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

[PRmerger]

I said that the author of the book of Hebrews does NOT deny the trinity.

Right.

Apparently we see the writings of Augustine in a different light. I see him saying that John 6:53 is figurative. He says repeatedly in his writings that the elements are a “mere physical likeness” and “resemblance.” There was no doctrine of transubstantiation for him to agree or disagree with and theologians were allowed to form their own instruction on how it occurred.

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.”

This is quite Catholic, and in no way denies transubstantiation.

Again, the Eucharist is figurative. It is a symbol. And a sign.

It’s just not ONLY figurative.

 

[PRmerger]

I said that the author of the book of Hebrews does NOT deny the trinity.

Apparently we see the writings of Augustine in a different light.

So if you could offer where St. Augustine denies transubstantiation that would be helpful.

 

[PRmerger]

Hebrews 1:3 “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
*The son is separate from God.

Hebrews 1:8 “But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.”
*The son is God.

Hebrews 2:3 “how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”
*The Holy Spirit is separate and God works through it.

Hebrews 9:14 “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!”
*Christ, eternal Spirit and God are part of atonement.

Hebrews 10:29 “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
*Another example of 3 working together.

Is that what you are looking for? I don’t see that he denies the Trinity. His speaking of the 3 in no way contrasts the definition of the Trinity as far as I know.

Can you show where the inspired author articulates that there are 3 persons in 1 God, consubstantial with each other yet truly distinct, where the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by an eternal procession?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see that he denies the Trinity. His speaking of the 3 in no way contrasts the definition of the Trinity as far as I know.

I hope you see the double standard you’re embracing here, Susan.

With the author to the Hebrews, this is your paradigm: He doesn’t deny [A], therefore we assume he believes in [A].

And yet with St. Augustine, this is your paradigm: He doesn’t articulate [A], therefore we assume he denies [A].

Rather, shouldn’t you have the same model for both Christian writers?

That is: the author of Hebrews doesn’t articulate the Trinity, therefore we assume he denies the Trinity.

OR…

St. Augustine doesn’t deny transubstantiation, therefore we assume he believes in transubstantiation.

Does this not seem to be a fair and judicious application of your approach to these writers?

 

[PRmerger]

I hope you see the double standard you’re embracing here, Susan.

With the author to the Hebrews, this is your paradigm: He doesn’t deny [A], therefore we assume he believes in [A].

And yet with St. Augustine, this is your paradigm: He doesn’t articulate [A], therefore we assume he denies [A].

Rather, shouldn’t you have the same model for both Christian writers?

That is: the author of Hebrews doesn’t articulate the Trinity, therefore we assume he denies the Trinity.

OR…

St. Augustine doesn’t deny transubstantiation, therefore we assume he believes in transubstantiation.

Does this not seem to be a fair and judicious application of your approach to these writers?

Another way susanlo seems to be arguing for her position is this:

The inspired author of Hebrews doesn’t explicitly limn the dogma of the Trinity, but we can assume that he doesn’t deny the Trinity.

So the similar paradigm should be this:

St. Augustine doesn’t explicitly limn the dogma of transubstantiation, but we can assume that he doesn’t deny transubstantiation.

Yes?

Does that not seem to be consistently applied?

 

[Darryl_B]

“They remain in their former substance figure and form.”

Could you perhaps answer the question?

So you believe he is talking consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation?

I am aware of Anglicans and Lutherans who accept the “real presence” as consubstantiation, real presence none the less though the method of that “real presence” is slightly different than the Catholic understanding.

We could spend a little more time examining the rest of text?

 

[JonNC]

Could you perhaps answer the question?

So you believe he is talking consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation?

I am aware of Anglicans and Lutherans who accept the “real presence” as consubstantiation, real presence none the less though the method of that “real presence” is slightly different than the Catholic understanding.

We could spend a little more time examining the rest of text?

Lutherans reject consubstatiation.

Jon

 

[susanlo]

Could you perhaps answer the question?

So you believe he is talking consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation?

I am aware of Anglicans and Lutherans who accept the “real presence” as consubstantiation, real presence none the less though the method of that “real presence” is slightly different than the Catholic understanding.

We could spend a little more time examining the rest of text?

I believe that he (Theodoret) is saying that the elements in the Eucharist do not change in physical nature. The meaning and the significance of the elements are what change to those participating in the Eucharist. This seems more in line with a symbolic understanding.

It seems to me that in the first 500 years or so that there were multiple understandings to explain the elements of the Eucharist. People taught various understandings from symbolical to change in substance. At that time, how one described the indescribable did not define whether they were followers of Christ or not. Ambrose and Augustine could describe the elements in different ways and yet, were brothers in Christ.

You can certainly examine the rest of the text and share what you believe it to say.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems to me that in the first 500 years or so that there were multiple understandings to explain the elements of the Eucharist.

You do know that in the first 500 years or so that there were multiple understandings of the Trinity, yeah?

 

[susanlo]

You do know that in the first 500 years or so that there were multiple understandings of the Trinity, yeah?

And didn’t they consider those who didn’t understand the Trinity as heretics? Did they call Augustine and Theodoret heretics for their understandings of the Eucharist? Their view seemed to be acceptable at that time. There seems to be more Scriptural information to support the Trinity than there is that the elements literally change in substance. Those who believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation and spiritual/symbolic Eucharist all identify the elements as bread and wine - and then they call them body and blood. The difference is whether the change is in the substance or in the identification alone.

 

[PRmerger]

And didn’t they consider those who didn’t understand the Trinity as heretics?

Firstly, who is “they”?

 

[PRmerger]

Did they call Augustine and Theodoret heretics for their understandings of the Eucharist?

I know nothing of Theodoret, so I won’t comment on that, but St. Augustine’s writings were very Catholic (esp. since they do not deny transubstantiation), so of course he is not called a heretic, but rather a doctor of the Church.

 

[susanlo]

Firstly, who is “they”?

The Christians of the day. (And the Christians of today).

 

[PRmerger]

The Christians of the day. (And the Christians of today).

I don’t think any joe-blow Christian had the authority to call someone a heretic.

Can you offer an example of this? (Both a reference to an individual having the authority to call someone a heretic, as well as an example of this person calling someone who denies the Trinity a heretic, prior to its being defined as a dogma?)

Also, can you please address my earlier questions?

Understood that these questions were only posed yesterday, but I would like to make sure you respond to them.

Thanks.

 

[susanlo]

I don’t think any joe-blow Christian had the authority to call someone a heretic.

Can you offer an example of this? (Both a reference to an individual having the authority to call someone a heretic, as well as an example of this person calling someone who denies the Trinity a heretic, prior to its being defined as a dogma?)

Also, can you please address my earlier questions?

Understood that these questions were only posed yesterday, but I would like to make sure you respond to them.

Thanks.

It seems we have different understandings on what Augustine is saying. That is fine. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems we have different understandings on what Augustine is saying. That is fine. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

Fair enough

Although it’s quite clear that the Catholic Church, who has endowed St. Augustine with the title of “Doctor of the Church”, would never bestow this title on someone who has denied something so…CENTRAL…to our faith: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

So I think that anyone who would claim that St. Augustine has denied transubstantiation has to have some degree of cognitive dissonance.

It just doesn’t make sense that the Church would claim him as their own, when he has putatively denied such a foundational dogma.

Does that make sense to you, susan?

Imagine if a Muslim were claiming that St. Paul had denied the Virgin Birth (because it’s true that St. Paul never articulates the dogma of the Virgin Birth. He never mentions this. Not even once.)

Clearly, that’s preposterous, given that the Virgin Birth is central to our Christian faith, and a father of our faith would not be so insane as to deny a central tenet, yeah?

We know that when the Muslim claims this, that he is over-reaching, no?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems we have different understandings on what Augustine is saying. That is fine. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

At any rate, can you offer some examples of average-joe Christians calling someone who denied the Trinity in the 2nd century a heretic?

 

[Tomyris]

At any rate, can you offer some examples of average-joe Christians calling someone who denied the Trinity in the 2nd century a heretic?

I just saw your post. Not sure who I am helping here, but I DO like to jabber.

Do you think that is a reasonable thing to ask for? Really?

In the 2nd century the Romans were busily burning all the Christian literature they could get their hands on. And “average Joes” can’t be expected to have left us anything, as only the more important stuff, from “above-average” Joes, got copied.

 

[Darryl_B]

I believe that he (Theodoret) is saying that the elements in the Eucharist do not change in physical nature. The meaning and the significance of the elements are what change to those participating in the Eucharist. This seems more in line with a symbolic understanding.

It seems to me that in the first 500 years or so that there were multiple understandings to explain the elements of the Eucharist. People taught various understandings from symbolical to change in substance. At that time, how one described the indescribable did not define whether they were followers of Christ or not. Ambrose and Augustine could describe the elements in different ways and yet, were brothers in Christ.

You can certainly examine the rest of the text and share what you believe it to say.

Theodoret says

To them that are initiated in divine things the intention is plain. For he wished the partakers in the divine mysteries not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but, by means of the variation of the names, to believe the change wrought of grace.

The partaker shares in the divine mystery of the Eucharistic Real Presence body and blood, and rather than just taking into account the visible bread and wine, to instead believe the change that happens as an act of grace, even though you cannot see it.

Theodoret’s imaginary contender states “No for I maintain Jesus Christ to be bodiless.” Theodoret’s argument is since his contender maintains the Eucharistic divine Real Presence mystery, it would only be true that Jesus Christ had a body.

If Theodoret believed there was simply a change in “meaning” or “significance” as you suggest, his argument becomes pointless.

 

[Darryl_B]

Theodoret

And after the consecration how do you name these? Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood? I do. As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing