SPLIT:The Real Presence

[JPrejean]

Thanks, Mickey!

For Sola Scriptura and anyone else who might want an introduction to Catholic metaphysics (which would help get some of these terms like “material” and “formal” straight in other contexts as well), Anthony Rizzi’s The Science before Science is a good introduction. It will get across the basic reasons for the categories, so the more complicated applications (like the Eucharist) can be better understood.

 

[SolaScriptura]

DAVE ARMSTRONG CONTINUES HIS RESPONSE
It is incorrect (to put it mildly) to say that I have provided citations improperly. Schaff and Kelly both clearly show their Protestant bias, and come down more on the side of a symbolic eucharistic belief of Augustine. Yet they acknowledge that he was (in some sense) a “realist” or “literalist” too. This is the key: they admit that he had both elements in his view. Catholics are saying that they can be harmonized: that there need not be any conflict or need to suppress one aspect at the expense of the other.

Mr. Armstrong is confused on a number of points. First he claims Schaff and Kelly show their Protestant bias by coming down on a more symbolic belief for Augustine. This is false. Both Kelly and Schaff deny Augustine had a symbolic view even though he does speak of symbols , signs, and figures. The both affirm Augustine believed in the real presence. How many times do I have to repeat this? Their point is that Augustine’s “real presence” is not a physical presence, but instead a spiritual presence. And there is no suppression in this view. Is Mr. Armstrong reading the response or just responding to what he thinks I’m saying?

Kelly in particular, exhibits considerable confusion. I think he himself doesn’t know how to put the two strains of Augustine’s thought together. He seems to think they conflict, so he opts more for the “symbolic” aspect (as we would expect a good Protestant to do). I cite the revised 1978 edition of Early Christian Doctrines:

Kelly has no problem attributing views to the fathers that go against Protestant views throughout the book. Even on this topic he does the same, but all of sudden with Augustine on the Eucharist he lets his Protestant biases get in the way. According to you the same thing is true of Philip Schaff. This is special pleading on your part. Kelly is a much more unbiased source than Mr. Dave Armstrong any day of any week.

His thought about the eucharist, unsystematic and many-sided as it is, is tantalizingly difficult to assess. (p. 446)

Commenting on the Psalmist’s bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the flesh which Christ took from the earth and which He gave us to eat. Thus it was the eucharistic body which demanded adoration. (p. 447)

Reading Augustine on that Psalm is “interesting” to say the least. However, I don’t see where Augustine is saying we should worship the host. Augustine makes the following statement:
“… gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped…”( Augustine, Commentary on Pslam 98.9)

But we know from John 6 when Augustine interprets Christ as giving “flesh to us to eat for our salvation” he is not talking about the bread and wine. Here are some quotes from Augustine’s commentary on John 6 that makes that clear:

Augustine on John 6
This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doubtless neither eateth His flesh [spiritually] nor drinketh His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth]

…

And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that ye eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense

…

“This, then, is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eateth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.

…

And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers.

Nowhere in John 6 does Augustine interpret “flesh” as used by Jesus to be the actual bread, so I don’t see how one would think He is speaking of worshipping the bread/host.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Several questions arise at this point:

1. If what is adored is not the “earth” (which is idolatrous), then what IS adored, in St. Augustine’s view? Is it not Christ Himself?

Of course it is Christ, but this is far from saying the bread is Christ’s body and therefore it is worshipped.

1. If the latter, how is this any different from the Catholic view (in that respect)?

Very different. Augustine never argues or say the bread is changed into the body of Christ. On the contrary he says the very opposite, that is the bread is not the true body of Christ. It is sign of the signified body of Christ.

Augustine thought adoration of the consecrated Host was proper, why does not Calvin (or even the later Luther) follow him in this?

I’m not convinced that Augustine is saying the consecrated Host is what is worshipped. Furthermore, neither am I’m saying Calvin would agree with Augustine on every single point. However, what I am saying is that Augustine general view is more in line with Calvin than Rome. Augustine says it too many times that the bread is not Christ. Furthermore, when Augustine explains his sacramental language one understands what he means when he does say the bread is Christ’s body.

1. Was St. Augustine’s example of adoration not followed because Augustine was in fact an *idolater *(much as Calvin accused – alongside the despised “papists” – also Luther and Lutherans of being, because they believed in the real, substantial presence)?

Doesn’t it naturally follows if someone worships something other than God he is an idolater? I assume you would even agree with that no matter how sincere they were in their beliefs. So why do you act as if Calvin was saying something so horrible?

1. If St. Augustine was an idolater because of his belief in eucharistic adoration, then why is he cited as a supposed precursor to Calvin’s mystical / spiritual eucharistic view (and supposedly more so in line with Calvin than with, say, St. Thomas Aquinas)? He should, rather, be classed as a corrupt “superstitious”, etc., etc. Catholic, in Calvin’s usual derogatory fashion.

He is cited as a precursor of Calvin’s msystical/spiritual Eucharistic view, because that is what he is. A precursor does not mean you agree on every single detail. So even if Augustine thought one should worship the host, I’m not convinced that is his position yet, it doesn’t take away from his saying the bread is not the actual body of Christ elsewhere.

1. Thus, the only reasonable, self-consistent choice seems to be that St. Augustine was much closer to the current Catholic view (in terms of Real, substantial Presence, as opposed to transubstantiation, which was more fully developed later), or else that his statements on the nature of the Eucharist, eucharistic adoration, and eucharistic sacrifice must be explained in a fashion that are contrary to received Catholic teaching.

On the contrary, Augustine’s view on the distinction between the sign and the thing signified and his explaining this in reference to the Lord’s Supper and other things such as the Rock being struck by Moses as an analogy of the same is perfectly consistent’s with Calvin’s view. Calvin also believed in a “Real, substantial Presence” so that doesn’t help your position at all. The difference is in the mode of the “real presence”. Augustine and Calvin are in agreement contrary to Rome that Christ’s body is not physically present in the Eucharist. Furthermore, there was those who believed in a physical presence before, during, and after Augustine so the excuse about later development doesn’t work. He didn’t have to explain it in the terms and reasoning of Transubstantiation to confess Christ’s body was physically presence as others did.

1. The latter is impossible to do; therefore, Augustine must be classed as a (less-developed, but still highly-advanced for his time) Catholic, and the attempt to co-opt him as a forerunner of Calvin’s eucharistic doctrine must be abandoned by the honest historical inquirer.

Prejudicial language, if you don’t agree with Mr. Dave Armstrong then you are not an honest inquirer. Non sequitur, Augustine must be classed as a less-developed Catholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks, Mickey!

For Sola Scriptura and anyone else who might want an introduction to Catholic metaphysics (which would help get some of these terms like “material” and “formal” straight in other contexts as well), Anthony Rizzi’s The Science before Science is a good introduction. It will get across the basic reasons for the categories, so the more complicated applications (like the Eucharist) can be better understood.

Jon-

Thanks for stopping by…I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

 

[Writer]

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.

I could list just as many fathers that denied a physical presence, even the greatest western father of them all, Augustine and Athanasius. Furthermore, even though Ireneaus spoke of a physical presence his view maybe more in line with Lutherans than Catholicism. This is nothing more than typical prooftexting of the fathers by Catholics who quote stuff they don’t really understand or expect Protestants to be ignorant of the material and intimidated. Here are the words of a Patristic scholar and quit feasting on Catholic apologetics website which are too biased to give an objective picture.

"Among theologians, however, this identity * was interpreted in our period [fourth and fifth centuries] in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolic view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support.( J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrines”, pg. 440 )*

I don’t really have an interest in getting into this discussion again, but as a former Free Methodist myself, I had to give my two cents about one reference above concerning Saint Augustine. You mentioned that Saint Augstine had a problem in the Real Presence. If so, where do you find the quote to which you refer? In a presentation I will be giving in a local church next month concerning our conversion/enrichment from the Evangelical tradition to the fullness of the Catholic Church, I quote from Saint Augustine’s *Confessions *concerning the Real Presence. He has a beautiful passage in the seventh book of *Confessions *regarding the transforming nature of the Eucharist. If you’d like it, I’d be happy to forward it when I get back to the house later today. For some reason, I’ve noticed that Protestants sometimes pick and choose very carefuly among this saint’s writings in order to construct a half-hearted defense of their positions. Unfortunately, taking quotes from out of context or adjusting the quote slightly (perhaps for reasons of “translation”) does not really provide the full picture. Saint Augustine was, after all, a Catholic.

 

[Lampo]

Hey Sola…Hope you’re doing well.

John 6:51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The bread which Jesus gives us to eat = His flesh that He shall give for the life of the world

Based on this verse, what is the bread that Jesus wants to give us to eat? Is it not the flesh that He gave for the life of the world? So, the very logical question to ask, based on this verse of Scripture, is this: “Did Jesus give His real flesh or His symbolic flesh for the life of the world?” Which was it?

 

[SolaScriptura]

You mentioned that Saint Augstine had a problem in the Real Presence. If so, where do you find the quote to which you refer?

Nope, I never said he had a problem with a “Real Presence”. I said he had a problem with a “Physical Presence”. The two are distinct.

 

[Randy_Carson]

PHILVAZ RESPONDS ON AUGUSTINE

<< the real position of Augustine is explained by Kelly on p. 448. >>

I don’t quote the later section in Kelly, but I went through this in some detail (10 years ago on FidoNet). Augustine is both symbol and reality, just as Trent which uses the word “symbol” four times. Kelly also is quite clear on the sacrifice aspect in Augustine:"‘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. As Augustine puts it [De civ dei 10:6]…" (From JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, page 454-455.)
[Protestants must] deal with that from Kelly.

And what does this mean from Darwell Stone (the anglo-Catholic, who wrote a large 2-volume study) :“There is like terminology in the West. A canon of the Council of Arles, held in 314 A.D., like the Council of Nicaea eleven years later in the East, incidentally contains the word ‘OFFER’ to describe the work of the presbyters which the deacons might not perform [Canon 15]. St. Optatus of Milevis uses the words ‘SACRIFICE’ and ‘OFFER’ in regard to the Eucharist [2:12]. St. Ambrose says that it is part of the work of the Christian ministry to ‘OFFER SACRIFICE for the people’; that Christ ‘is Himself on earth when the body of Christ is OFFERED’; and that the word of Christ ‘consecrates the SACRIFICE which is OFFERED’ [In Ps 38 Enar 25]. 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. Leo speaks of ‘the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE’ as an act of Christian worship [Serm 26:1; 91:3].” (Stone, volume 1, page 113)
BTW, Darwell Stone is one of Kelly’s own sources (see his bibliography sections for Eucharist in the Fathers).

Consider also Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3:"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, volume 3, page 508)

"Even St. Augustine, with Tertullian, teaches plainly, as an OLD tradition, that the eucharistic sacrifice, the intercessions or -suffragia- and alms, of the living are of benefit to the departed believers, so that the Lord deals more mercifully with them than their sins deserve [Serm 172:2 Latin given]. His noble mother, Monica, when dying, told him he might bury her body where he pleased, and should give himself no concern for it, only she begged of him that he would remember her SOUL at the altar of the Lord [Confess 1:9:27 Latin given]. (Schaff, volume 3, page 510)(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since the Council of Trent uses the word “symbol”, does that mean only symbolic or spiritual presence? “…regarding the doctrine, use and worship of the Sacred Eucharist, which our Savior left in His Church as a SYMBOL of that UNITY and CHARITY with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united…”

“…He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt 26:26f], whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me’ [John 6:58], and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins. He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a SYMBOL of that one body of which He is the Head [1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23] and to which He wished us to be UNITED as members by the closest bond of FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY, that we might ‘all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us’ [1 Cor 1:10].”

“The most Holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the other sacraments, that IT IS A SYMBOL OF A SACRED THING [REALITY] and a visible form of an invisible grace…” (COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session 13, On the Eucharist, Chapters I, II, III)
Augustine does not teach “transubstantiation” or “change of substance” as such – more clear are St. Ambrose in the west, and many eastern Fathers on the “change” (different Greek and Latin words are used for “change” or “convert”).

Nope, you can’t trust Catholic apologists, but you can trust me since I looked this stuff up ages ago. Hee hee.

Phil P

 

[JPrejean]

Nope, I never said he had a problem with a “Real Presence”. I said he had a problem with a “Physical Presence”. The two are distinct.

Then what you really mean is that he had a problem with material presence, and Catholics don’t believe that the Body of Christ is materially present anyway, so there is no disagreement. You are evidently confused about what the Catholics are saying, so you probably need to step back and figure out what we are saying before continuing to violently assault a straw man. Note that you said:

Augustine and Calvin are in agreement contrary to Rome that Christ’s body is not physically present in the Eucharist.

In that sense of “physically” (i.e., “materially”), Rome is also in agreement that Christ is not “physically” present in the Eucharist. But what Calvin means by “spiritual presence” is really just an effect on the soul of believers, and that is not substantial presence (viz., the individual Christ is not present in the Eucharist itself, else Calvin would consider it permissible to adore the Body and Blood). You are wrong to say “Calvin also believed in a ‘Real, substantial Presence.’” He believed in the presence of a real spiritual effect, but not a substantial presence. There’s a difference, and you need to separate four concepts.
(1) Material presence, which no one believes
(2) Substantial presence (i.e., presence of a real substance), which Rome believes and Augustine believed (and probably Luther, albeit incoherently)
(3) Presence of a real spiritual effect (or “spiritual truth”), which Calvin believed to the absolute rejection of (2)
(4) Purely mental presence, in the sense of serving as a “reminder” or “memorial”

Dave Armstrong’s point was that even Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan were forced to admit that both (2) and (3) were present in Augustine (as they are in Catholicism), and that point stands even if Dave mistakenly believed that a few passages about (3) were about (2). In their conclusions, each of these authors admits that Augustine also believed (2), contra Calvin, and they were forced to then argue that Augustine was somehow inconsistent in holding both (2) and (3). But that is practically an impossible task; one has to accept Calvin’s mucked-up metaphysics of the creature/Creator distinction to hold that (2) and (3) conflict with one another.

I really think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one. You seem to have managed to prove conclusively that Calvin CANNOT be reconciled with Augustine, and but for your misunderstanding, it is plain that the Catholic view CAN. In other words, you’ve proved exactly the opposite of what you set out to show.

 

[Writer]

Since the Council of Trent uses the word “symbol”, does that mean only symbolic or spiritual presence?"…regarding the doctrine, use and worship of the Sacred Eucharist, which our Savior left in His Church as a SYMBOL of that UNITY and CHARITY with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united…"

“…He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt 26:26f], whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me’ [John 6:58], and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins. He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a SYMBOL of that one body of which He is the Head [1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23] and to which He wished us to be UNITED as members by the closest bond of FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY, that we might ‘all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us’ [1 Cor 1:10].”“The most Holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the other sacraments, that IT IS A SYMBOL OF A SACRED THING [REALITY] and a visible form of an invisible grace…” (COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session 13, On the Eucharist, Chapters I, II, III)Augustine does not teach “transubstantiation” or “change of substance” as such – more clear are St. Ambrose in the west, and many eastern Fathers on the “change” (different Greek and Latin words are used for “change” or “convert”).

Nope, you can’t trust Catholic apologists, but you can trust me since I looked this stuff up ages ago. Hee hee.

Phil P

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I am having a problem seeing your precise point in the long post above. Here is a short and simple quote from *Confessions, *which is speaking about the Eucharist.

"I am the food of strong men; grow and you shall feed on me; nor shall you change me, like the food of your flesh into yourself, but you shall be changed into my likeness."

Seems to imply transubstantiation to me as well as Real Presence. Could you please cite the Saint Augustine source to which you are referring above? If you posted it already and I missed it…sorry! There was a lot to wade through.

 

[North_Coast]

Randy_Carson:

DAVE ARMSTRONG’S RESPONSE TO SOLA SCRIPTURA
Page 2 of 6

Huh? Don’t understand your posts… Are you trying to copy/paste something else? Why don’t you answer the question that was mentioned before? Do you have a Saint Augustine quote that contradicts that earlier passage from Confessions concerning the Real Presence and transubstantiation?

 

[Writer]

Randy, I understand what you’re doing, but it gets a little old to read your lengthy copy/paste posts. As I recall, it’s also pushing Forum rules to post so much content that is not in your own words.

Here is the passage from the Saint Augustine exposition you refer to earlier.

"…they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” "

I am no expert on Saint Augustine, but this reminds me of a little online debate with a Protestant who made the wearisome argument that taking the Eucharist is akin to engaging in canibalism. I think it is a stretch to take this passage as support that Saint Augustine did not see the transubstantiation as taking place with regards to the Eucharistic elements. I’d suggest what he’s trying to do is inject some common sense into the discussion and emphasize the mysterious and spiritual nature of this transformation–i.e the “accidents” or appearance vs the “substance” or fundamental nature of an object. Taking it in its historical context would, no doubt, also prove helpful.

I still suggest that the beautiful passage below ( from *Confessions) *makes it pretty clear that Saint Augustine believed in transubstantiation in similar terms to how we understand it today.

"I am the food of strong men; grow and you shall feed on me; nor shall you change me, like the food of your flesh into yourself, but you shall be changed into my likeness."

If there is a clearer passage you have at your disposal, please cite it to support your case that Saint Augustine’s view of the Eucharist was in serious error. As an additional aside, I believe that *Confessions *was written about thirty years before this saint passed away, so it would be interesting to know the dates the specific pieces of writing when we’re comparing a possible evolution or change of thinking on the part of this saint.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Then what you really mean is that he had a problem with material presence, and Catholics don’t believe that the Body of Christ is materially present anyway, so there is no disagreement.

What I meant by “material presence” is that Augustine didn’t believe the “matter” which made up Christ’s flesh was synonymous with the bread after the consecration. Augustine was not a proponent of this view though other fathers were. Therefore, J.N.D. Kelly makes a distinction between Augustine ‘s view and the view of a Chrysostom. He quotes Chyrsostom as believing the following:

“He speaks of eating Christ, even of burying one’s teeth in His flesh. The wine in the chalice is identically that which flowed from His pierced side, the body which the communicant receives is identically that which was scourged and nailed to the cross.( J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine” pg. 444 )

Where he quotes Augustine as believing the following:

Why make ready your teeth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten’; or again, ‘To believe in Him is to eat living bread. He Who believes eats, and is invisibly filled, because he is reborn invisibly.’ (.( J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine” pg. 449 )

One speaks of eating the flesh with the teeth, the other speaks of not eating the flesh with the teeth.

You are evidently confused about what the Catholics are saying, so you probably need to step back and figure out what we are saying before continuing to violently assault a straw man. Note that you said:

SolaScriptura:

Augustine and Calvin are in agreement contrary to Rome that Christ’s body is not physically present in the Eucharist.

In that sense of “physically” (i.e., “materially”), Rome is also in agreement that Christ is not “physically” present in the Eucharist.

So what does “physical” presence mean if not materially present?

But what Calvin means by “spiritual presence” is really just an effect on the soul of believers, and that is not substantial presence (viz., the individual Christ is not present in the Eucharist itself, else Calvin would consider it permissible to adore the Body and Blood).

No, Calvin believes Christ is substantially present and believers only( as does Augustine) only truly and really feed on Christ through faith. Along with Augustine he felt distinguished between the sign and the thing signified without separating them. However, as Augustine he believes this body is in heaven and the Host does not contain it, nor is it changed into it. Therefore, why would he worship it?

You are wrong to say “Calvin also believed in a ‘Real, substantial Presence.’” He believed in the presence of a real spiritual effect, but not a substantial presence. There’s a difference, and you need to separate four concepts.

I disagree. For example Calvin says the following:

“For this reason, the Lord instituted for us his Supper, in order to sign and seal in our consciences the promises contained in his gospel concerning our being made partakers of his body and blood; and to give us certainty and assurance that in this consists our true spiritual nourishment;”( John Calvin, “A Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of Our Lord and Only Saviour Jesus Christ” )

And elsewhere Calvin commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:24 says:

Here I reply, that the name of the thing signified is not applied to the sign simply as being a representation of it, but rather as being a symbol of it, by which the reality is presented to us … Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. Hence it is regared by me as beyone all controversy , that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread.

 

[SolaScriptura]

(1) Material presence, which no one believes

(2) Substantial presence (i.e., presence of a real substance), which Rome believes and Augustine believed (and probably Luther, albeit incoherently)

But whereas Rome believes the bread is changed into this real substance, Augustine does not. As shown above Calvin believes in a real substance also though he rejects the bread is changed into a real substance. Furthermore, if the bread is changed into something how is it not materially changed?

(3) Presence of a real spiritual effect (or “spiritual truth”), which Calvin believed to the absolute rejection of (2)

From my reading, this is not Calvin’s view.

(4) Purely mental presence, in the sense of serving as a “reminder” or “memorial”

Dave Armstrong’s point was that even Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan were forced to admit that both (2) and (3) were present in Augustine (as they are in Catholicism), and that point stands even if Dave mistakenly believed that a few passages about (3) were about (2). In their conclusions, each of these authors admits that Augustine also believed (2), contra Calvin, and they were forced to then argue that Augustine was somehow inconsistent in holding both (2) and (3).

I don’t think Kelly and Schaff were “forced to admit” anything, as if they didn’t want to but had no choice. As I told Mr. Armstrong, both authors affirm 2 & 3 and that is not the issue. Schaff also affirmed Calvin believed in both 2 & 3. The issue was the mode of Christ’s presence.

But that is practically an impossible task; one has to accept Calvin’s mucked-up metaphysics of the creature/Creator distinction to hold that (2) and (3) conflict with one another.

Calvin doesn’t believe 2 & 3 necessarily disagree with each other.

 

[Jon_S]

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}

Ha-ha. Proof-texting the ECF’s?

I get “proof-texted” by Protestants all the time.

Is there some other way of interpreting “Christ bore Himself in His hands” that I am missing?

 

[Dominicanis]

But whereas Rome believes the bread is changed into this real substance, Augustine does not. As shown above Calvin believes in a real substance also though he rejects the bread is changed into a real substance. Furthermore, if the bread is changed into something how is it not materially changed?

From my reading, this is not Calvin’s view.

I don’t think Kelly and Schaff were “forced to admit” anything, as if they didn’t want to but had no choice. As I told Mr. Armstrong, both authors affirm 2 & 3 and that is not the issue. Schaff also affirmed Calvin believed in both 2 & 3. The issue was the mode of Christ’s presence.

Calvin doesn’t believe 2 & 3 necessarily disagree with each other.

Sorry to wander in, but the question in this post presents an artificial conflict in that the bread can be materially changed and yet cannot be changed into something that is immaterial. Substance is not synonymous with material; the angels and our souls are made of a substance that is immaterial because they are created. Christ as God has no created substance; it is His human flesh and blood and human soul that contain substance.

After the resurrection, Christ demonstrated control over His body(and presumably His blood) by being both material, as in when He told Thomas to examine His wounds and ate fish, and immaterial, as when He vanished after being recognized by the disciples in the breaking of the bread and passed through the locked door to visit the Apostles. In both cases, His body was a substance that He could will to be material or immaterial as He chose.

In the Eucharist, the bread and wine’s material components are taken away, leaving only their appearance(accidents) and Christ becomes substantially present. He does not have to do so in a material way to be truly present. Just as when He ascended, He moved from earth to Heaven as a man, while as God He didn’t move at all.(Movement is required for those who cannot be in all places at once, as God can.)

Christ spoke of the living bread come down from Heaven as Himself, and identified this bread with His flesh, which He called true food, and His blood was true drink. He was explicit in this regard. Augustine described the Eucharist as worthy of adoration, a strong and incorrect word to use if it applied to ordinary bread and wine, as it would incite people to idolatry if that was all that was truly present.

The remainder of the post is opinions. Those will not be addressed. Peace be with all who come here.

Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis

 

[john654]

Sola Scriptura,

No, Calvin believes Christ is substantially present and believers only( as does Augustine) only truly and really feed on Christ through faith.

Thank goodness Jesus knows when to jump out of the bread, crackers / grape juice so as not to be substantially present. That’s why protestants, believers, and protesting catholics don’t have to worry about eating and drinking condemnation on themselves, right?

John

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sola Scriptura,

Thank goodness Jesus knows when to jump out of the bread, crackers / grape juice so as not to be substantially present. That’s why protestants, believers, and protesting catholics don’t have to worry about eating and drinking condemnation on themselves, right?

John

Is this directed at Calvin or Augustine?

 

[john654]

Is this directed at Calvin or Augustine?

Calvin and Agustine are dead, and not substantially present here in this forum. I am directing the question to you.
John