Eucharist, True Presence

[Chris_W]

gmk:

Basically he is saying that the RC position is that in half of the passage, we are taking Christ literally and physically, and in the other half, we are taking his words only Spiritually.

Sounds like you’ve adressed the common approaches. You might try this: Agree with him on the basic premise of his statement. He said sometimes RC’s take things literally and sometimes symbolically. True enough. This raises the issue that is the real reason Protestants and Catholics disagree. How do we know how to interpret the scriptures? What parts should we take literally and what parts metaphorically?

It seems the appropriate time to say, “Sounds like we both feel we can defend our respective positions. Yet we know we cannot both be correct. Only one (or neither) interpretation can be correct. So, where do we go from here? God must have given us a means to determine with certainty what is the truth, if we are to be united in faith.”

It may seem off topic now to discuss Sola Scriptura, but if he/she gives no credence to the info listed so far in this thread (logical explanations, history of what the early fathers understood, explanation of language, etc), then you may be fighting an unwinnable battle. It is very difficult to agree on an interpretation, when you don’t agree on what acceptable methods of interpretation might be.

In my experience, many dialogues move toward more fundamental issues than the one we started with before they progress. It’s like working backward through the chain of modern beliefs to reach the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and ultimatley arriving at Sola Scriptura, which is the culprit.

 

[gmk]

Chris W:

In my experience, many dialogues move toward more fundamental issues than the one we started with before they progress. It’s like working backward through the chain of modern beliefs to reach the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and ultimatley arriving at Sola Scriptura, which is the culprit.

This is absolutely accurate! We have “debated” various topics for about 3 years now and they all come back to Sola. Unfortunately, we can never reach resolution there either.

The basic road block that we run into there is, that his contention is that the RC just has it all wrong, but all Protestants, for the most part agree on their core beliefs. You and I both know that that is not the case, but I can only say it so many times without becoming obnoxious.

I am hoping that one day, he will at least see the Catholic interpretation of Scripture on one of these issues and it will generate the interest for him to at least look a little closer.

Thanks for the help again!

 

[Dymphna]

The issue is not the eucharist, but predestination.

Try this for starters,

Fornicators, sodomites, and such who violate the ten commandments bring upon themselves the wrath of the Lord and shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

As St. Paul writes, we must run the good race. St. Paul feared for his own soul. He would not fear for it if he thought he had been saved in perpetuity on the road to Damascus. The race is not won untill we cross the finish line, “once saved always saved” is tantamount to saying getting out off the starting block is good enough.

**Peter 2 : 2 wrote:**4:For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment: 5:And spared not the original world, but preserved Noe, the eighth person, the preacher of justice, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. 6: And reducing the cities of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhites into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly, 7:And delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked: 8:For in sight and hearing he was just, dwelling among them who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works. 9:The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented: 10:And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.

11:Whereas angels, who are greater in strength and power, bring not against themselves a railing judgment. 12:But these men, as irrational beasts, naturally tending to the snare and to destruction, blaspheming those things which they know not, shall perish in their corruption: 13:Receiving the reward of their injustice, counting for a pleasure the delights of a day: stains and spots, sporting themselves to excess, rioting in their feasts with you: 14:Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls: having their heart exercised with covetousness: children of malediction.

21:For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. 22:For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Those who return to their vomit do not enter the kingdom of heaven. Note ‘return’ of those who “have known the way of justice”.

But even the above does not go to the heart of the issue, because Calvinist’s hold that vessels of wrath even if they lead a good life, will do an evil act prior to death.

Thus your friend’s question is tangential to the real argument.

In fact the final argument is with the Calvinist understanding of fallen nature. Go to fallen nature, for that is the hinge in the Calvinist argument. The problem is with freewill and the Calvinist position that men are fully corrupt.

 

[Dymphna]

"If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it."Gen. 4:7

St. Augustine wrote:City of God, Book 15, Chpt. 7 Yet He does not dismiss him without counsel, holy, just, and good. “Fret not thyself,” He says, “for unto thee shall be his turning, and thou shall rule over him.” Over his brother, does He mean? Most certainly not. Over what, then, but sin? For He had said, “Thou hast sinned,” and then He added, "Fret not thyself, for to thee shall be its turning, and thou shall rule over it." And the “turning” of sin to the man can be understood of his conviction that the guilt of sin can be laid at no other man’s door but his own. For this is the health-giving medicine of penitence, and the fit plea for pardon; so that, when it is said, “To thee its turning,” we must not supply “shall be,” but we must read, “To thee let its turning be,” understanding it as a command, not as a prediction. For then shall a man rule over his sin when he does not prefer it to himself and defend it, but subjects it by repentance; otherwise he that becomes protector of it shall surely become its prisoner. But if we understand this sin to be that carnal concupiscence of which the apostle says, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” among the fruits of which lust he names envy, by which assuredly Cain was stung and excited to destroy his brother, then we may properly supply the words “shall be,” and read, “To thee shall be its turning, and thou shalt rule over it.” For when the carnal part which the apostle calls sin, in that place where he says, “It is not I who do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,” that part which the philosophers also call vicious, and which ought not to lead the mind, but which the mind ought to rule and restrain by reason from illicit motions – when, then, this part has been moved to perpetrate any wickedness, if it be curbed and if it obey the word of the apostle, “Yield not your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,” it is turned towards the mind and subdued and conquered by it, so that reason rules over it as a subject.

Note the dominion over sin is in man, and that God is commanding, and not predicting. A man cannot repent over that which is not in control of his Will. We may regret, but we do not repent. God commands us to will righteousness. Note the sin is at each man’s door, the sin would not be at each man’s door if men did not will the sin to be there, and have dominion over sin so as to prevent the sin from being at his own door. The Will is in the Reason, and rules over its subject. The Subject the Reason rules is the lower order of the soul. The lower order is no longer under complete dominion, as in Adam, but is insubordinate and must be subdued and conquered. Does God subdue and conquer? No. It is man who subdues and conquers.

___________________________________________-

The Church teaches Predestination. What the Church does not teach is Predestinarianism.

As St. Thomas writes on Whether it is befitting that Christ should be predestinated?: “As is clear from what has been said in the FP, Question [23], Articles [1],2, predestination, in its proper sense, is a certain Divine preordination from eternity of those things which are to be done in time by the grace of God.”

 

[Dymphna]

Your friend will say something like this:"You imply by your answers that you do not feel you have wickedness in your heart. It seems to me this places you at a higher level of holiness than Isaiah who fell to his knees in the presence of God declaring his sinfulness. Paul appeared to have the same understanding in 1 Tim 1:15: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–of whom I am the worst. Notice Paul uses the present tense of the verb “am.” He didn’’t say “of whom I was the worst.” He further elaborates on the struggle we all face with our sinful natures in Romans 7. If Roman Catholics are exempt from this struggle maybe I should check out the Roman Faith."

Give him these:

St. John Chrysostom wrote:Homiliy 4 on Timothy 1:15 But how is it, that he here calls himself a sinner, nay, the chief of sinners, whereas he elsewhere asserts that he was "touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless"? (Phil. iii. 6.) Because with respect to the righteousness which God has wrought, the justification which is really sought, even those who are righteous in the law are sinners, “for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. iii. 23.) Therefore he does not say righteousness simply, but "the righteousness which is in the law." As a man that has acquired wealth, with respect to himself appears rich, but upon a comparison with the treasures of kings is very poor and the chief of the poor; so it is in this case. Compared with Angels, even righteous men are sinners; and if Paul, who wrought the righteousness that is in the law, was the chief of sinners, what other man can be called righteous? For he says not this to condemn his own life as impure, let not this be imagined; but comparing his own legal righteousness with the righteousness of God, he shows it to be nothing worth, and not only so, but he proves those who possess it to be sinners.
St. Chrysostom clarifies how we are to understand St. Paul’s description of himself. Note his reference to Phil. 3:6.

---

St. John Chrysostom wrote:Homily 13 on Romans 7: Ver. 19, 20 “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more Ithat do it but sin that dwelleth in me.”

Do you see, how he acquits the essence of the soul, as well as the essence of the flesh, from accusation, and removes it entirely to sinful actions? For if the soul willeth not the evil, it is cleared: and if he does not work it himself, the body too is set free, and the whole may be charged upon the evil moral choice. Now the essence of the soul and body and of that choice are not the same, for the two first are God’s works, and **the other is a motion from ourselves, towards whatever we please to direct it For willing is indeed natural emFuton *(inborn),and is from God:but willing on this wise is our own, and from our own mind.*clarifying text added by Dymphna, me

continued on next post

 

[Dymphna]

St. Thomas clarifies St. Chrysostom’s commentary in: ? Q.10 Art.3whether the will is moved of necessity by the exterior mover which is God****whether the will is moved, of necessity, by the lower appetite See objection 1 and the reply for further clarification on Rm. 7:19

St. Augustine wrote:City of God, Book 14, Chpt.15 For where the penalty annexed to disobedience is great, and the thing commanded by the Creator is easy, who can sufficiently estimate how great a wickedness it is, in a matter so easy, not to obey the authority of so great a power, even when that power deters with so terrible a penalty?

In short, to say all in a word, what but disobedience was the punishment of disobedience in that sin? For what else is man’s misery but his own disobedience to himself, so that in consequence of his not being willing to do what he could do, he now wills to do what he cannot? For though he could not do all things in Paradise before he sinned, yet he wished to do only what he could do, and therefore he could do all things he wished. But now, as we recognize in his offspring, and as divine Scripture testifies, “Man is like to vanity.” For who can count how many things he wishes which be cannot do, so long as he is disobedient to himself, that is, so long as his mind and his flesh do not obey his will? For in spite of himself his mind is both frequently disturbed, and his flesh suffers, and grows old, and dies; and in spite of ourselves we suffer whatever else we suffer, and which we would not suffer if our nature absolutely and in all its parts obeyed our will. But is it not the infirmities of the flesh which hamper it in its service? Yet what does it matter how its service is hampered, so long as the fact remains, that by the just retribution of the sovereign God whom we refused to be subject to and serve, our flesh, which was subjected to us, now torments us by insubordination, although our disobedience brought trouble on ourselves, not upon God? For He is not in need of our service as we of our body’s; and therefore what we did was no punishment to Him, but what we receive is so to us. And the pains which are called bodily are pains of the soul in and from the body. For what pain or desire can the flesh feel by itself and without the soul? But when the flesh is said to desire or to suffer, it is meant, as we have explained, that the man does so, or some part of the soul which is affected by the sensation of the flesh, whether a harsh sensation causing pain, or gentle, causing pleasure. But pain in the flesh is only a discomfort of the soul arising from the flesh, and a kind of shrinking from its suffering, as the pain of the soul which is called sadness is a shrinking from those things which have happened to us in spite of ourselves. (contiuned)

 

[Dymphna]

continued) But sadness is frequently preceded by fear, which is itself in the soul, not in the flesh; while bodily pain is not preceded by any kind of fear of the flesh, which can be felt in the flesh before the pain. But pleasure is preceded by a certain appetite which is felt in the flesh like a craving, as hunger and thirst and that generative appetite which is most commonly identified with the name" lust," though this is the generic word for all desires. For anger itself was defined by the ancients as nothing else than the lust of revenge; although sometimes a man is angry even at inanimate objects which cannot feel his vengeance, as when one breaks a pen, or crushes a quill that writes badly. Yet even this, though less reasonable, is in its way a lust of revenge, and is, so to speak, a mysterious kind of shadow of [the great law of] retribution, that they who do evil should suffer evil. There is therefore a lust for revenge, which is called anger; there is a lust of money, which goes by the name of avarice; there is a lust of conquering, no matter by what means, which is called opinionativeness; there is a lust of applause, which is named boasting. There are many and various lusts, of which some have names of their own, while others have not. For who could readily give a name to the lust of ruling, which yet has a powerful influence in the soul of tyrants, as civil wars bear witness?

St. Augustine is separating out the parts of the soul. Adam chose the flesh, and thus man no longer has full dominion over the flesh as Adam did prior to the Fall. Lust is in the lower order, it is not in the Will.

 

[Dymphna]

Adding on, perhaps this would be easier for you:

Those who die in a state of mortal sin go to hell. Those who die with the stain of venial sin go to purgatory. And when cleansed, they go to heaven.

All sin is an evil for it is contrary to God’s goodness, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Why work out, and why fear and trembing if we know we are saved by a single one time act? The seeds that sprout on the hard earth sprout and die. But they do sprout, what is this one time act if not the sprouting? We must nurture ourselves, that we may grow to fruition and be harvested.

The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians 2:
12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.
13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.

John 10:28 does appear at first blush to support the Calvinist contention, but who is Christ referring to? Sheep who know his voice. But we also know that Christ says that the sheep in the fold of the good shepherd can stray and be devoured by wolves. According to the Calvinist contention, the sheep in the fold cannot stray and be devoured. Why would the good shepherd go in search for the lost sheep if they cannot be separated from the fold? And why rejoice?
See Matt 18: 12-13 and Luke 15:4-7
The rejoicing at finding the lost sheep is clearly a reference to the prodigal son who was in his father’s house, strayed and was found.

The better understanding of John 10:28 is that they cannot be taken by force, satan cannot take you by force, you have freewill to resist.

 

[Dymphna]

gmk:

My friend’s words:

Christ says “he is the bread of life” and whoever partakes of that bread will never hunger again. SO……… if it really IS his flesh at the EU, are you ever hungry again? Of course you are! Why? Because it is not a PHYSICAL hunger. If it is a SPIRITUAL hunger is he referring to, and then it is NOT logical to see it is not a physical consumption he is referring to? Based on this verse that leads to 2 questions…How can the RC teach one can loose their salvation seeing that we will NEVER hunger again if someone in the RC truly ate his flesh? This contradicts his teachings very obviously. OR how can you have it both ways in one passage?

Clarification.

The title of your thread is as misleading as is your friend’s argument.

The reason the real presence is not an issue is because that is not what your friends argument hinges on, nor is it what your friend is finally arguing for.

In fact the argument finally hinges on his understanding of fallen nature. What your friend is really arguing for his understanding of salvation, and is using a wedge argument to prove his point.

Arguing the for the real presence is a separate but related argument. The hinge word in his argument is ‘salvation’ and his understanding that some men are ‘vessels of wrath’ made for hell.

That is why I wrote that the argument is not over the eucharist but over predestination. And presented arguments to the same. Note, in posts 25 and 26, St. Augustine’s explanation of free will in conjunction with fallen nature. That is where the argument lies.

 

[gmk]

Dymphna:

Clarification.

The title of your thread is as misleading as is your friend’s argument.

The reason the real presence is not an issue is because that is not what your friends argument hinges on, nor is it what your friend is finally arguing for.

In fact the argument finally hinges on his understanding of fallen nature. What your friend is really arguing for his understanding of salvation, and is using a wedge argument to prove his point.

Arguing the for the real presence is a separate but related argument. The hinge word in his argument is ‘salvation’ and his understanding that some men are ‘vessels of wrath’ made for hell.

That is why I wrote that the argument is not over the eucharist but over predestination. And presented arguments to the same. Note, in posts 25 and 26, St. Augustine’s explanation of free will in conjunction with fallen nature. That is where the argument lies.

thanks. I am sure you are correct, as we have discussed this before. This will take me some time to digest, but I appreciate it!

g