S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Tell me Randy, is there a distinction between a Real Presence and a Physical Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First answer my question: at the Methodist (or Presbyterian) communion table, does the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ after consecration or not?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
I see you are still afraid to answer questions. You didn’t ask me the question first, I asked you. But no, the bread and wine does not become Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity. Now answer my question. Is there is distinction in your thoughts between a physical presence and a real presence?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ah, Sola. Charming as ever. How nice of you to drop in on a pleasant discussion I’m having with Brian. Tell me, does your first sentence above reflect the love of Christ in any way at all? Is this what your faith community teaches you about loving one’s neighbor as yourself?
In answer to your question, it depends on what YOU mean by “real presence”. There is a fascinating article on the history of the term “real presence” available at:
chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_6.htm
Given that “real presence” was predominantly brought into use by Anglicans who were trying to sound as Catholic as possible while denying transubstantiation, I would say that Catholics obviously use the term very differently.
For us, Jesus is present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in the Eucharist. That is a REAL, objective, corporeal presence. Protestants who use the term “real presence” are moving in the right direction, and I applaud their “high view” of communion, but they still cling to a purely “spiritual” view which is at odds with scripture.
I think that a careful reading of this fair and balanced article will facilitate our discussion…let me know what you think of it.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
It was just an observation. Almost every time I ask you a question you don’t answer, but instead pose your own question.
It does not depend on what I mean, because I asked YOU about your position. Still not wanting to answer questions I see. Instead you resort to your favorite diversionary tactic of linking to an article.
So are you saying Transubstantiation was always believed before Anglicanism came along?
What about the early fathers? Do you think any/many of them held to “purely ‘spiritual’” view which is at odds with scripture?
If the article will facilitate the discussions then make the significant points the article make and take them on as your own.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Transubstantiation was taught from the begining, the Apostles passed down the teaching to the early Church 1500 years before Anglicanism appeared. Surely not all early Christians knew the depth of truth of what happens when the bread and wine are consecrated, prior to the fourth Lateran council in 1215. This is when the Church finally decided to dogmatize the teaching into “transubstantiation” because the first major objection to this truth sprang up in 1080 (a thousand years post Jesus’ resurection) by Berengarius of Tours followed by a few more heterodox objectors, and therefore the Church decided to formally dogmatize what happens at the concecration of the Eucharist. However, the truth of transubstatiation was always taught since the time of the Apostles just not known to the same depth of reason. Many years prior by the 11th century the word transsubstantiari became the preferred word then transbustantiation to crystalize and define for good this truth.
The early fathers are only “at odds” with Protestantism not with Scripture nor Catholicism. I’m sure you’ve seen these quotes before…
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology **66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
[/quote]
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Why didn’t they all know this if the Apostles taught it from the beginning? It is not a lot of depth to know that the bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Are you serious? Anyone who has done the slightest bit of investigation into this issue realizes there were up to 3 or 4 different views on this in the early church. So to claim the first major objection to this truth was in 1080 is just another example of how the abuse Scripture and History is so prevalent amongst Catholics in their defense of mother church.
Yeah, of course. Whatever is taught today by Rome was always taught, believed, or is the truth no matter what history says. As one Catholic theologian says, if the Catholic church defines what we see as black, is white, then we should believe it is white.
This is just a silly statement without any attempt at being grounded in any objective truth.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But you would be wrong as I am about to demonstrate. I know you hate long posts because you refuse to read anything and learn, but you’ll have to bear with me this time.
I’m going to begin by explaining why the ECF’s often wrote of the Eucharist as symbolic, then I’m going to refute your assertion about Augustine. Sit back and relax…this might take awhile.
There are several reasons why the ECF’s wrote of the symbolic nature of the Eucharst. First, they did so because the Bread and Wine can be thought of in both symbolic and literal ways. As an analogy, the Pentagon is literally a five-sided building in Washington that houses our nation’s top military brass. Symbolically, it represents the power of the United States. Literally, the World Trade Center was a complex of buildings in New York most frequently represented by the Twin Towers. Symbolically, the towers represented the economic power of the US economy. Both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center have projected meaning throughout the world which is why they were targetted on September 11.
Similarly, the Bread and Wine are powerful symbols of the reality that is obscure from human senses. Catholics might even be able to agree with much if not most or all of the language used by non-Catholics in describing the symbolic aspects of communion with the understanding that we ALSO hold the reality of transubstantiation. For us, it is “both-and” while for you, it is “either-or”
Second, the ECF’s were members of a persecuted Church that was forced to be very discreet about its beliefs in the Eucharist due to charges of cannibalism, etc. from a hostile Roman empire. Not even catechumens were allowed to witness the consecration or know the fullness of the mystery until their reception into the Church. Even today, catechumens attend the Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the mass) and are dismissed to attend a special class in another part of the Church while mass continues with the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This harkens back to that earlier time. Given this historical background, it is not surprising that some ECF’s spoke in vague or “purely spiritual” terms to avoid conflict with the governmental authorities.
Third, the ECF’s often wrote of the Eucharist in a spiritual sense precisely in order to teach the young Church the full meaning of the Sacrament. Even the Apostle Paul complained to the Corinthians that some people were “getting drunk” at their “love feasts”. By preaching eloquently on the “spiritual” aspect of the Eucharist, the Fathers raised thoughts of their hearers to a more heavenly plateau.
Fourth, the ECF’s often spoke in the ways just described precisely because there was no opposition in the Early Church to the literal interpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper discourse. Due to heretical opposition, we modern Catholics are much more careful and precise about our choice of words when speaking of the Eucharist, but the ECF’s did not have to be so concerned about being misunderstood - at least initially. When there is unanimity or strong general consensus about a matter, then some poetic license is acceptable. The Fathers should not be faulted if they wrote in terms that did not anticipate the lack of faith that would follow centuries later.
Finally, it cannot be ignored that some of the ECF’s were simply in error. The Church has listened to the voices of all her sons and daughters for 2,000 years, and she has honored the words of some while passing by others in silence. Origen is thought to have been one of the greatest theological minds of the early Church - but he is not a saint. Nor is Tertullian. Some of what these Fathers wrote is brilliant and helpful, but not all. Each Father must be judged on the entirety of his thought - and not just on an isolated line or two clipped out of context as a “proof-text”.
Which brings us to Augustine.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m not going to pretend to be a student of Augustine. I attempted to read the Confessions years ago and was bored by it. I know only the basics of his life’s story. However, others have studied his writings more carefully, and they can speak more capably than I.
The following article explains Augustine’s thought and provides 20 quotations which illustrate the absurdity of the idea that Augustine viewed the Eucharist as purely symbolic. this is Protestant wishful thinking.
St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence
By David Armstrong
One of the great theological champions quoted by both Protestants and Catholics to bolster their perspective positions on the meaning of many theological issues is St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He is best known for two of his writings, his “Confessions” and “The City of God,” and also for his devastating defense against the Pelagian heresy.
Because of this universal popularity, it is important to hear his personal testimony about the Real Presence* of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine.
This great Church Father made many statements which have been traditionally seized upon by Protestant theologians as evidence of his adoption of either a purely symbolic or Calvinistic notion of the Lord’s Supper. Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, commented on this use:
**
The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does not exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence …
**
When in the Fathers’ writings, esp. those of St. Augustine, side by side with the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also, the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages: (1) The Early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10); (2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression, to which must be added the lack of a developed terminology to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth; (3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as ‘the sign of unity’ (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence. pp.377-8:
During my own journey to the Catholic Church, I was voraciously studying people like Dollinger, Salmon and Kung, in order to refute Catholic claims to infallibility. I remember my own use of this approach. I claimed that St. Augustine adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist. I based this on his oft-stated notion of the sacrament as symbol or sign. But I failed to realize, however, that I was arbitrarily creating a false, logically unnecessary dichotomy between the sign and the reality of the Eucharist, for St. Augustine. When all of his remarks on the subject are taken into account, it is very difficult to argue that he didn’t accept the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For Augustine, the Eucharist, objectively speaking, is both sign *and *reality. There simply is no contradiction.
A cursory glance at Scripture confirms this general principle. For instance, Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah, comparing the prophet Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the fish to His own burial in the earth (Mt 12:38-40). In this case, both events, although described as signs, were quite real indeed. Jesus also uses the terminology of sign in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is believed by all Christians to be a literal event, and not symbolic only.
Given this introduction, consider now the following statements made by St. Augustine which strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:
The following article explains Augustine’s thought and provides 20 quotations which illustrate the absurdity of the idea that Augustine viewed the Eucharist as purely symbolic. this is Protestant wishful thinking.
St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence
By David Armstrong
One of the great theological champions quoted by both Protestants and Catholics to bolster their perspective positions on the meaning of many theological issues is St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He is best known for two of his writings, his “Confessions” and “The City of God,” and also for his devastating defense against the Pelagian heresy.
Because of this universal popularity, it is important to hear his personal testimony about the Real Presence* of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine.
This great Church Father made many statements which have been traditionally seized upon by Protestant theologians as evidence of his adoption of either a purely symbolic or Calvinistic notion of the Lord’s Supper. Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, commented on this use:
**
The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does not exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence …
**
When in the Fathers’ writings, esp. those of St. Augustine, side by side with the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also, the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages: (1) The Early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10); (2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression, to which must be added the lack of a developed terminology to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth; (3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as ‘the sign of unity’ (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence. pp.377-8:
During my own journey to the Catholic Church, I was voraciously studying people like Dollinger, Salmon and Kung, in order to refute Catholic claims to infallibility. I remember my own use of this approach. I claimed that St. Augustine adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist. I based this on his oft-stated notion of the sacrament as symbol or sign. But I failed to realize, however, that I was arbitrarily creating a false, logically unnecessary dichotomy between the sign and the reality of the Eucharist, for St. Augustine. When all of his remarks on the subject are taken into account, it is very difficult to argue that he didn’t accept the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For Augustine, the Eucharist, objectively speaking, is both sign *and *reality. There simply is no contradiction.
A cursory glance at Scripture confirms this general principle. For instance, Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah, comparing the prophet Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the fish to His own burial in the earth (Mt 12:38-40). In this case, both events, although described as signs, were quite real indeed. Jesus also uses the terminology of sign in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is believed by all Christians to be a literal event, and not symbolic only.
Given this introduction, consider now the following statements made by St. Augustine which strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
- The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ.{Sermo* 227; on p.377}*
- Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.”* {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}*
- Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it.* {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}*
- Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}
- He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring.* {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}*
- Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.* {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}*
- What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.* {Ibid., 272; on p.32}*
- Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.* {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}*
- The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side.* {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}*
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
- The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank.* {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}*
- Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}
- Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . .* {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}*
- He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body.* {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}*
- The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?”* {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}*
- Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering.* {Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66}*
- Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son ofwas that Eucharist. (Denis, 3, 3; on p. 66)
- The entire Church observes the tradition delivered to us by the Fathers, namely, that for those who have died in the fellowship of the Body and Blood of Christ, prayer should be offered when they are commemorated at the actual Sacrifice in its proper place, and that we should call to mind that for them, too, that Sacrifice is offered.(Sermo, 172, 2; 173, 1; De Cura pro mortuis, 6; De Anima et ejus Origine, 2, 21; on p. 69)
- We do pray for the other dead of whom commemoration is made. Nor are the souls of the faithful departed cut off from the Church . . . Were it so, we should not make commemoration of them at the altar of God when we receive the Body of Christ. (Sermo 159,1; cf. 284, 5; 285, 5; 297, 3; City of God, 20, 9, 2; cf. 21,24; 22, 8; on p. 69)
- It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. (Ep. 54, 8; on p. 71)
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
It is not so much long posts that I hate, but more so long cut-n-paste when a question is asked. You should be able to address the question directly without providing me a link to an article that I have to pick through and hopefully find the answer to my direct question.
Yeah I know, I have heard this line of argument before, but facts and patristic scholars stand against you and modern day catholic apologist who tortured everything that doesn’t agree with modern day Rome.
Yes, but these fathers deny or never affirm a physical presence. So whereas you are right one could hold to both, that is not the case.
Well, why would some speak openly about it if that was the problem? This line of argument does not line up with the facts. There is nothing in the ECFs that shows they were afraid to affirm a physical presence if they believe in it. Furthermore, we see this in 4th and 5th century.
Even if this is true it doesn’t explain the denial of physical presence.
This is just speculation and reading back into history something to explain those disagreements. Do you have any concrete evidence for this reasoning?
Yes, of course. Well, don’t try to explain their position away, but instead just admit they were wrong based on Rome teachings today. That is the more intellectually honest position.
Catholics would do well to heed this advice when quoting the fathers, even Tertullian and Origen when they think they agree with them.
Yes, let the games begin.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Randy,
Before we dig into Augustine I want to understand the following from you. I know you don’t like to answer direct questions, but hopefully you will make an exception and answer these without cutting-n-pasting 5 pages or pointing me to a link that contains 5pages.
Before we dig into Augustine I want to understand the following from you. I know you don’t like to answer direct questions, but hopefully you will make an exception and answer these without cutting-n-pasting 5 pages or pointing me to a link that contains 5pages.
*]Is there a distinction in your thoughts between physical presence and real presence? You never answered that question.
*]Do you understand Augustine’s view on Sacraments in general. If so could you please briefly state it?
These questions are important when attempting to understand Augustine’s position.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
If you had given me the courtesy of reading the article on the Real Presence, you would have learned a little something and understood the difficulties posed by the term which has different meanings for different groups. Here are my answers:
1.When a Catholic uses the term “real presence” he means far more than does the Methodist. I lean to an understanding of Jesus as being physically present in the Eucharist, but I also reserve the right to clarify my understanding after reviewing the distinctions between “sacramental” and "physical’ presence. As I wrote previously, “For us, Jesus is present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in the Eucharist. That is a REAL, objective, corporeal presence.” If that is what YOU mean by “physical”, fine. Perhaps you might define the terms “physical presence” and “real presence” in your own words so that I can see if I agree with your definitions.- As I stated in a previous post, I know little or nothing of Augustine, and I will not be drawn into a discussion about him for which I am ill-prepared. I am satisfied, however, that other Catholics have addressed the fallacy of Protestant “proof-texting” of ancient Catholics in their arguments against modern Catholics. That said, could you perhaps provide the details of your own academic credentials that qualify you to speak on the subject of Augustine?
“To be regarded as a Father, one must have orthodox doctrine; but this does not exclude all doctrinal error. An occasional material heresy can be found even in the greater lights among the Fathers. It does imply, however, a devotion to orthodoxy and a faithful adherence to the orthodox Church.”
You may have the last word.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Transubstantiation was a term used to describe what taught from Christ as the Trinity was described what was taught from the begining yet not properly understood. I suppose you haven’t heard of the development of Christian doctrine? Did Jesus say I am a part of a Trinity? No, He left that to the Apostles and their successors to delve deeper into understanding what was always taught.
Who’s the “Anyone?” Any Protestant can make any claim about the early Church they wish, and a bishop or priest can get it wrong from time-to-time. Can you show me where there was a major objection to the Eucharist before 1080?
History? Are you going to tell me next that sola Scriptura was taught by the Church fathers? Or perhaps Protestantism actually started before Oct 31, 1517? Secular historians (who by the way affirm Catholicism and its claims on many issues)
never speak of Protestantism prior to the reformation.
ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)“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)
“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm
Yes, it sure doesn’t look like Augustine was a Protestant.
Right, according to your subjectiveness which is here nor there. I’ll stick to the objective truth. Take the plain reading and it is Catholic.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
I don’t see why the question is that difficult for you to answer. Let me try it this way, is the only real presence is a physical presence? In other words, if Christ is not physically presence do you believe it is impossible for him to be presence in a real sense? BTW, I didn’t use “sacramental” presence that is your word.
This is interesting. You admit to knowing nothing of Augustine, but yet you know the small group of Catholic apologist you count on are right in what they say about him. Have you read any Patristic scholars from either the Protestant or the Catholic side or do you only count on proof-texting apologists?
BTW, does any of those Catholics who addressed the fallacy of Protestant explain Augustine’s view on sacraments?
If this is so true then I wonder why Catholics often feel it is necessary to distort the teaching of a father? Why not just say he was in error on that particular doctrine?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
You keep begging the question.
Anyone who has studied the ECFs position on the Eucharist and not just proof-text him for polemical purposes. For example, can you quote a Patristic scholar( Roman Catholic, Protestant, or EO) that agrees with this assessment?
Catholics apologistics 101. Divert conversation to sola Scriptura, and when discussing sola Scriptura divert to Canon. If discussing Canon divert to sola Scriptura.
Proof-texting at its best right here. Why don’t you answer the two questions I posed to Randy before I expose your proof-texts above for what they are. Oh BTW, we see Catholic Apologetics 101 again. Just because a father doesn’t agree with Catholicism ask them if they think the father is a Protestant.
B
Bishopite
Guest
It seems all you are doing is giving your subjective opinion. I’ve given evidence not just commentary.
And thanks for bringing up J.N.D. Kelly.
“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1)."
Yes, I have his book.
You mentioned St. Athanasius. Here is what he believed about the Eucharist.
“You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,
-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D
B
Bishopite
Guest
B
Bishopite
Guest
It doesn’t neccesarily matter what my thoughts are about physical nor real presence, what matters is history, Scripture and a rational conclusion gives distinct evidence of an authorative Church established by Christ Jesus which leads me to what is true. 1 Tim 3:15.
*]
Enough to know he was Catholic and in agreement with the Catholic Church.
Let me guess, you are going to give us the “real” view of Augustine?
- Status