James R. White Misrepresents Again

[josephlilac]

Guardian, it can’t be implicit if White&Co. explicitly says otherwise.

White&Co.: “And you seem to assume that “Real Presence” and “transubstantiation” are synonymous terms (they clearly are not). Until we are using the same terms and talking about the same things, nothing will be accomplished.”

White&Co.: “Goodness! If I so badly misread what Roman Catholics wrote I would be rightly dismissed, Matthew. I have NEVER said what you just said. Never. And if you were at all careful in your reading, you would know that. Matthew, “real presence” and “transubstantiation” are NOT the same things. OK? No person with the slightest intelligence would argue Augustine denied real presence. But he did not believe in transubstantiation. Just because you, in a modern context, equate the two terms does not mean that has been true going back in history, and that is the point. YOU need to prove otherwise, not just assume your position. This entire exchange proves you have not taken the time to seriously consider what anyone else has to say on this topic, and again, that only proves my point.”

This is great here:
White&Co.: “If I so badly misread what Roman Catholics wrote I would be rightly dismissed, Matthew.”

rightandreason: “Mr. White, I would like to add that you present yourself as someone who takes great care to represent others and their positions accurately, and address their points with care. This is apparently absent with the fact that you completely dismissed the crux, and shall I dare say, the complete context of my email. This is the reason why I find difficulty with your assertion of reading the Church Fathers within context; for you have not done so with me, and the irony is that I am alive and can point that out to you.”

 

[Guardian]

Guardian, it can’t be implicit if White&Co. explicitly says otherwise.

White&Co.: “And you seem to assume that “Real Presence” and “transubstantiation” are synonymous terms (they clearly are not). Until we are using the same terms and talking about the same things, nothing will be accomplished.”

White&Co.: “Goodness! If I so badly misread what Roman Catholics wrote I would be rightly dismissed, Matthew. I have NEVER said what you just said. Never. And if you were at all careful in your reading, you would know that. Matthew, “real presence” and “transubstantiation” are NOT the same things. OK? No person with the slightest intelligence would argue Augustine denied real presence. But he did not believe in transubstantiation. Just because you, in a modern context, equate the two terms does not mean that has been true going back in history, and that is the point. YOU need to prove otherwise, not just assume your position. This entire exchange proves you have not taken the time to seriously consider what anyone else has to say on this topic, and again, that only proves my point.”

This is great here:
White&Co.: “If I so badly misread what Roman Catholics wrote I would be rightly dismissed, Matthew.”

rightandreason: “Mr. White, I would like to add that you present yourself as someone who takes great care to represent others and their positions accurately, and address their points with care. This is apparently absent with the fact that you completely dismissed the crux, and shall I dare say, the complete context of my email. This is the reason why I find difficulty with your assertion of reading the Church Fathers within context; for you have not done so with me, and the irony is that I am alive and can point that out to you.”

Wow. Haha. Can these quotes be verified?

I guess the distinction between White’s viewpoint of Augustine’s theology and Catholic theology is transubstantion and the meaning of the “real presence” in context.

 

[josephlilac]

Yes, they are in the thread: Dr. James White & response

I and the Catholic Church believe that White&Co. are trying to make a distinction without a difference. For this reason, if White&Co. would venture outside the isolated quotations and Church Father Whisperer mentality, and see the whole picture, including the Divine Liturgies, White&Co. would realize that the two terms are one and the same as believed and practiced by the Church Fathers in the Liturgies.

 

[Guardian]

I and the Catholic Church believe that White&Co. are trying to make a distinction without a difference. For this reason, if White&Co. would venture outside the isolated quotations and Church Father Whisperer mentality, and see the whole picture, including the Divine Liturgies, White&Co. would realize that the two terms are one and the same as believed and practiced by the Church Fathers in the Liturgies.

No doubt. No doubt.

 

[teajay]

Well it looks like he has updated his site to correct his apparent oversight. Ummm what about these though?

Here he does the same thing, ironically, while condemning “new lows in poor scholarship” by a Catholic.

And he does it again here while ‘correcting’ one Catholics allegedly erroneous understanding of the Fathers.

Neither have been corrected. It’s strange that he made the exact same mistake three times over a six year period.

 

[teajay]

Also, I believe that an ellipsis is necessary when quoting one part of a sentence.

For example: “Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense…”

 

[teajay]

James White has written a reply to this thread here.

On the 21st September 2006, in a post entitled “Another Example of “Head in the Sand” Apologetics”, White appears to claim that Augustine did not believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. In support of this contention he made the following citation:

Who is the bread of of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. (Augustine, John: Tractate 25:12).

This was later “corrected” to:

Who is the bread of of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense. UPDATE>>(Augustine, Sermon 62:5).
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. (Augustine, John: Tractate 25:12).

Unfortunately not even that is accurate. The line “Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense” has been truncated and out of respect for ones readers, this should be indicated, usually through an ellipsis. It is important because a sentence tends to express at least one complete idea and the ellipsis helps readers know that further qualifications may have been made by the original author. It is not some minor error.

In response to this criticism, rather than focusing on the alleged misrepresentation, in a 22nd September 2006 post entitled “Greetings < cough > from Toronto” he takes the opportunity to:

• mention the “…utter bankruptcy of the RC “on line apologetics” people…”
• complain about his character being attacked
• observe the “…incredibly shallow anachronistic reading of ancient sources by modern Roman Catholics…”
• mention the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidoran Decretals
• suggest allegedly false appeals to the unanimous consent of the Fathers
• remind us of Pornocracy and the murderous and adulterous Popes
• and finally mention Honorius.
  None of these are logically relevant to the issue at hand: did James White make a misrepresentation?

(continued below)

 

[teajay]

(continued from above)

His response is that “…when I had added some quick quotes from my IRC popup files at the end of a single blog article the reference to one of the quotes from Augustine got deleted…” If it was a mere error in cutting and pasting that particular quote, then why was the exact same cutting and pasting error made at the exact same point with the exact same set of quotes twice before in the past? It was done on the 8th of August 2006 in a post entitled “Roman Catholic Apologetics: Street Level (#3)”

Who is the bread of of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. (Augustine John: Tractate 25:12).

and again on 1st December 2000 in an article called “New Lows in Poor Scholarship: Jeffrey L. Morrow Completely Misses the Historical Facts in a Recent Catholic Answers Article”.

Who is the bread of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. (Augustine John: Tractate 25:12).

White claims that:

The citation was correct, the meaning the same, just a single citation was missing.

But the point is that it was not accurate. The first quote appeared to form part of a continuous text with the second. The fact that a full stop was added to final sentence of the “Sermon 62:5” quote instead of an ellipsis makes it even more likely that readers will mistakenly reach that conclusion. If they are mistakes, then they happen to be very convenient mistakes because they cause the text to take an incorrect form that better suits your case.

 

[teajay]

James White has written a reply to this thread here.

On the 21st September 2006, in a post entitled “Another Example of “Head in the Sand” Apologetics”, White appears to claim that Augustine did not believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. In support of this contention he made the following citation:
This was later “corrected” to:
Unfortunately not even that is accurate. The line “Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense” has been truncated and out of respect for ones readers, this should be indicated, usually through an ellipsis. It is important because a sentence tends to express at least one complete idea and the ellipsis helps readers know that further qualifications may have been made by the original author. It is not some minor error. It is perfectly acceptable to truncate a sentence but this needs to be made apparent to readers.

In response to this criticism, rather than focusing on the alleged misrepresentation, in a 22nd September 2006 post entitled “Greetings < cough > from Toronto” he takes the opportunity to:

• mention the “…utter bankruptcy of the RC “on line apologetics” people…”
• complain about his character being attacked
• observe the “…incredibly shallow anachronistic reading of ancient sources by modern Roman Catholics…”
• mention the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidoran Decretals
• suggest allegedly false appeals to the unanimous consent of the Fathers
• remind us of Pornocracy and the murderous and adulterous Popes
• and finally mention Honorius.
  None of these are logically relevant to the issue at hand: did James White make a misrepresentation?

(continued below)

 

[Guardian]

(continued from above)

His response is that “…when I had added some quick quotes from my IRC popup files at the end of a single blog article the reference to one of the quotes from Augustine got deleted…” If it was a mere error in cutting and pasting that particular quote, then why was the exact same cutting and pasting error made at the exact same point with the exact same set of quotes twice before in the past? It was done on the 8th of August 2006 in a post entitled “Roman Catholic Apologetics: Street Level (#3)” and again on 1st December 2000 in an article called “New Lows in Poor Scholarship: Jeffrey L. Morrow Completely Misses the Historical Facts in a Recent Catholic Answers Article”.
White claims that:
But the point is that it was not accurate. The first quote appeared to form part of a continuous text with the second. The fact that a full stop was added to final sentence of the “Sermon 62:5” quote instead of an ellipsis makes it even more likely that readers will mistakenly reach that conclusion. If they are mistakes, then they happen to be very convenient mistakes because they cause the text to take an incorrect form that better suits your case.

Teajay, you’re right on. Check this post.

 

[MrS]

Teajay, you’re right on. Check this post.

And if Mr/Dr White actually thinks he can continue to get away with it… he should notice that there are nearly 400 views of this thread already…

well done, good and faithful servants.

.

 

[Pilgrim2Grace]

Yes.

1. Scroll this thread and read the other quotes that PhilVaz has posted.

**What PhilVaz has posted? Would you mind if some who have watched from a distance hesitate to take what he posts seriously? Besides, after reading the initial post by PV, there doesn’t appear to be evidence of misrepresentation by what Dr. White *did ***cite.

1. Regardless of the fact that White&Co. tirelessly use accusations and terminology relating to anachronism, they have yet to prove that it doesn’t actually apply to them.

"White&Co."?

At the time of the Reformation, the Liturgy had been well established and the text of the Liturgy is inarguably related to sacrifice.

**Are not the time of Augustine and the “time of the Reformation” two *different ***periods in church history? Are we to understand your claim as an assertion that *any *reference of “sacrifice” by Augustine is *identical *to the idea of “transubstantiation” by Rome?

I find White&Co’s assumptions about Augustine’s beliefs very suspect, even if White&Co portay themselves as some sort of Church Father Whisperer.

**Is it also fair for some of us to consider your presuppositions suspect, as well? Dr. White has proven himself as knowledgeable of church history, as well as a fair presenter of what history tells us. Why would an honest, objective student of church history begin to question or charge him in such manner as I have seen recently?

 

[PhilVaz]

Pilgrim << What PhilVaz has posted? Would you mind if some who have watched from a distance hesitate to take what he posts seriously? Besides, after reading the initial post by PV, there doesn’t appear to be evidence of misrepresentation by what Dr. White did cite. >>

St. Augustine and Eucharist

(1) The bread having been sanctified “IS THE BODY OF CHRIST”

(2) The wine having been sanctified “IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST”

(3) We know Christ in the breaking of the bread; and not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ “BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.”

(4) When Christ said “THIS IS MY BODY” He carried “HIS OWN BODY” in “HIS OWN HANDS”

(5) Christ is “IMMOLATED” (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or “making present” before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice)

(6) Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him

(7) All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ’s Sacrifice in Holy Communion

(8) The souls of the dead in Christ find relief through the Sacrifice of the Mediator OFFERED for them and through the prayers of the living Body of Christ on earth

(9) The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers – the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died “in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ” so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins

(10) Christ gave us His own flesh “to be eaten unto salvation” and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation

These are the classical passages from St. Augustine that White ignores. Next, summary from Schaff (Presbyterian), Kelly (Anglican), Stone (Anglo-Catholic) on what these mean.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Pilgrim << Are we to understand your claim as an assertion that any reference of “sacrifice” by Augustine is identical to the idea of “transubstantiation” by Rome? >>

Philip Schaff: “But, on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion -verissimum sacrificium- of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (immolat) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ, from the days of the apostles through the sure succession of the bishops down to our time. But the church at the same time offers, with Christ, herself, as the body of Christ, to God. As all are one body, so also all are together the same sacrifice [De civit Dei x.20 Latin given].” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol 3, page 507)

“The subject of the sacrifice is the body of Jesus Christ, which is as TRULY PRESENT on the altar of the church, as it once was on the altar of the cross, and which now offers itself to God through his priest. Hence the frequent language of the liturgies: ‘Thou art he who offerest, and who art offered, O Christ, our God.’ Augustine, however, connects with this, as we have already said, the true and important moral idea of the self-sacrifice of the whole redeemed church to God. The prayers of the liturgies do the same.” (Schaff, page 508)

JND Kelly: "‘This sacrifice,’ he remarks [De civ dei 17:20:2], ‘succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slaughtered in anticipation of what was to come…For instead of all those sacrifices and oblations His BODY IS OFFERED, and is DISTRIBUTED to the participants…’

“The Christian supper presupposes the death on the cross [Serm 112:1]. The self-same Christ Who was slain there is in a real sense slaughtered daily [sacramentally in an unbloody manner] by the faithful, so that the sacrifice which was offered once for all in bloody form is sacramentally RENEWED upon our altars with the OBLATION of His BODY AND BLOOD [Ep 98:9; C. Faust 20:18; 20:21]. From this it is clear that, if the eucharistic sacrifice is essentially a ‘similitude’ or ‘memorial’ of Calvary, it includes MUCH MORE than that. In the first place, it involves a REAL, though sacramental, OFFERING of Christ’s BODY AND BLOOD; He is Himself the priest, but also the OBLATION [De civ dei 10:20]. In the second place, however, along with this oblation of the Head, it involves the offering of His members, since the fruit of the sacrifice is, precisely, their union in His mystical body.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 454-455)

Darwell Stone: “St. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as ‘the SACRIFICE of our redemption,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Mediator,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of peace,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of love,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord,’ ‘the SACRIFICE of the Church’ [Conf 9:32; Enchir 110; In Ps 21 Enar 2:28; In Ps 33 Enar 1:5; De civ Dei 10:20]… St. Augustine closely connects the Eucharistic ALTAR on EARTH with the ALTAR of our LORD’S OFFERING in HEAVEN; regards our Lord’s heavenly work as the fulfillment of the type in the sacrifice which the Jewish high priest offered in the holy of holies…St. Augustine connects COMMUNION with God with his definition of SACRIFICE, and makes the RECEPTION of Communion part of the Christian SACRIFICIAL ACTION…” (A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume 1, pages 113-124)

Pilgrim << Dr. White has proven himself as knowledgeable of church history, as well as a fair presenter of what history tells us. >>

White is wrong on Augustine and Eucharist, White is wrong on Augustine and Papacy. It’s right there, I don’t have to come on his radio program to read all of that.

“Transubstantiation” is not the issue. That is a technical term that arose in the 9th and 11th century controversies. The above is what St. Augustine believes about the Eucharist. You don’t have to take me seriously, but I have accurately cited those historians and Augustine’s classical passages that White ignores. White rejects what St. Augustine believes about the Eucharist. White rejects what St. Augustine believes about the Papacy. I can’t make that any clearer. Lest we forget, White is a baptist for crying out loud. OK, your turn.

Phil P

 

[RyanL]

**Is it also fair for some of us to consider *your ***presuppositions suspect, as well? Dr. White has proven himself as knowledgeable of church history, as well as a fair presenter of what history tells us. Why would an honest, objective student of church history begin to question or charge him in such manner as I have seen recently?

I’m willing to bet that if this isn’t James White (which I think it is), it’s at least a member of his particular church. I’d even put money on it if it wasn’t against the Baptist credo to wager… . Something just strikes me as…well…very condescending. I had to re-read it to make sure there were no references to wriggling papists…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[PhilVaz]

Pilgrim << Why would an honest, objective student of church history begin to question or charge him in such manner as I have seen recently? >>

Because Philip Schaff, JND Kelly, and Darwell Stone say White is dead wrong.

If White’s and your only point is that St. Augustine did not believe in the full technical theological teaching on “transubstantiation” (change of substance) I will grant that. The “conversion” view which comes closest to that was believed by St. Ambrose of Milan in the west, and such eastern Fathers as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene.

St. Augustine did not speak of “change of substance” as such. Darwell Stone goes into that in much depth, as does JND Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, and Robert Sungenis’ book Not By Bread Alone also documents the actual Greek and Latin terms used.

But should we ignore (as White does) everything else St. Augustine believed on Eucharist? Why?

Phil P

 

[Pilgrim2Grace]

I’m willing to bet that if this isn’t James White (which I think it is), it’s at least a member of his particular church. I’d even put money on it if it wasn’t against the Baptist credo to wager… . Something just strikes me as…well…very condescending. I had to re-read it to make sure there were no references to wriggling papists…

God Bless,
RyanL

Amazing that some choose to “bless” with the same tongue they “bet” to accuse falsely of…I am neither a member of Dr. White’s church, nor he. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Pilgrim2Grace]

Pilgrim << What PhilVaz has posted? Would you mind if some who have watched from a distance hesitate to take what he posts seriously? Besides, after reading the initial post by PV, there doesn’t appear to be evidence of misrepresentation by what Dr. White did cite. >>

St. Augustine and Eucharist

The link posted uses references to “SERMONS 227”…“272”…etc. Are these page numbers or actual sermons listed in table of contents from the entire early church fathers set?

(1) The bread having been sanctified “IS THE BODY OF CHRIST”

(2) The wine having been sanctified “IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST”

And these “are” the body and blood of Christ via “change” at the hands or consecration of Roman Catholic priests?

(3) We know Christ in the breaking of the bread; and not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ “BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.”

(4) When Christ said “THIS IS MY BODY” He carried “HIS OWN BODY” in “HIS OWN HANDS”

Where specifically do you find these Augustinian beliefs? Does Augustine contend that these two beliefs are found in the testimony of Christ’s apostles?

(5) Christ is “IMMOLATED” (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or “making present” before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice)

(6) Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him

(7) All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ’s Sacrifice in Holy Communion

(8) The souls of the dead in Christ find relief through the Sacrifice of the Mediator OFFERED for them and through the prayers of the living Body of Christ on earth

(9) The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers – the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died “in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ” so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins

(10) Christ gave us His own flesh “to be eaten unto salvation” and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation

It would be nice to review what you read from their sources (reason for asking for more specifics)…thanks.

These are the classical passages from St. Augustine that White ignores. Next, summary from Schaff (Presbyterian), Kelly (Anglican), Stone (Anglo-Catholic) on what these mean.

So, if we find other places where Augustine wrote/taught otherwise, what are we to conclude?

I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
Phil P

**If that is all of what Augustine had to say about the subject, and if he also taught identically the same ideas, terms and arguments as Rome does, it would indeed be so, wouldn’t it?

 

[Pilgrim2Grace]

Pilgrim << Why would an honest, objective student of church history begin to question or charge him in such manner as I have seen recently? >>

Because Philip Schaff, JND Kelly, and Darwell Stone say White is dead wrong.

If White’s and your only point is that St. Augustine did not believe in the full technical theological teaching on “transubstantiation” (change of substance) I will grant that.

Which is what I thought Dr. White and others are asserting. Why are they ostrasized for holding to what you “grant”?

The “conversion” view which comes closest to that was believed by St. Ambrose of Milan in the west, and such eastern Fathers as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene.

So you would agree that this sort of “conversion view” was not held “unanimously by the fathers”, as certain magisterial writers would argue?

St. Augustine did not speak of “change of substance” as such.

Thank you. I believe this, too, was another point Dr. White and others have made, only to be unfairly attacked and accused.

Darwell Stone goes into that in much depth, as does JND Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, and Robert Sungenis’ book Not By Bread Alone also documents the actual Greek and Latin terms used.

Given certain instances where Sungenis’ attempt at koine Greek were challenged and corrected, I will look further into Kelly’s and Stone’s ideas.

But should we ignore (as White does) everything else St. Augustine believed on Eucharist? Why?
Phil P

I failed to find Dr. White “ignor[ing] everything else St. Augustine believed on Eucharist”. Did I miss something? Thanks.

 

[JPrejean]

I failed to find Dr. White “ignor[ing] everything else St. Augustine believed on Eucharist”. Did I miss something?

Yes, you did miss something. I mentioned it on an earlier thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110766), but I’ll put it more directly to the point.

In noting that the quotes PhilVaz cited do not mention Jesus’s physical presence (see aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1489), White is implicitly making the claim that Augustine agrees with his own position that the physical ascension of Jesus’s fleshly Body into Heaven contradicts the Real Presence of transubstantiation. But in context and in light of the other quotations PhilVaz cited, no reasonable person could reasonably conclude that Augustine believed that fleshly presence is the only form of bodily presence. Hence, the implicit claim in White’s response could only be sustained in sheer ignorance of Augustine’s overall thought on the subject of bodily presence (since Augustine clearly speaks of two sorts of bodily presence, one that is fleshly and perceived by sight and one that is spiritual/supernatural and perceived only by faith, White’s quotes clearly referring to the former and not the latter).

What makes this suspicious is that the random quotes excised from context would have raised suspicion and likely caused someone to investigate further into White’s claims, making it appear that he is aware of the context but deliberately attempting to conceal it. I think he is simply so careless that he doesn’t realize the context casts a great deal of doubt on his argument. But anyway, the point is adequately proved that White must either be ignorant or deceptive, because there is no possibility that Augustine was making the argument that White would have him making.

Edit –

Dr. White has proven himself as knowledgeable of church history, as well as a fair presenter of what history tells us.

That is simply nonsense. In fact, it’s kind of funny, because he accused me of having parroted someone else’s “sophistry” (Perry Robinson’s) in my arguments, but the arguments we are making are no different in substance than the ones made in a book that appears to be on White’s bookshelf (Meyendorff’s Byzantine Theology; the book on the far left of the top shelf (69.49.233.15/images/jpeg/QuickPicLrg.JPG) looks identical to the copy I have). If anything, he’s proved that he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it, but either way, it’s a pretty convincing demonstration that he isn’t even knowledgable about what’s on his own bookshelf or church history generally (Meyendorff’s work being widely recognized in the scholarly community).