M
mcq72
Guest
I know…this is where we differ…but my flesh and blood are nourished by the transmutation of the bread and wine.
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
Are you Orthodox?rcwitness:
I know…this is where we differ…but my flesh and blood are nourished by the transmutation of the bread and wine.
M
mcq72
Guest
No but who knows…difficult enough to figure out P’s and C’s, much less O’s…lol
They have a forum?
They have a forum?
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Transmutation would be an Orthodox term, no?
That term is associated with a consecrated change in the bread and wine, by apostolicly ordained ministers
That term is associated with a consecrated change in the bread and wine, by apostolicly ordained ministers
R
rcwitness
Guest
Its not too difficult. Just have to ask what they believe and who they receive Communion from.
G
guanophore
Guest
Spiritual communion does not negate the participation in actual physical consumption of the RP. Augustine admired Hilary or Portier as the premier Apologist:
Augustine cites his favorite Apologists in Against Julian, accusing Julian of going against the “many famous and brilliant holy teachers of the Catholic truth: Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Gregory, Basil, Ambrose, John, Innocent, Jerome, and the others.”
Then he further remarks “Who does not know that the Gallic bishop Hilary is to be revered as the keenest defender of the Catholic Church against the heretics?”
Hilary not only believes in the physical Real Presence, he uses this “obvious” fact as a foundation for apology. Hilary argues from the accepted fact of the Real Presence, that the union between us and the Son, and therefore between the Son and the Father, goes beyond a mere unity of wills:
"Now I ask those who bring forward a unity of will between Father and Son, whether Christ is in us to-day through verity of nature or through agreement of will. For if in truth the Word has been made flesh and we in very truth receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, are we not bound to believe that He abides in us naturally, Who, born as a man, has assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from Himself, and has conjoined the nature of His own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which His flesh is communicated to us? […]
Now how it is that we are in Him through the sacrament of the flesh and blood bestowed upon us, He Himself testifies, saying, “And the world will no longer see Me, but ye shall see Me; because I live ye shall live also; because I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you”[John 14:19]. If He wished to indicate a mere unity of will, why did He set forth a kind of gradation and sequence in the completion of the unity, unless it were that, since He was in the Father through the nature of Deity, and we on the contrary in Him through His birth in the body, He would have us believe that He is in us through the mystery of the sacraments?"
(continued)
G
guanophore
Guest
(continued)
“Hence, if indeed Christ has taken to Himself the flesh of our body, and that Man Who was born from Mary was indeed Christ, and we indeed receive in a mystery the flesh of His body—(and for this cause we shall be one, because the Father is in Him and He in us),—how can a unity of will be maintained, seeing that the special property of nature received through the sacrament is the sacrament of a perfect unity?”
“Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him.”” [John 6:55-56]
“As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.”
I don’t think Augustine would admire Hilary if he did not accept this view of the RP, do you?
“Hence, if indeed Christ has taken to Himself the flesh of our body, and that Man Who was born from Mary was indeed Christ, and we indeed receive in a mystery the flesh of His body—(and for this cause we shall be one, because the Father is in Him and He in us),—how can a unity of will be maintained, seeing that the special property of nature received through the sacrament is the sacrament of a perfect unity?”
“Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, “My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him.”” [John 6:55-56]
“As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.”
I don’t think Augustine would admire Hilary if he did not accept this view of the RP, do you?
M
mcq72
Guest
Don t know…got it from early father quote…the explanation given was that the bread and wine nourished our bodies by transmutation meaning digestion…that is all
M
mcq72
Guest
First of all, not sure i would correct any difference of opinion when one seems to be addressing non believers… i mean we often unite and put differences aside, and focus on stronger unifying points when addressing non believers here on this forum.
That aside, your research goes deep thank you…from what I recall from my betters is that “Real Presence” can have several understandings, so that Augustine’s differs from later development by CC.
S
susanlo
Guest
He did write about the sacrament of the body and blood. He believed that the Eucharist was a sacrament. Those who do not have Christ via the Holy Spirit can consume the elements, but do not eat His flesh - according to Augustine.
“in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth],”
To eat His body and drink His blood means to have Christ living in them - according to Augustine.
“He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.”
Last edited:
S
susanlo
Guest
Do you only admire people who agree with you on every topic?
I can think of a lot of people who I admire, respect and learn from even though I may disagree with them on some topics.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
Christianity has only that option.
A
Agathon
Guest
And how does that prove he didn’t believe in the Real Prescence?
M
mcq72
Guest
found this comical:
"Unless you’ve read The Ante Nicene Fathers, or perhaps a work of Augustine’s, you may have a difficult time conceiving how painstakingly the “Fathers” developed their arguments. Most of them had learned from the Greek philosophers to take apart their opponent’s case not brick-by-brick, but almost molecule-by-molecule
At the very least you’re now inoculated against cherry-pickers pretending that all the “Fathers” unambiguously endorsed their particular view of the bread and the wine."
“…so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and our flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Martyr
“For why did we not even publicly profess that these were the things which we esteemed good (eating flesh at communion), and prove that these are the divine philosophy, saying that the mysteries of Saturn are performed when we slay a man, and that when we drink our fill of blood, as it is said we do,” Martyr
"Unless you’ve read The Ante Nicene Fathers, or perhaps a work of Augustine’s, you may have a difficult time conceiving how painstakingly the “Fathers” developed their arguments. Most of them had learned from the Greek philosophers to take apart their opponent’s case not brick-by-brick, but almost molecule-by-molecule
At the very least you’re now inoculated against cherry-pickers pretending that all the “Fathers” unambiguously endorsed their particular view of the bread and the wine."
“…so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and our flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Martyr
“For why did we not even publicly profess that these were the things which we esteemed good (eating flesh at communion), and prove that these are the divine philosophy, saying that the mysteries of Saturn are performed when we slay a man, and that when we drink our fill of blood, as it is said we do,” Martyr
The early church, the bread, and the wine
Communion. The Lord's Supper. The early Christians most often called this cherished rite "The Thanksgiving" — which in Greek is "Eucharist." Instead of uniting believers in common fellowship, the sacrament now divides us. But surely it wasn't always so. What did the early church believe and...
www.renewamerica.com
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Certainly the Aristotelian description formed by Aquinas I think would differ. It also differs significantly from the Eastern Church, which was never contaminated by Aristotelian philosophy. That being said, they did all believe in the Real Presence, under different terms and descriptions.
This is a reference to the Apostolic Succession. The valid Eucharist was considered that which was united with the Bishop. The celebration of the Holy Mysteries by those who were not in unity with the Bishop was considered to be invalid.
No, but I do not use those as theological sources who do not share the One Faith.
The risk is, if you use their writings to defend a position, and they depart from the One Faith, then eventually you will get caught up in their departures. Tertullian is a good example. He wafts in and out of orthodoxy!
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes! Augustine saw the two realities of Christ’s body and blood. The figurative, and the literal.Agathon:
He did write about the sacrament of the body and blood. He believed that the Eucharist was a sacrament. Those who do not have Christ via the Holy Spirit can consume the elements, but do not eat His flesh - according to Augustine.
“in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth],”
To eat His body and drink His blood means to have Christ living in them - according to Augustine.
“He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.”
I believe Catholic Teaching recognizes that we can eat the Sacrament, and deny the figurative “bread of God”. This is eating unworthy. This is sacrilegious. This is profaning Jesus. This is enraging the Grace of God.
B
Benadam
Guest
jcrichton, thank you.
Maran atha!
Maran atha!
B
Benadam
Guest
To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? This is asking why is it that we must eat and digest this Bread? The next statement " Believe, and you have eaten already." isn’t to say that one can gain eternal life through the sacrament by believing without eating but before one can gain eternal life by eating one must believe that Jesus is the bread and it is what He say’s it is. A little further down he say’s this.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
I hope everyone takes the time to read and consider what is presented in your link above.
S
susanlo
Guest
I think “all” is the important word here. I appreciated this a lot. There is so much variety of thought among the orthodox Christians of the early centuries on this issue. Whenever somebody presents the fact that EVERYBODY has always believed one precise way on such an issue like this (and others), it is just so frustrating. Clearly the evidence does not point that way. Why would the fact that some early Christians believed and taught differently be such a big deal? Why is there so much effort to explain away the obvious and take things out of context in order to make claims that these early Christians taught something that they didn’t? It is baffling to me.
Last edited:
- Status