Gee, MAYbe because God can do ANYthing he wants. Or don’t you believe that?Furthermore, if the bread is changed into something how is it not materially changed?
Great post, Dominicanis!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
Here’s my challenge: Dave Armstrong does not engage in online apologetics debates. However, after I asked for his thoughts on some material posted in this thread by another forum member, Dave responded, and I posted the material with his permission. Of course, our forum friend responded to Dave, and Dave responded (to me) with directions to post what turned out to be seven posts worth of material. At that point the moderators stepped in…I do apologize for the rules violation. I was both ignorant and guilty. And by the way, I received emails from JPrejean, Apolonio and PhilVaz also on this topic. Since Phil does post in this forum on occasion, I’ll let him speak for himself from here on in. JPrejean has already done so.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.
And that is precisely the view that I am arguing introduces an unnecessary and unjustifiable conflict between (2) and (3). There’s no logical reason that one could not say “ground with the teeth,” for example, depending on what metaphysical aspect was being addressed.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.
The point that Dave Armstong aptly made is that Kelly is just begging the question for his Protestant view at this point. His “two views” make a number of assumptions that aren’t necessarily warranted from a Catholic perspective, and Kelly presents no argument for his own peculiar metaphysical view, nor even an argument that the distinction he makes was present in the authors he cites. In fact, by Kelly’s own admission, it is likely that Augustine did not recognize such a distinction, for if he had, he surely would have perceived the “contradiction.” From a philosophical perspective, Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are all begging the question.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.
From the metaphysical perspective, that’s not even a relevant distinction, because one could mean exactly the same thing even while saying something different. All Kelly is effectively doing is pointing out that they SAY different things, and then interpreting what they say according to his own metaphysical notion that these concepts are opposed to one another. His metaphysical justification is lacking.One speaks of eating the flesh with the teeth, the other speaks of not eating the flesh with the teeth.
Technically, “according to nature;” as applied in this case, then, according to the natural union in the person of Christ. “Real” and “physical” mean roughly the same thing.So what does “physical” presence mean if not materially present?
Crimson-And that is precisely the view that I am arguing introduces an unnecessary and unjustifiable conflict between (2) and (3). There’s no logical reason that one could not say “ground with the teeth,” for example, depending on what metaphysical aspect was being addressed.
The point that Dave Armstong aptly made is that Kelly is just begging the question for his Protestant view at this point. His “two views” make a number of assumptions that aren’t necessarily warranted from a Catholic perspective, and Kelly presents no argument for his own peculiar metaphysical view, nor even an argument that the distinction he makes was present in the authors he cites. In fact, by Kelly’s own admission, it is likely that Augustine did not recognize such a distinction, for if he had, he surely would have perceived the “contradiction.” From a philosophical perspective, Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are all begging the question.
From the metaphysical perspective, that’s not even a relevant distinction, because one could mean exactly the same thing even while saying something different. All Kelly is effectively doing is pointing out that they SAY different things, and then interpreting what they say according to his own metaphysical notion that these concepts are opposed to one another. His metaphysical justification is lacking.
Technically, “according to nature;” as applied in this case, then, according to the natural union in the person of Christ. “Real” and “physical” mean roughly the same thing.
Regarding Calvin’s belief, note two things. First of all, he says exactly (3): that by presence he means the real presence of a spiritual effect, not a substantial presence. From the quote you provided, “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.” That is NOT presence in the sense of substantial or physical presence, which is what Augustine affirms, but rather is a mere conjunction of reality with the sign through an effect. From a metaphysical perspective, those two things are entirely different (which Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff all fail to grasp because of their defective Protestant metaphysical commitments). Second, Calvin is arguing for a bare contradiction if Christ is not understood in Nestorian terms. He is saying that Christ is really present for participation, but not really present in His Body, which destroys the unity of the person (if Christ is a real personal unity, then where Christ is; He is in all His parts, just as where my body is, my soul also is as part of my personal unity). If you think otherwise, then it doesn’t prove anything except that you are misunderstanding what Calvin said as well.
I think they all have the same referent, but expressed in three different aspects, which would seem to be in line with the Latin “vere, realiter, et substantialiter.”Would you clarify precisely what the Church means when she says, “really, truly and substantially” present?
If two individuals are talking about the Lord’s Supper and one individual says your teeth do not play a part in consuming Christ’s body, and the other individual says your teeth do play a part in the consumption of Christ’s body, then unless you have strong evidence to the contrary this is a contradiction. We could speculate all day that even though two individuals say the opposite things they actually mean the same thing, but you have to put a very strong case to overturn this. However on the contrary, patristics and historical scholars such as Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are able to interpret all of Augustine’s word in a consistent manner by taking them at face value. On the other hand you are reading all kinds of Catholic concepts into the words of Augustine.And that is precisely the view that I am arguing introduces an unnecessary and unjustifiable conflict between (2) and (3). There’s no logical reason that one could not say “ground with the teeth,” for example, depending on what metaphysical aspect was being addressed.
It seems to me, both you and Dave Armstrong are reading more into Augustine’s word then is warranted. However, you read something different into the words of Calvin when he says the same thing. We Augustine and Chrysostom says opposite things you still contend they mean the same thing.The point that Dave Armstong aptly made is that Kelly is just begging the question for his Protestant view at this point.
First, I’m glad that you admit Kelly had “two views” and he put Augustine in a view that is not consistent with Rome. I’m glad to see you even put Schaff and Pelikan in similar positions. At least this makes my point that for Dave to use Kelly and Schaff to support his view is to take them out of context. Second, I don’t think Kelly is making assumptions, but on the contrary you are. You are reading all kinds of things in Augustine’s word to make them fit with Catholic theology. Augustine is clear that he believes in a distinction between the sign and thing signified when using sacramental language. He makes the point that you only partake of it by faith. He makes the point that it is spiritual eating. He even makes the analogy with the rock that was struck by Moses in wilderness as also being Christ in the same sense. Now Calvin basically says the same things, but you interpret him to mean something totally different.His “two views” make a number of assumptions that aren’t necessarily warranted from a Catholic perspective, and Kelly presents no argument for his own peculiar metaphysical view, nor even an argument that the distinction he makes was present in the authors he cites. In fact, by Kelly’s own admission, it is likely that Augustine did not recognize such a distinction, for if he had, he surely would have perceived the “contradiction.” From a philosophical perspective, Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are all begging the question.
Yes two individuals *could * mean exactly the same thing, even while saying things that are completely opposite on the same topic, but it seems to be highly unlikely without a strong justification for going against the obvious. I don’t think you have come close to proving your case. You are reading things into the words of Augustine that he never argues for.From the metaphysical perspective, that’s not even a relevant distinction, because one could mean exactly the same thing even while saying something different. All Kelly is effectively doing is pointing out that they SAY different things, and then interpreting what they say according to his own metaphysical notion that these concepts are opposed to one another. His metaphysical justification is lacking.
So when the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, their substance is changed “according to nature”? What kind of “nature” are you talking about?Technically, “according to nature;” as applied in this case, then, according to the natural union in the person of Christ. “Real” and “physical” mean roughly the same thing.
Now this is ironic. Calvin speaks of “spiritual efficacy” in one of the sentences, but in others he clearly speaks of the sign being the body of Christ. Augustine also speaks of spiritual efficacy, but in others he speaks more in terms of the bread being Christ body. However, you interpret these two as mean different things. Whereas when Augustine and Chrysostom say things that are completely opposite you interpret them to mean exactly the same thing.Regarding Calvin’s belief, note two things. First of all, he says exactly (3): that by presence he means the real presence of a spiritual effect, not a substantial presence.
Augustine says basically the same thing. He distinguishes the sign(e.g. bread ) from the thing signified(e.g… body ). He also affirms that there is no eating of the flesh unless one has faith.From the quote you provided, “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.” That is NOT presence in the sense of substantial or physical presence, which is what Augustine affirms, but rather is a mere conjunction of reality with the sign through an effect. From a metaphysical perspective, those two things are entirely different (which Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff all fail to grasp because of their defective Protestant metaphysical commitments).
Well, maybe I do misunderstand Calvin, but your asserting that I do if I disagree with you does not prove I do. Calving does not say the body is not really present during our participation. What Calvin denies is a local presence or changing of bread into the body. Maybe you can document where Calvin says we participate, but the body is not present?Second, Calvin is arguing for a bare contradiction if Christ is not understood in Nestorian terms. He is saying that Christ is really present for participation, but not really present in His Body, which destroys the unity of the person (if Christ is a real personal unity, then where Christ is; He is in all His parts, just as where my body is, my soul also is as part of my personal unity). If you think otherwise, then it doesn’t prove anything except that you are misunderstanding what Calvin said as well.
Actually, it’s pretty easy: one is referring to reality (being) and the other to mode. In point of fact, they aren’t even SAYING opposite things, because one MEANS his words to refer to reality, and one MEANS his words to refer to mode, and opposition requires opposition of MEANING, not merely SAYING. The distinction is well documented in the literature, which is available for anyone to read. Anyone who studies Augustine in any depth, or even anything beyond a superficial level, will understand what I am saying. The fact that you don’t says more about what you know about Augustine than what Augustine said.We could speculate all day that even though two individuals say the opposite things they actually mean the same thing, but you have to put a very strong case to overturn this.
…
Yes two individuals could mean exactly the same thing, even while saying things that are completely opposite on the same topic, but it seems to be highly unlikely without a strong justification for going against the obvious. I don’t think you have come close to proving your case. You are reading things into the words of Augustine that he never argues for.
It wasn’t consistent; they simply thought they were consistent based on their own defective metaphysical commitments (like Schaff thinking that the hypostatic union could be broken, Pelikan thinking that ubiquity could be conferred on Christ’s Body, and Kelly thinking that symbolism and transformationism were “mutually exclusive as a matter of strict logic”). There’s a difference between someone thinking that he was consistent and actually being so. I reject your assertion that they were consistent, and I have shown why they weren’t. “Face value” is simply another word for “uncritically,” and I wouldn’t respect any scholarly conclusion that simply took words at “face value,” which none of Pelikan, Schaff, or Kelly ever claimed to do.However on the contrary, patristics and historical scholars such as Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are able to interpret all of Augustine’s word in a consistent manner by taking them at face value. On the other hand you are reading all kinds of Catholic concepts into the words of Augustine.
In this particular application, according to the natural union (the union of natures) in the hypostasis (person) of Christ. Just like my soul is present where my body is present, so Christ’s Body is present where Christ is present (except for those who deny the hypostatic union, as Calvin does).So when the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, their substance is changed “according to nature”? What kind of “nature” are you talking about?
Yes, and so do a great number of people, because we look at meaning rather than mere words. It’s relatively well known that Calvin was grievously wrong in his interpretation of many authors, even some who weren’t all that far in the past (see, e.g., his misuse of St. Bernard). Philosophically speaking, Calvin was relatively ignorant; he had very little context for interpreting the writings of the Fathers.Now this is ironic. Calvin speaks of “spiritual efficacy” in one of the sentences, but in others he clearly speaks of the sign being the body of Christ. Augustine also speaks of spiritual efficacy, but in others he speaks more in terms of the bread being Christ body. However, you interpret these two as mean different things. Whereas when Augustine and Chrysostom say things that are completely opposite you interpret them to mean exactly the same thing.
Warranted by what? Your uncritical, anachronistic understanding or valid historical methodology? Plenty of historians have documented what I am saying.It seems to me, both you and Dave Armstrong are reading more into Augustine’s word then is warranted. However, you read something different into the words of Calvin when he says the same thing.
Yes. I also agree that his separation was false and that he never justified it, merely asserting that the positions were “mutually exclusive as a matter of strict logic.” There’s no reason for me to take Kelly’s word on that. It’s a philosophical conclusion, not a historical one, and it requires an argument.First, I’m glad that you admit Kelly had “two views” and he put Augustine in a view that is not consistent with Rome.
Actually, they both had drastically different positions (Schaff was Nestorian, and Pelikan was Monophysite), although they were all equally wrong.I’m glad to see you even put Schaff and Pelikan in similar positions.
Wrong. It’s a perfectly valid approach to take their historical conclusions apart from their philosophical and theological conclusions. What Dave is saying (and I am saying) is that they drew incorrect theological/philosophical conclusions from accurate historical conclusions.At least this makes my point that for Dave to use Kelly and Schaff to support his view is to take them out of context.
Kelly says, without any argument, that the positions he separates are “mutually exclusive as a matter of strict logic.” That’s absolutely an assumption. If you can show what I’ve assumed, you’re welcome to do it. Just saying it proves nothing.Second, I don’t think Kelly is making assumptions, but on the contrary you are.
So what? That’s consistent with either (2) or (3), and even Kelly admits that Augustine asserts real identity when discussing the subject of sacrifice. If we don’t accept Kelly’s bare assertion of a dichotomy between the two, then this would be clear evidence that Augustine did NOT believe that this distinction was meant to be exclusive.You are reading all kinds of things in Augustine’s word to make them fit with Catholic theology. Augustine is clear that he believes in a distinction between the sign and thing signified when using sacramental language.
So do all Catholics.He makes the point that you only partake of it by faith. He makes the point that it is spiritual eating.
No, he says that they are both signs, not that they are both signs in the same sense. That’s what you’ve read into him, but if you read City of God 10.20, it’s obvious that the Old Testament signs were shadows, not true signs in the sense that the Eucharist is.He even makes the analogy with the rock that was struck by Moses in wilderness as also being Christ in the same sense.
That’s because Calvin means something totally different. He means by “signs” what Augustine means by “Old Testament signs.” Because his metaphysics is messed up, he can’t see the difference.Now Calvin basically says the same things, but you interpret him to mean something totally different.
Everybody (Edit – except maybe Lutherans, although it’s hard to tell) denies a local presence. Denying a change of reality is denying a real presence, period.Calving does not say the body is not really present during our participation. What Calvin denies is a local presence or changing of bread into the body.
Isn’t there some irony here?It seems to me, both you and Dave Armstrong are reading more into Augustine’s word then is warranted.
I’ve read the great article Dave Armstrong has posted on his blog site, and I really appreciate the thought going into this, but I think we’re missing something here. I suggest, because of the significant history involved here and the length of time passage, that we may be over-simplifying the issues in order to pigeon-hole Saint Augustine into a position which is neither fair nor accurate. I sill have not read anything which, when read in context, convinces me that Saint Augustine did not beleive in transubstantiation. Perhaps, he did not use quite the right “vocabulary” in giving his opinions, but the passage that I posted from *Confessions *really seems to demand that we give this great saint the benefit of the doubt in his understanding of this issue. To him, I would suggest, “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation” appear to be nearly the same in his mind. I suggest we are splitting hairs and applying a modern perspective to the past which is misleading and fails to apply.SS…You claim that St. Augustine rejects the Real Presence and refers to the Eucharist as a mere symbol (“eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually”). With such words, St. Augustine is exhorting believers to eat and drink the Eucharist in faith. However, you fail to disclose that St. Augustine taught that “[Jesus] 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 he adores it” (Sermon 174, 7). St. Augustine certainly does not see any contradiction; in fact, his teaching is foundational to the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
Yes, there is a lot of irony.Jon-
Not to get things off track, but I can’t help highlighting the following quotation:
Isn’t there some irony here?
And Catholics read into that that he is not talking about the material flesh they see, but flesh “according to nature”. Jesus says, this “cup is the New Covenant” and Catholics read into that he means the wine is his blood “according to nature”.Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man you have no life in you”, and Protestants read into that the idea that he was speaking spiritually of “eating” his words or his teaching.
Yeah, and Catholics read into that that Jesus is talking about a man and not a literal rock.Jesus said, “you are Peter and upon this rock”, and Protestants read into that the idea that Jesus really meant that he could work with Peter’s confession of faith.
Yeah and … well they actually take that one literally in wooden sense.Jesus said, “if you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven”, and Protestants read into that…well, I don’t know how they get out of that one.
Yeah and in that same sentence James says, “a person is justified by what he does…”, but Catholics say he is not talking about doing alone, but grace infused works.James said, “not by faith alone”, and Protestants read into that the idea that James was talking about some different kind of faith and that we are justified by faith alone.
Yeah, I see what you mean. A lot of stuff should start jumping right off the pages at you such as, all have sinned, Jesus having brothers, etc.I agree that we should seek a literal meaning of an author’s words - that is, an understanding of what the author was trying to say. But when the pot starts calling the kettle “black”, it jumps off the page at me.
Doesn’t take much.I feel much better, and I’ll be quiet now.
Catholics are comfortable with Augustiine’s language precisely because they are secure in the knowledge that he was a faithful son of the Church.I’ve read the great article Dave Armstrong has posted on his blog site, and I really appreciate the thought going into this, but I think we’re missing something here. I suggest, because of the significant history involved here and the length of time passage, that we may be over-simplifying the issues in order to pigeon-hole Saint Augustine into a position which is neither fair nor accurate. I sill have not read anything which, when read in context, convinces me that Saint Augustine did not beleive in transubstantiation. Perhaps, he did not use quite the right “vocabulary” in giving his opinions, but the passage that I posted from *Confessions *really seems to demand that we give this great saint the benefit of the doubt in his understanding of this issue. To him, I would suggest, “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation” appear to be nearly the same in his mind. I suggest we are splitting hairs and applying a modern perspective to the past which is misleading and fails to apply.
I will try to formulate clearer thoughts on this issue over the next few days and perhaps contact Dave Armstrong. Keep up the great discussions.
:bigyikes:“proto-Protestant” poster boy.
Yeah, how could anyone miss that? It is so easy, I’m surprised you are the first Catholic I have heard put it that way.Actually, it’s pretty easy: one is referring to reality (being) and the other to mode. In point of fact, they aren’t even SAYING opposite things, because one MEANS his words to refer to reality, and one MEANS his words to refer to mode, and opposition requires opposition of MEANING, not merely SAYING.
Yeah, anyone would know that. You know anyone like patristic and historical scholars such as Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff. Tell you what, provide me with some quotes from the individuals who have studied Augustine in any depth and interpret Augustine in that way?The distinction is well documented in the literature, which is available for anyone to read. Anyone who studies Augustine in any depth, or even anything beyond a superficial level, will understand what I am saying. The fact that you don’t says more about what you know about Augustine than what Augustine said.
Exactly, but of course you are the only one who thinks he is consistent and really is.It wasn’t consistent; they simply thought they were consistent based on their own defective metaphysical commitments (like Schaff thinking that the hypostatic union could be broken, Pelikan thinking that ubiquity could be conferred on Christ’s Body, and Kelly thinking that symbolism and transformationism were “mutually exclusive as a matter of strict logic”). There’s a difference between someone thinking that he was consistent and actually being so.
You have done nothing. All you have done is asserted that Augustine meant something by his words that you have not proven. You claimed anyone with more than a superficial understanding of Augustine would know this, but I guess Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan doesn’t have more than a superficial understanding of Augsustine. So until you produce the list of scholars with more than a superficial understanding of Augustine that agrees with you on this point I reject your assertion as reading into Augustine words to make him not be in disagreement with Rome.I reject your assertion that they were consistent, and I have shown why they weren’t. “Face value” is simply another word for “uncritically,” and I wouldn’t respect any scholarly conclusion that simply took words at “face value,” which none of Pelikan, Schaff, or Kelly ever claimed to do.
So since Christ’s Body is present where He is present, and He is present in the Eucharist, then why isn’t His body locally and physically present?In this particular application, according to the natural union (the union of natures) in the hypostasis (person) of Christ. Just like my soul is present where my body is present, so Christ’s Body is present where Christ is present (except for those who deny the hypostatic union, as Calvin does).
What “great number of people” interpret Calvin and Augustine as meaning different things when they use the same words, and interpret Augustine and Chrysostom as meaning the same thing when they say things that are contradictory? Please provide a list of the great number of people? We know Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff are not among them.Yes, and so do a great number of people, because we look at meaning rather than mere words.
Interesting, but not on point.It’s relatively well known that Calvin was grievously wrong in his interpretation of many authors, even some who weren’t all that far in the past (see, e.g., his misuse of St. Bernard). Philosophically speaking, Calvin was relatively ignorant; he had very little context for interpreting the writings of the Fathers.
OK, we have “anyone with a superficial understanding” , “a great number of people”, and “plenty of historians”. We know 3 scholars that are not in that number. So hopefully you will provide the quotes from a few of the “great number” or “plenty” that you have in mind.Warranted by what? Your uncritical, anachronistic understanding or valid historical methodology? Plenty of historians have documented what I am saying.