 

[susanlo]

No, Susan.

Please give something authoritative from the Catholic Church.

You should know that our Church, unlike other Christian churches, has an authoritative voice.

That makes it quite easy to demonstrate exactly what our teachings are.

So, again, if you could offer something from the Catholic Church which shows a change in teaching from the Filioque and transubstantiation.

I was responding to the post about taking the quotes out of context.

Clearly there wasn’t a formal proclamation on the substance of the elements of the Eucharist until the 13th century when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was written. At least as far as I know. That is evidenced by the varying views of the Eucharist in the early centuries. Over the centuries the idea of a change in substance grew. A monk was having a disagreement about what the elements of the Eucharist was in the 9th century and that is what led to the doctrine. Before that there was obviously different understandings.

I know to Catholics this doctrine is authoritative. I just don’t know why they were sure about this at that time, when Augustine and others like Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria didn’t know this earlier. Was there a divine revelation received later? Was there new information available that the earlier theologians didn’t have?

 

[PRmerger]

I was responding to the post about taking the quotes out of context.

Clearly there wasn’t a formal proclamation on the substance of the elements of the Eucharist until the 13th century when the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was written. At least as far as I know. That is evidenced by the varying views of the Eucharist in the early centuries. Over the centuries the idea of a change in substance grew. A monk was having a disagreement about what the elements of the Eucharist was in the 9th century and that is what led to the doctrine. Before that there was obviously different understandings.

I know to Catholics this doctrine is authoritative. I just don’t know why they were sure about this at that time, when Augustine and others like Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria didn’t know this earlier. Was there a divine revelation received later? Was there new information available that the earlier theologians didn’t have?

Your original post was in response to my question asking for something which indicated the Catholic Church had changed its position on transubstantiation.

You have yet to provide documentation of this.

 

[susanlo]

Your original post was in response to my question asking for something which indicated the Catholic Church had changed its position on transubstantiation.

You have yet to provide documentation of this.

Well from how it looks to me, for 1200 years there was no official position and leaders in the church taught various understandings. And then a teaching was created in the 9th century that became official in the 13th century. They didn’t change the official teaching, but created a new official teaching where one didn’t exist. Thus changing the understanding. (Probably by then most people accepted the conversion theory - but not all in the 5th century did).
Churches I have been a part of strive to emulate the 1st century Christians. They don’t claim to have it perfect, but their goal is what was taught in the early centuries. They thought that the church of the day had drifted from where it started. So therefore what the church was teaching in the 16th century was a departure from the original church. I think that was what the original comment was about.

 

[PRmerger]

Well from how it looks to me, for 1200 years there was no official position and leaders in the church taught various understandings. And then a teaching was created in the 9th century that became official in the 13th century. They didn’t change the official teaching, but created a new official teaching where one didn’t exist. Thus changing the understanding. (Probably by then most people accepted the conversion theory - but not all in the 5th century did).
Churches I have been a part of strive to emulate the 1st century Christians. They don’t claim to have it perfect, but their goal is what was taught in the early centuries. They thought that the church of the day had drifted from where it started. So therefore what the church was teaching in the 16th century was a departure from the original church. I think that was what the original comment was about.

Let’s just be consistent and apply this model to the dogma of the Trinity…,

Would you be willing to say the same thing about this?

That is:

Well from how it looks to me, for -]1200/-] 300 years there was no official position and leaders in the church taught various understandings. And then a teaching was created in the-] 9th/-] 4th century that became official… They didn’t change the official teaching, but created a new official teaching where one didn’t exist. Thus changing the understanding.

Churches I have been a part of strive to emulate the 1st century Christians.

Really? So they don’t profess the Trinity? They don’t profess the 2 natures of Christ–both divine and human, consubstantial with the Father?

Because the 1st century Christians didn’t do that.

 

[susanlo]

Let’s just be consistent and apply this model to the dogma of the Trinity…

Would you be willing to say the same thing about this?

This may get off-topic if we go too far. But I have always believed in the Trinity because one God in 3 persons is in the Bible. The term trinity isn’t used, but the concept is. Didn’t Christians believe in one God in 3 persons prior to the Treaty of Nicea?

 

[PRmerger]

This may get off-topic if we go too far. But I have always believed in the Trinity because one God in 3 persons is in the Bible.

Of course.

Even if it wasn’t articulated as such until the 4th century.

Just like Christians have always believed in the Real Presence (via transubstantiation) even though it wasn’t articulated dogmatically until much later.

The term trinity isn’t used, but the concept is.

We are agreed, then, that things can be understood to be part of the Christian faith without having to be in the Bible.

Didn’t Christians believe in one God in 3 persons prior to the Treaty of Nicea?

Can you show me where the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews taught this?

 

[Darryl_B]

I provided links to the complete writing with each of the quotes. You may read them and tell me what you understand them to say. I am not claiming to be a theologian or church historian. I am just sharing what I see.

Sometimes people see what they are predisposed to see. Bread is a figure, wine is a figure. That does not make the real presence figurative. It only makes the bread and wine figurative of the real presence. Hence the other words that St Augustine used that you failed to bolden. Themes indicative of the real presence.

I am genuinely amazed that one camp can employ St Augustine (and others for that matter) in support of the real presence. And at the same time another camp can employ St Augustine (and those same others for that matter) in support of the imaginary.

 

[PRmerger]

I provided links to the complete writing with each of the quotes. You may read them and tell me what you understand them to say. I am not claiming to be a theologian or church historian. I am just sharing what I see. If you disagree with my understanding of Augustine I am open to hearing a different explanation. I am curious to learn more - that is my goal. Sometimes people from different backgrounds can learn things they wouldn’t learn from those that agree with them.

The 3rd quote is a short sermon on the Eucharist. It is actually pretty understandable and is a rather beautiful description: earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

The middle quote was a letter written by Augustine addressing concerns that parents were making sacrifices to gods to heal their baptized sick child. Eucharist is mentioned in passing. This is a little harder to follow and less relevant to this discussion, but you should still check it out: newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

The 1st one I had listed is titled “On Christian Doctrine.” It seems to be Augustine’s clarification on matters and his teachings. It is longer, but it is very specific. Augustine was writing after Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose wrote about “the mysteries” in the 4th century describing the Eucharist as a literal change of substance. It seems Augustine is refuting this concept with quotes like:
“but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
This is in Chapter 9, paragraph 13. Chapter 10 is titled “How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.” Chapter 16 paragraph 24 is where my original quote was taken from.
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Do you know of anything else by Augustine that could be relevant to his understanding of the substance of the Eucharist?

Incidentally, everything articulated by St. Augustine here is consonant with Catholicism.

See what is limned in our Catechism:

1148 Inasmuch as they are creatures, these perceptible realities can become means of expressing the action of God who sanctifies men, and the action of men who offer worship to God. The same is true of signs and symbols taken from the social life of man: washing and anointing,** breaking bread and sharing the cup **can express the sanctifying presence of God and man’s gratitude toward his Creator.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1148.htm

1412 The essential **signs of the Eucharistic **sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: “This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . .”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1412.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Sometimes people see what they are predisposed to see. Bread is a figure, wine is a figure. That does not make the real presence figurative. It only makes the bread and wine figurative of the real presence. Hence the other words that St Augustine used that you failed to bolden. Themes indicative of the real presence.

And it doesn’t make the Eucharist figurative ONLY.

It’s typically when people make either/or distinctions where none are required that heresies develop.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute. We rarely say “It’s [fill in the blank] ONLY”. We Catholics typically say: Yes, it’s BOTH/AND!.

Thus, when folks in the 2nd centuries said Christ was man ONLY, not divine, we Catholics said: No. It’s BOTH/AND.

And when 16th century Christians said it’s the Bible ONLY, we Catholicssaid: No. It’s BOTH Scripture AND Tradition!

And when 16th century Christians said it’s Faith ONLY: we Catholics said: No. It’s BOTH Faith AND Works AND Grace!

And when 21st century folks (as well as 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century folks et al) say it’s Science ONLY: we Catholics say: No. It’s BOTH Science AND Faith.

And when 21st century folks say the Eucharist if figurative ONLY, we Catholics say: No. It’s BOTH figurative AND literal.
There is no need to create dichotomies where none needs to exist.

 

[susanlo]

Sometimes people see what they are predisposed to see. Bread is a figure, wine is a figure. That does not make the real presence figurative. It only makes the bread and wine figurative of the real presence. Hence the other words that St Augustine used that you failed to bolden. Themes indicative of the real presence.

I am genuinely amazed that one camp can employ St Augustine (and others for that matter) in support of the real presence. And at the same time another camp can employ St Augustine (and those same others for that matter) in support of the imaginary.

Well, that is why it is important to read as much as you can of the original sources where the quotes are taken from. That way you can get a better understanding of what you are reading. Quotes can easily be taken out of context to be misleading.

 

[susanlo]

Let’s just be consistent and apply this model to the dogma of the Trinity…,

Would you be willing to say the same thing about this?

That is:

Well from how it looks to me, for -]1200/-] 300 years there was no official position and leaders in the church taught various understandings. And then a teaching was created in the-] 9th/-] 4th century that became official… They didn’t change the official teaching, but created a new official teaching where one didn’t exist. Thus changing the understanding.

Really? So they don’t profess the Trinity? They don’t profess the 2 natures of Christ–both divine and human, consubstantial with the Father?

Because the 1st century Christians didn’t do that.

*Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the **Spirit of God *was hovering over the waters.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him"
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image…
*All 3 were present at creation

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
&*
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth."*
*3 distinct entities working for the same purpose

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
John 8 “58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
***John *18:6 “When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.”
*Jesus claimed to be God

There are many more examples of both of these concepts in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the **Spirit of God **was hovering over the waters.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him"
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image…
*All 3 were present at creation

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
&*
John* 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth."
*3 distinct entities working for the same purpose

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
John 8 “58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”
***John ***18:6 “When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.”
*Jesus claimed to be God

There are many more examples of both of these concepts in the Bible.

Can we assume that the author of Hebrews, who, like Augustine who doesn’t fully articulate the teaching on transubstantiation (and you therefore conclude he believe something different), doesn’t mention anything at all related to the Trinity, believes something different than this dogma?

 

[Darryl_B]

Well, that is why it is important to read as much as you can of the original sources where the quotes are taken from. That way you can get a better understanding of what you are reading. Quotes can easily be taken out of context to be misleading.

For further St Augustine

“quotes”

(apologies couldn’t resist putting quote in quotes in quotes)

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num30.htm