Protestant Argument about The Real Presence

[susanlo]

I will now add what the anti-Catholic Schaff said about Augustine. By the way, he flat out contradicts what you say about the elements of the Eucharist and belief being varied in the early centuries. Taken from this paper: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/733057/posts.

Schaff says:

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig, 1910, pp.492, 500, 507:

Here is the text without all of the missing pieces. There are a few “…” because I am limited to a certain number of characters to post, but the whole page can be read here: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy and ecclesiastical action till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century; whereas since then this feast of the Saviour’s dying love has been the innocent cause of the most bitter disputes, especially in the age of the Reformation, between Papists and Protestants, and among Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists.** Hence the doctrine of the ancient church on this point lacks the clearness and definiteness** which the Nicene dogma of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian Christology, and the Augustinian anthropology and soteriology acquired from the controversies preceding them. In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a consensus patrum, than in the doctrine of the holy Supper.

In general, this period, following the representatives of the mystic theory in the previous one, was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim. But the kind and mode of this presence are not yet particularly defined, and admit very different views: Christ may be conceived as really present either in and with the elements (consubstantiation, impanation), or under the illusive appearance of the changed elements (transubstantiation), or only dynamically and spiritually.

In the previous period we distinguish three views: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In the present the first view, which best answered the mystic and superstitious tendency of the time, preponderated, but the second also was represented by considerable authorities.1000

I. The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, whereby they become vehicles and organs of the life of Christ, although by no means necessarily changed into another substance.
…
II. The symbolical view, though on a realistic basis, is represented first by Eusebius, who calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood, and takes the flesh and blood of Christ in the sixth chapter of John to mean the words of Christ, which are spirit and life, the true food of the soul, to believers.1010 Here appears the influence of his venerated Origen, whose views in regard to the sacramental aspect of the Eucharist he substantially repeats.
…
It is remarkable that Augustine, in other respects so decidedly catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

 

[susanlo]

Susan, we have been through this before, where I showed you definitively, through Protestant sources, that Augustine’s, and other Early Church Father’s use of the word figurative is totally different than how we understand the word figurative today. You have not provided one Protestant historian, who is a recognized authority on that time period, who refutes what these Protestant historians have said about use of the words sign, symbol, and figurative in the early church. In fact, you have not provided anything but your interpretation, which esteemed Protestant historians have contradicted.

There may have been different connotations for sign, symbol and figurative. However I do not believe that the ancient definitions of any of these words actually meant literal physical transformation (or transubstantiation).

As I stated to you on a different thread, one which you did not answer, and a statement that I have made on other blogs, which no one can refute is this:

Augustine clearly believes in the concept of transubstantiation when he makes this comment: By commanding us to adore the Eucharist, if Augustine does not believe that the bread and wine have totally changed (which is transubstantiation), he is commanding idolatry. There is, and can be no middle ground in Augustine’s statement.

Augustine seems to believe in a spiritual presence in the Eucharist. He believed the consecrated bread was “holy,” but not physically changed.

 

[susanlo]

In addition to what Duane said, Augustine was speaking against those who would take Christ’s words literally in the sense that he’s commanding them to rip him limb from limb and start gnawing on his flesh and blood right there. That would be “enjoining a crime” and not something that Christ meant in that sense. It was a rather obvious example Augustine was using to illustrate his rule. Augustine writes in favor of the real presence quite clearly elsewhere. Speaking of the sacraments as a “figure” was more common among the Church fathers, but the understanding wasn’t different. We are being asked to look beyond simply our carnal senses towards the true reality that is within them. Or, to put it another way, to look at them with the understanding that it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail.

He was writing instructions for Christians in the 5th century. Christ’s body had been assumed into heaven 400 years before. Why would he need to clarify this?

I am not aware of anywhere that he speaks clearly on the real presence. Here is a sermon he gave to those joining the church:

What you see on God’s altar, you’ve already observed during the night that has now ended. But you’ve heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, “Unless you believe, you will not understand.” [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, “You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand.” Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.” [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying “Amen” to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear “The body of Christ”, you reply “Amen.” Be a member of Christ’s body, then, so that your “Amen” may ring true! But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them. So let us give God our sincere and deepest gratitude, and, as far as human weakness will permit, let us turn to the Lord with pure hearts. With all our strength, let us seek God’s singular mercy, for then the Divine Goodness will surely hear our prayers. God’s power will drive the Evil One from our acts and thoughts; it will deepen our faith, govern our minds, grant us holy thoughts, and lead us, finally, to share the divine happiness through God’s own son Jesus Christ. Amen!

earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

 

[Black_Knight]

There may have been different connotations for sign, symbol and figurative. However I do not believe

that the ancient definitions of any of these words actually meant literal physical transformation (or transubstantiation).Unfortunately what you believe or don’t doesn’t affect what the Early church actually taught and so only matters to you.

What you are doing is more like biased research and then cherry picking things out of the context of early church sources in an effort to validate your own objections. This is pretty much the same problem that Catholics have with non-Catholic Sola Scriptura based teaching and preaching because in order to make their position seem valid they do the same thing.

Augustine seems to believe in a spiritual presence in the Eucharist. He believed the consecrated bread was “holy,” but not physically changed.

Really? That’s not what we have seen above. If your position was true then that would make Augustine an idolater who adores mere bread. Since that is not the case then your attempt to use St. Augustine to support your position collapses.

Augustine clearly believes in the concept of transubstantiation when he makes this comment:

"…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT;

(Emphasis on that last section mine)

That’s it for your effort to use Augustine…

 

[Duane1966]

There may have been different connotations for sign, symbol and figurative. However I do not believe that the ancient definitions of any of these words actually meant literal physical transformation (or transubstantiation).

And there is the crux of the matter, what you believe. And yet, Schaff, Stone, Kelly, Mcgrath, all prominent respected Protestant historians, recognized experts on early church history, flat out contradict you.

Augustine seems to believe in a spiritual presence in the Eucharist. He believed the consecrated bread was “holy,” but not physically changed.

And if it has not physically changed, than he is commanding idolatry. Because if the bread remains, no matter how holy it has become, if it has not changed, then in essence, it is still bread. To command adoration of anything that is not fully God, is the definition of idolatry.

 

[Porknpie]

Augustine seems to believe in a spiritual presence in the Eucharist. He believed the consecrated bread was “holy,” but not physically changed.

This belief comes from misreading Augustine … AND not reading ALL of St. Augustine, especially in his sermons.

Just some writings from this Catholic Saint (note that it is a sacrifice):

“‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418).

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

*“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)*

Keep in mind, that Saint Ambrose was his mentor (note that it is a Sacrament)

"Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

They both believed in the Real Presence.

The bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Black_Knight]

And there is the crux of the matter, what you believe. And yet, Schaff, Stone, Kelly, Mcgrath, all prominent respected Protestant historians, recognized experts on early church history, flat out contradict you.

And if it has not physically changed, than he is commanding idolatry. Because if the bread remains, no matter how holy it has become, if it has not changed, then in essence, it is still bread. To command adoration of anything that is not fully God, is the definition of idolatry.

I’ll be interested to see if Susan has a substantive answer to that…

 

[Duane1966]

I’ll be interested to see if Susan has a substantive answer to that…

She doesn’t. We went through this on another thread. She can not bring herself to call Augustine an idolater. I know many Reformed who have stated to me that Augustine was not an idolater, and he did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation. When I have shown them Augustine’s command to adore the Eucharist, some have changed their view to that he must be an idolater, while others have stated that he must have held to the concept of transubstantiation. They realize that statement of his has no middle ground.

 

[Wesrock]

Susan, the Church is the body of Christ, as is the sacrament. The fact that Augustine links ties these together is appropriate. The passage you quoted I would use very much in support of the real presence.

SERMON 227
I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ.†2 That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. **It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. **You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be . . . [Augustine continues with the metaphor you are familiar with, not trying to hide that. ] o they are great sacraments and signs, really serious and important sacraments. Do you want to know how their seriousness is impressed on us? The apostle says, Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27). What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don’t let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed?†9 Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above.

david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

I will continue in the next post . . .

 

[Wesrock]

**Sermon 228B
**No longer is a victim sought from the flocks for a blood sacrifice, nor is a sheep or a goat any more led to the divine altars, but now the sacrifice of our time is the body and blood of the priest himself. About him, indeed, it was foretold so long ago in the psalms, You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4). While that Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, offered bread and wine when he blessed our father Abraham, we gather from reading about it in the book of Genesis.†6

  2. So Christ our Lord, who offered by suffering for us what by being born he had received from us, has become our high priest for ever, and has given us the order of sacrifice which you can see, of his body that is to say, and his blood. When his body, remember, was pierced by the lance, it poured forth the water and the blood by which he cancelled our sins. Be mindful of this grace as you work out your salvation, since it is God who is at work in you, and approach with fear and trembling†7 to partake of this altar. **Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side.**

  You see, those old sacrifices of the people of God also represented in a variety of ways this single one that was to come. Christ himself, I mean, was both a sheep, because of his innocence and simplicity of soul, and a goat because of the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:3). And whatever else was foretold in many and diverse ways (Heb 1:1) in the sacrifices of the old covenant refers to this single one which has been revealed in the new covenant.†8

  3. And therefore receive and eat the body of Christ, yes, you that have become members of Christ in the body of Christ; receive and drink the blood of Christ. In order not to be scattered and separated, eat what binds you together; in order not to seem cheap in your own estimation, drink the price that was paid for you. Just as this turns into you when you eat and drink it,†9 so you for your part turn into the body of Christ when you live devout and obedient lives. He himself, you see, as his passion drew near, while he was keeping the passover with his disciples, took bread and blessed it, and said, This is my body which will be handed over for you (1 Cor 11:24). Likewise he gave them the cup he had blessed and said, This is my blood of the new covenant, which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28).†10

  You were able to read or to hear this in the gospel before, but you were unaware that this eucharist is the Son. But now, your hearts sprinkled with a pure conscience, and your bodies washed with pure water,†11 approach him and be enlightened, and your faces will not blush for shame (Ps 34:5). Because if you receive this worthily, which means belonging to the new covenant by which you hope for an eternal inheritance, and if you keep the new commandment to love one another, then you have life in yourselves. You are then, after all, receiving that flesh about which Life itself says, The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world; and Unless people eat my flesh and drink my blood, they will not have life in themselves (Jn 6:51. 53).

  4. So then, having life in him, you will be in one flesh with him. **This sacrament, after all, doesn't present you with the body of Christ in such a way as to divide you from it.**†12 This, as the apostle reminds us, was foretold in holy scripture: They shall be two in one flesh (Gn 2:24). This, he says, is a great sacrament; but I mean in Christ and in the Church (Eph 5:31-32). And in another place he says about this eucharist itself, We, though many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). So you are beginning to receive what you have also begun to be, provided you do not receive unworthily; else you would be eating and drinking judgment upon yourselves. That, you see, is what he says: Any who eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But people should examine themselves, and in this way eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for those who eat and drink unworthily are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves (1 Cor 11:27-29).

david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

I will continue in the next post.

 

[Wesrock]

Sermon 229
1. What you can see here, dearly beloved, on the table of the Lord, is bread and wine; but this bread and wine, when the word is applied to it, becomes the body and blood of the Word. That Lord, you see, who in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn 1:1), was so compassionate that he did not despise what he had created in his own image;†2 and therefore the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), as you know. Because, yes, the very Word took to himself a man, that is the soul and flesh of a man, and became man, while remaining God. For that reason, because he also suffered for us, he also presented us in this sacrament with his body and blood, and this is what he even made us ourselves into as well.†3

…

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word, and it’s now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament. To this you say, Amen. To say Amen is to add your signature. Amen means “True” in English. Then comes the Lord’s prayer, which you have already received and given back. Why is it said before we receive the body and blood of Christ? Because if, as is the case with human frailty, our thoughts have turned perhaps to something that they shouldn’t have done, if our tongues have poured out something they ought not to have done, if our eyes have looked at something they shouldn’t have, if our ears have listened with more pleasure than was proper to something they shouldn’t have; if by any chance we have contracted any of that sort of thing from this world’s temptations and the frailty of human life, it’s all wiped clean by the Lord’s prayer, where it says, Forgive us our debts (Mt 6:12), so that we may approach without any anxiety; otherwise we may eat and drink what we receive to our own condemnation.†13

Sermon 229A
**It’s still, indeed, as you can see, bread and wine; come the consecration,†4 and that bread will be the body of Christ, and that wine will be the blood of Christ. This is brought about by the name of Christ, brought about by the grace of Christ, that it should continue to look exactly like what it used to look like, and yet should not have the same value as it used to. You see, if it was eaten before, it would fill the belly; but now when it’s eaten it nourishes the spirit. **

david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

The Eucharist is the sacrament of Christian unity. The Eucharist is the body of Christ. We are the body of Christ. Again, it’s quite appropriate and wonderful that Augustine ties these together in stressing this sacrament. The fact that he does so does not undermine a belief in the Real Presence. It’s very hard to justify him not believing in the Real Presence given the way he speaks of the Eucharist as being Christ’s body, as being the Son, as being the Word, of speaking of a real change. He speaks eloquently and clearly on the Real Presence but does not dwell on it, immediately moving on to tie it into the Church as Christ’s body. The Eucharist is a symbol, a sign, a figure. I think the Reformation has caused Catholics to shy away from this language. But the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is also very Real.

 

[Black_Knight]

She doesn’t. We went through this on another thread. She can not bring herself to call Augustine an idolater. I know many Reformed who have stated to me that Augustine was not an idolater, and he did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation. When I have shown them Augustine’s command to adore the Eucharist, some have changed their view to that he must be an idolater, while others have stated that he must have held to the concept of transubstantiation. They realize that statement of his has no middle ground.

Yeah, I think I read that one but I didn’t think you guys needed my (name removed by moderator)ut then, so I just lurked.

I agree with you 100% and I thanks for supplying that source from Augustine.

He’s either an idolater or a faithful Catholic/Christian and as you said it leaves no middle ground and certainly doesn’t support any non-Catholic position against transubstantiation and the Eucharistic Real Presence.

God bless you Duane.

 

[Duane1966]

Yeah, I think I read that one but I didn’t think you guys needed my (name removed by moderator)ut then, so I just lurked.

I agree with you 100% and I thanks for supplying that source from Augustine.

He’s either an idolater or a faithful Catholic/Christian and as you said it leaves no middle ground and certainly doesn’t support any non-Catholic position against transubstantiation and the Eucharistic Real Presence.

God bless you Duane.

Thank you. May He bless you and yours also.

 

[Wesrock]

He was writing instructions for Christians in the 5th century. Christ’s body had been assumed into heaven 400 years before. Why would he need to clarify this?

Sorry for the multiple posting, I don’t think I spoke to this directly. He was illustrating his rule, not making a profound statement. That, in itself, should be sufficient.

Even with that said, yes, it was the 5th century. There were still many pagans. Atheists and non-Christians today try to challenge us on distinguishing between allegory/figurative language/literalness when it comes different parts of the Bible. Why would it have been any different then? If anything, it would provide a talking point for any Christian trying to meet a pagan’s challenge. It’s not as ridiculous as you might think.

 

[po18guy]

The utter confusion of the reformation. Fr. Mitch Pacwa rightly describes the reformation as an assault on the Holy Eucharist. For 2,000 years without doubt, it has been the true presence of Christ in both east and west. After 1,500+ years, one, then two, then three Europeans were suddenly and collectively convicted that it was not. They convinced others to follow them. As much as they trumpet faith, faith, faith, they lost the faith of their youth, some utterly and entirely when it came to believing in the Holy Eucharist. They were lead by a spirit to disbelief, and it was not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus can neither deceive nor be deceived. He handed out what for all the world appeared to be bread and wine, but said that it was not. Creation is absolutely subject to Creator. What changed? Jesus or the bread and wine?

 

[susanlo]

There may have been different connotations for sign, symbol and figurative. However I do not believe that the ancient definitions of any of these words actually meant literal physical transformation (or transubstantiation).

And there is the crux of the matter, what you believe. And yet, Schaff, Stone, Kelly, Mcgrath, all prominent respected Protestant historians, recognized experts on early church history, flat out contradict you.

Schaff, Stone, Kelly and McGrath say that the words sign, symbol and figurative used by early theologians in the Eucharist mean exactly what transubstantiation means? That isn’t what I read. I know I have read from JND Kelly that the words are taken with different meaning than today. However it is still a symbol. Otherwise the translators should find a more accurate word to translate it to.

I am not familiar with all of those writers, but I know that JND Kelly and Alister McGrath are both Anglicans who believe in some degree of the “real presence” themselves, so declaring them to be on the “protestant” side of this argument is a bit inaccurate.

And if it has not physically changed, than he is commanding idolatry. Because if the bread remains, no matter how holy it has become, if it has not changed, then in essence, it is still bread. To command adoration of anything that is not fully God, is the definition of idolatry.

I believe I said before that I do not understand exactly what Augustine means by adoration. I know in modern-day Roman Catholic churches adoration is where people will go into the sanctuary to pray in close proximity to the transubstantiated bread. I don’t think this is what Augustine is referring to. In Schaff’s description he seems to say that it was bowing of the knee. I do think that Augustine believed that there was a spiritual presence and holiness in the elements so this would make sense.

I am new to learning about Catholicism, but I know people who kiss icons and statues and see in Catholic churches people bow down in front of statues of Mary. I am told that this isn’t idolatry and people don’t pray to the statues, but what the statues represent. So why does bowing the knee have to mean that the object has physically changed. Couldn’t it be a way to honor that it is consecrated and holy? Couldn’t it be meaningful because (like a statue) it is taken to be what it represents? What is particular about adoration that is different than the other ways venerating statues and symbols?

 

[Wesrock]

Catholics distinguish between latria, the worship and adoration appropriate to God alone, and dulia which is honor/reverance/veneration that is given to saints, relics, or what have you. Adoration is generally used for latria. That’s just a general comment. I believe this language was already in use during Augustine’s time. I’ll leave it to others to speak further on that particular passage, at least until I’m out of work and can focus on it.

 

[Duane1966]

Schaff, Stone, Kelly and McGrath say that the words sign, symbol and figurative used by early theologians in the Eucharist mean exactly what transubstantiation means?

What they are saying, is that those words have a vastly different meaning than there is today. Look up the Lutheran theologian Harnack. Many consider him the leading linguistic expert of the twentieth century on the Latin language of that time period. He flat out says in looking not only at early church documents, but a vast number of secular documents from that time period, that those three words have an opposite meaning now than they did then. You have yet to show me one historian, or linguistic expert that agrees with you. Every early church father believed that all of the elements of the Eucharist became fully Jesus. None of what looked like bread, was actually bread after the blessing. That is what all those historians I quoted have said is meant by the Real Presence. If not one crumb of bread remains bread, than that precisely fits the definition of transubstantiation.

Otherwise the translators should find a more accurate word to translate it to.

Would you accept a more accurate translation, knowing that your arguments then fail? If you do not accept the evidence that is presented now, I doubt if changing the language would appease you.

I am not familiar with all of those writers, but I know that JND Kelly and Alister McGrath are both Anglicans who believe in some degree of the “real presence” themselves, so declaring them to be on the “protestant” side of this argument is a bit inaccurate.

So you think their scholarship is biased? You do not believe they can rise above such biases, and present the truth?

I believe I said before that I do not understand exactly what Augustine means by adoration. I know in modern-day Roman Catholic churches adoration is where people will go into the sanctuary to pray in close proximity to the transubstantiated bread. I don’t think this is what Augustine is referring to. In Schaff’s description he seems to say that it was bowing of the knee. I do think that Augustine believed that there was a spiritual presence and holiness in the elements so this would make sense.

I am new to learning about Catholicism, but I know people who kiss icons and statues and see in Catholic churches people bow down in front of statues of Mary. I am told that this isn’t idolatry and people don’t pray to the statues, but what the statues represent. So why does bowing the knee have to mean that the object has physically changed. Couldn’t it be a way to honor that it is consecrated and holy? Couldn’t it be meaningful because (like a statue) it is taken to be what it represents? What is particular about adoration that is different than the other ways venerating statues and symbols?

Adoration, is, and has always been, the highest form of worship. From the beginning of Christianity, to give adoration to anything or anyone besides God, has always been considered idolatry. And yet Augustine, knowing to command adoration of anything but God would be commanding idolatry, still commands it of the Eucharist. Hmmm

 

[petra22]

Doesn’t even have the air of figurative speech to my ears, nor to the ears of His audience at the time. He went to special care to find the words which portrayed the meaning of what He was speaking of. If there are groups who protest the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, that is a matter between them and God. I am certainly in no place to judge, as I myself am a late life convert to the Catholic view of the real presence. But once seen, I can now no longer un-see it. This is a set of tumblers, that at least for me, fell permanently into place. The real presence has changed my life in virtually every way. Thanks be to God. I encourage fellow Christians to pray the Gospel of John, slowly, and meditatively, over a period of time, with the Holy Spirit, and understanding of the languages, and times. More than any other written material, it is the Gospel of John where the spirit spoke to me, leading me in conversion.

This is beautiful and I hope the OP reads and listens and opens his heart… I think he says he believes in the Real Presence but wonder how many of us FEEL it the way you have described! Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

The utter confusion of the reformation. Fr. Mitch Pacwa rightly describes the reformation as an assault on the Holy Eucharist. For 2,000 years without doubt, it has been the true presence of Christ in both east and west. After 1,500+ years, one, then two, then three Europeans were suddenly and collectively convicted that it was not. They convinced others to follow them. As much as they trumpet faith, faith, faith, they lost the faith of their youth, some utterly and entirely when it came to believing in the Holy Eucharist. They were lead by a spirit to disbelief, and it was not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus can neither deceive nor be deceived. He handed out what for all the world appeared to be bread and wine, but said that it was not. Creation is absolutely subject to Creator. What changed? Jesus or the bread and wine?

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

Jon