Dr. James White & response

[JPrejean]

Thanks. I can agree with White on this one point: St. Augustine did not believe in the full, explicit, later defined doctrine of transubstantiation that arose out of the 9th and 11th and 12th century controversies on the Eucharist (all documented in Darwell Stone’s volumes).

True, but the fact that Augustine would not have foreseen the sheer goofiness that a large contingent of semi-Arian theological incompetents could produce should not count against him. A good old Platonist like Augustine probably never even gave a second thought to the idea that somebody might deny that signs participate in the reality of what they signify, for example.

 

[rightandreason]

I would have to ask, what are you referring to, to say that Saint Augustine did not believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation as we believe it today. To my knowledge, Transubstantiation refers to the substance being changed into the the literal body and blood of Christ. I think we can substantiate that many of the early Saints or fathers indeed believed this. Saint Ambrose of Milan said, “As often as wee recieve the sacramental elements which through the mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood of the Lord, we proclaim the death of the Lord.” That sounds like the doctrine of Transubstantiation to me.

Saint John Chrysostom says “He did not say this is the symbol of My Body, and this is the symbol of My Blood, but This is My body, and this is My Blood. Teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” These types of statements affirm a belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation by the early fathers of the 300s. What more explanation do we need?

 

[PhilVaz]

RightReason << I would have to ask, what are you referring to, to say that Saint Augustine did not believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation as we believe it today. To my knowledge, Transubstantiation refers to the substance being changed into the the literal body and blood of Christ. I think we can substantiate that many of the early Saints or fathers indeed believed this. >>

Well I’m just being as honest as I can. It is true, according to JND Kelly, Schaff, and Darwell Stone, who have gone into all the Eucharist passages of the Fathers in depth that St. Augustine was not as clear on “change of substance.” St. Ambrose (who you quoted) and St. John Chrysostom (who you also quoted) are more clear since they use the best Latin/Greek terms they had (basically meaning “change” or “convert”).

There is the “conversion” view of Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and others in the east, etc and the more “spiritual” view of Augustine. The Fathers used different terms, but I would say with Trent they all believed Jesus was “truly, really, and substantially” present.

The term “transubstantiation” was first used in the Church during the 11th and 12th century “debates” on the Eucharist (Ludwig Ott confirms this, in response to Berengarius of Tours, etc), and the term was officially adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and then by the Council of Trent as “the most appropriate term” to describe the nature of the change.

Phil P

 

[Michael_Francis]

I have now several times addressed Dr. White on a statment he made on his radio program a week or so ago.This statement was on the Catholic Church and the Blessed Virgin Mary. He stated that we as Catholics could provide no evidence from the time of the First Council of Nicea regarding any Catholic teaching on our Blessed Mother. …

I wonder, will he now respond?

Having drifted from its original topic, this thread is now closed.