Real Presence Apologetics

[rcwitness]

Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Greek: Ἰγνάτιος Ἀντιοχείας, also known as Theophorus from Greek Θεοφόρος “God-bearer”) ((c. 35 or 50) - (from 98 to 117))[1] was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

peace
Michael

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is no ignorance of history. There are several key questions in regard to your statement, but this isn’t what the thread is about.

And then the answer is that there was indeed a church, but a church based on faith in Christ, love, etc… and in the beginning there were so few Christians they did indeed tend to gather in small groups based on community. For example, the first community was the church at Jerusalem, with James as its organizational head. The church indeed branched, RCC is a branch, Orthodox is a branch, etc… One body, One Head (Christ), many members.

The scriptures are the earliest source, obviously. After that, there are ECF’s and there are early Christian writers. We have a small percentage of these early teachings and writings, and they don’t represent a monolith of belief. We also know that churches were going astray even when Paul was alive and still preaching. Again, this is all about a difference we see in scripture and what was promised. You and I simply do not agree on what God promised His followers at the beginning of the church age; in the scriptures I don’t see an infallible organizational church with one infallible leader (the pope), that was promised infallibility in what it teaches. But that isn’t what the thread is specifically about.

Of course there were churches going astray during the Apostles, we are people - we are really good at messing things up!

However, this doesn’t go against facts.

Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr - to name a few - are all extremely early writers.

The pattern I have seen in these exchanges is:

Non-C – There was no early church writings.
C – Shows early church writings

Non-C – Ok, so there are some early church writings. But I don’t see a massive amount of writings or a universal unanimous agreement.
C – Shows more early church writings consistent with the development of the church.

Non-C – Ok, but I don’t see a Pope that was universal and infallible in the early church.
C – While it wasn’t in the same way it was today, we can show how the Pope has had a leadership role since St. Peter. No Pope has taught heresy.

Non-C – Ok, but the Church split and it is now impossible to tell which one is right.

And it goes on and on and on and on…

But, do you see the same pattern I am seeing?

There is a predetermined reason to deny any claims from the Catholic Church. If it’s not one thing, then it is another.

Bottom line - a decision seems to have been already made, so we are just talking past the other.

In regards to the Real Presence -

If the witness from Catholics and Orthodox is not enough to convince you. You are at the mercy of Christ.

Christ have mercy on you to give you understanding and Christ have mercy on us for not being able to relay the message properly. I sure don’t want to give up, but I don’t know what else to say

 

[Kliska]

Of course there were churches going astray during the Apostles, we are people - we are really good at messing things up!

Then we must admit that just because there are people in Christianity teaching a certain thing at a certain time does not make it true. We also agree that what the apostles directly taught and affirmed are absolutely true, but that some of the people they directly taught got it wrong, and in fact their teachings infected whole church congregations. Again, our points go back to the promises of God; what He promised, or what He didn’t promise. That is a basis for the argumentation, and the answer to that is what we don’t agree on.

The pattern I have seen in these exchanges is:

Non-C – There was no early church writings.
C – Shows early church writings

I’m sorry, but this is a rhetorical exchange based on straw men arguments. For example, I know of no conversation where someone says “there are no early church writings.” Every Christian that believes in the Bible affirms early church writings. Do you see how that is misrepresenting “my” side?

Non-C – Ok, so there are some early church writings. But I don’t see a massive amount of writings or a universal unanimous agreement.
C – Shows more early church writings consistent with the development of the church.

Again, I can show scripture and writings that don’t support a somatic, real presence via transubstantiation, esp. when looked at in light of the OT culture, and the philosophical culture of some of the early writers. BUT, that’s not what this thread was started for, rather, it is asking for people’s favorite or strongest apologetics sources for the transubstantiation position.

But, do you see the same pattern I am seeing?

No, I don’t.

There is a predetermined reason to deny any claims from the Catholic Church. If it’s not one thing, then it is another.

Bottom line - a decision seems to have been already made, so we are just talking past the other.

Again, I’ve made no bones about the fact I do not believe in transubstantiation, that is not what this thread was about. I am open to being wrong, and I enjoy researching these topics to see if I’m wrong or not. This thread is my source of references to those works that people have found particularly helpful in understanding and believing transubstantiation. It is not to convince anyone of the opposite view, though, as always, this thread got a bit sidetracked.

In regards to the Real Presence -

If the witness from Catholics and Orthodox is not enough to convince you. You are at the mercy of Christ.

Christ have mercy on you to give you understanding and Christ have mercy on us for not being able to relay the message properly. I sure don’t want to give up, but I don’t know what else to say

It isn’t your job, nor any other human’s job to convince me. I do believe that the Holy Spirit can use the words of others, but it is ultimately up to Him. I’m always at the mercy of Christ regardless of topic, and that mercy flows freely to me because of Him and all He has done, praise God! As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t trust my own understanding, nor other humans, but I do trust His 100%. I will go where I feel He leads. Regardless, I feel this thread has been enlightening for everyone involved.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It isn’t your job, nor any other human’s job to convince me.

I didn’t say convince, I said relay the message.

We don’t convert anyone, Christ does.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

. Do you see how that is misrepresenting “my” side?

I was speaking in general terms and not you specifically. Although, it always seems that what is presented is never enough. That is what I was attempting to get at, that regardless of what is presented a new argument or road block is brought up.

 

[Kliska]

I didn’t say convince, I said relay the message.

We don’t convert anyone, Christ does.

As I said, the Holy Spirit.

I was speaking in general terms and not you specifically. Although, it always seems that what is presented is never enough. That is what I was attempting to get at, that regardless of what is presented a new argument or road block is brought up.

But in the world of formal argumentation and also just conversing, do you understand that I can flip that around as well? If you go to a “protestant” web forum you’ll see the same “frustration” with the conversations with Catholics; all the info needed is provided, but it is never enough for the Roman Catholics. In short, that is why trying to convince someone of a certain perspective very rarely works, it is the person that is seeking that needs to have an inner response if it is called for, that’s why I read so many perspectives on what I’m studying; it’s up to me and the Spirit… mainly the Spirit. lol

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As I said, the Holy Spirit.

Many of us say that , and still we can’t agree…

But in the world of formal argumentation and also just conversing, do you understand that I can flip that around as well? If you go to a “protestant” web forum you’ll see the same “frustration” with the conversations with Catholics; all the info needed is provided, but it is never enough for the Roman Catholics. In short, that is why trying to convince someone of a certain perspective very rarely works, it is the person that is seeking that needs to have an inner response if it is called for, that’s why I read so many perspectives on what I’m studying; it’s up to me and the Spirit… mainly the Spirit. lol

I was on the flip side of that coin for years. You are now getting into Relative Christianity.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

ETA: I’m not saying you hate the Church, but that Her teaching is confused by some members like me - thus it is better to listen to the Magisterium, who are the servants from the Great Commission.

 

[Kliska]

I was on the flip side of that coin for years. You are now getting into Relative Christianity.

There is no relative Christianity, there is only The Truth, on that I know we can agree, though we disagree on the detail. lol One of the important things is that we do agree that Jesus is the Truth, as well as being The Way, amongst other things. As we dialogue, as all Christians dialogue, that fact is so important to keep in mind. Also, you believe the Holy Spirit fully capable of leading and guiding me, as I believe He is capable of leading and guiding you.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

ETA: I’m not saying you hate the Church, but that Her teaching is confused by some members like me - thus it is better to listen to the Magisterium, who are the servants from the Great Commission.

I find it best to learn about different beliefs, churches, etc… from “all directions.” Reading the writings of the Pope(s), the Catechism, and being able to talk to actual practicing and knowledgeable Catholics is invaluable in helping me to get the facts straight, and to see the practical and utilitarian aspects of the RCC. I truly appreciate all the (name removed by moderator)ut I received in this thread, and on the other boards as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Also, you believe the Holy Spirit fully capable of leading and guiding me, as I believe He is capable of leading and guiding you.

I also believe that you and I are capable of misunderstand the Holy Spirit.

I find it best to learn about different beliefs, churches, etc… from “all directions.”

I agree with this, I am an investigator by trade. However, we must draw a line based on the findings and be able to weigh the evidence we have gathered and make a reasonable and honest determination of the findings. This is really difficult to do on our own, as we all deal with out preconceived opinions and prejudices. So I applaud your effort to go out and study.

 

[Kliska]

I also believe that you and I are capable of misunderstand the Holy Spirit.

No doubt, but He has the capability as God to make sure He gets His message across one way or another… I prefer it when I catch on quick.

I agree with this, I am an investigator by trade. However, we must draw a line based on the findings and be able to weigh the evidence we have gathered and make a reasonable and honest determination of the findings. This is really difficult to do on our own, as we all deal with out preconceived opinions and prejudices. So I applaud your effort to go out and study.

This is why I do bring up the Spirit a lot, along with the Son and the Father. We, thankfully, aren’t alone, and we have the model of how He deals with mankind in the form of Jesus and His interactions with His apostles and disciples. My faith is in Him, and I know my faith is well founded. Anyone who places their faith in Him can be assured of their foundation, and we are promised that if we seek Him, we find Him, if we call upon Him, He answers, not because of ourselves, but because of Him. I believe that, and Him, wholeheartedly.