The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[Radical]

Hey Rad, I am truly trying to understand your position:

I doubt that very much…for reasons stated below.

You seem to be saying that the CC and the EOC (the only 2 churches that existed until the 16th century reformation) - from the 1st century until the reformation, botched a teaching that is so patently obvious to protestants now, at best, 1500 years removed from Pentecost? Rad, that’s 1500 years, Christianity had to wait, until a few of the men that spearheaded the protestant reformation finally came along and set Jesus’ church back on track regarding the symbolical interpretation of the Eucharist, which was supposedly taught by the apostles and passed on to their successors, such as Ignatius. Is that what you are suggesting?

no it isn’t. If you were actually trying to understand my position, then you would have realized that I do not agree with your claim here (regarding 1500 years of a particular teaching). Here is what I posted to you on another thread;

*we have already been over this here where I gave you this to chew on:

First, as late as the start of the 5th century we find that Augustine of Hippo did not hold to a real bodily presence. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence (RBP) is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

In Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who viewed the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasted this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”*

Please note that I reference yet another thread where you have been given this information, yet you still claim that:

1. the Eucharistic view shared(?) by the EO and the CC has a continous history of 1500 years.

in opposition to that claim we have the opinion of the experts on Augustine which say that:

2)(WRT to Augustine) "there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion;** that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.**

(now if you are trying to understand my position, surely you should be able to figure out that I would be inclined to go with the experts as opposed to your view, right? …it is the reasonable thing to do, after all.)

Having gone with the expert opinion, your claim of a continous history of 1500 years for your Eucharistic teaching doesn’t look sound…the alleged continuity is missing in the West as late as Augustine. If we look east we see that Clement of Alexandria and Origen speak in a fashion that is barely more than symbolic and earlier in the west Tertullian calls the bread a figure of the body. What one actually sees in the first centuries is a variation of views (something not at all consistent with a clear teaching of a somatic real presence stemming from the apostles) which eventually congealed around a real bodily presence. Once solidified the view was then enforced by the hierarchy through intimidation and violence…all dissenters beware! As such, I find your claim unimpressive to two reasons. First, for the first 400 years there isn’t the consensus that your claim suggests and second, any view that is enforced by threat is not to be respected for its duration.

Unlike you, I renounced all of my former non-Catholic preconceptions and deferred exclusively to the ECF’s which led me to the CC.

I know that you think that you have done a grand job of assessing the ECFs, but I am still inclined to go with the scholars instead of you…(and I think that the scholars that I have listed in this post were/are all Catholics…go figure).

But he did, and he was a contemporary to John, so I believe and confess that the Eucharist** is the flesh of our Saviour** Jesus. It’s straightforward and logical and grammatically correct. It is either Jesus’ flesh or it isn’t;

It isn’t necessarily that simple at all…see my post regarding Augustine’s sermon 272 where he asks the question “How is the bread the body of Christ?” If it is merely “is or isn’t” then there is no need to look at the “how” and it is in the “how” that your view is (IMHO) dismissed (by a Doctor of the CC no less ).

Why bring up the Eucharistic bread if the topic is still their denial that Jesus possessed a body???

bc/ they are related…the bread can’t be a symbol of Christ’s body if that body never existed

 

[Radical]

WRONG.
Augustine was correct in saying that the congregation was also the Body of Christ. He is equating the body that is the congregation with christ glorified Body in the Eucharist.

**For some - Augustine is very difficult to understand. ** yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars (listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

Augustine

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman

One final point and then to bed. Would Jesus, if He were sitting there, NEED to say ‘this symbolizes by body?’ He was holding bread and wine. He even calls it the ‘fruit of the vine’ when He says that He will not drink of it again until He is in His kingdom.
Yes, he WOULD have to call it a symbol. Apparently, you don’t understand the Doctrine of the Real Presence. Nobody is saying that the properties of bread and wine no longer exist – the DO. That changes is the substance.

DavidY:
It’s interesting that John doesn’t seem to feel it is important to include the ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’ as included in the other gospels.
This was already mentioned and reiterated in the other 3 Gospels so there was no need to reiterate again. John was bringing another perspective which harmonized with the other Gospels. He showed the origins of the Doctrine of the Real Presence, whereas, the others showed the institution of the Doctrine.

DavidY:
He includes the feet washing, saying that if you do not wash feet ‘you have no part with me.’ Any Catholic footwashings lately?
Actually – I had my feet washed at Mass on Holy Thursday last year in front of the congregation – along with 11 others. Anyway – that’s not what Jesus said. He told them that unless Peter let him wash HIS feet he (Peter) could have no inheritance with him (Jesus). He then told them that he gave them a model for them to follow – to SERVE on another. The foot washing was an example of HOW to serve.

 

[elvisman]

yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars (listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

yep, sermon 227 is the twin of 272…the congregation offers itself…no real bodily presence involved…but feel free to post the whole sermon and let’s review it a sentence at a time.

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I provided (and you didn’t address) it is the metaphorical that makes sense.

Absolutely not.
This is a textbook case of reading into something that does not exist. This is an almost comical misunderstanding opf the text - if not so tragically blind.
“Opens the door for the metaphorical”, indeed . . .**
Ummm . . . READ the text again. Augustine is saying that it is pretty much impossible for a mere man to carry himself in his own hands. THEN, he goes on to say the following:
How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

---

What part of this do you not understand?****

yep, me and them brilliant scholars think it is pretty clear…pity you can’t see it too.

They don’t get much more brilliant than Augustine himself. Pity, you’re to full of spiritual pride to see that little nugget . . .

 

[elvisman]

yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars (listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

yep, sermon 227 is the twin of 272…the congregation offers itself…no real bodily presence involved…but feel free to post the whole sermon and let’s review it a sentence at a time.

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I provided (and you didn’t address) it is the metaphorical that makes sense.

Absolutely not.
This is a textbook case of reading into something that does not exist. This is an almost comical misunderstanding opf the text - if not so tragically blind.
“Opens the door for the metaphorical”, indeed . . .**
Ummm . . . READ the text again. Augustine is saying that it is pretty much impossible for a mere man to carry himself in his own hands. THEN, he goes on to say the following:
How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

---

What part of this do you not understand?
**In case you’ve never been taught - NOTHING is impossible for God

---

yep, me and them brilliant scholars think it is pretty clear…pity you can’t see it too.

They don’t get much more brilliant than Augustine himself. Pity, you’re to full of spiritual pride to see that little nugget . . .

 

[elvisman]

yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars (listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

yep, sermon 227 is the twin of 272…the congregation offers itself…no real bodily presence involved…but feel free to post the whole sermon and let’s review it a sentence at a time.

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I provided (and you didn’t address) it is the metaphorical that makes sense.

Absolutely not.
This is a textbook case of reading into something that does not exist. This is an almost comical misunderstanding opf the text - if not so tragically blind.
“Opens the door for the metaphorical”, indeed . . .**
Ummm . . . READ the text again. Augustine is saying that it is pretty much impossible for a mere man to carry himself in his own hands. THEN, he goes on to say the following:
How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

What part of this do you not understand?
In case you’ve never been taught - NOTHING is impossible for God

yep, me and them brilliant scholars think it is pretty clear…pity you can’t see it too.

They don’t get much more brilliant than Augustine himself. Pity, you’re to full of spiritual pride to see that little nugget . . .

 

[simspt]

yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can **sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars **(listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

yep, sermon 227 is the twin of 272…the congregation offers itself…no real bodily presence involved…but feel free to post the whole sermon and let’s review it a sentence at a time.

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I provided (and you didn’t address) it is the metaphorical that makes sense.

yep, **me and them brilliant scholars **think it is pretty clear…pity you can’t see it too.

Sorry if you have already touched on this earlier in this post but what do you think about the significance of the Eucharist in Ignatian Theology? It seems to be the central point of gathering in worship, a point of division between schismatic and orthodox belief and separation of the two, it unifies the body of Christ in one confession and is valid only when a bishop or his representative is present at the meal with the church. He seems to have seen the Eucharist as medicine for immortality and an antidote for heresy.
To my understanding guys like Kelly, Bradshaw, Cummings, Johanny, Schoedel, LaVerdiere etc see real presence in the Eucharistic references of Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[ServantJohn]

Do you think it’s better to stand before God relying on His grace through faith in Jesus’ merit, or to stand before God relying on grace through faith, plus the fact that I did the Eucharist 5000 times? Which more approximates the gospel?

I am not a Catholic so may be very wrong on this point. I don’t think Catholics see the Eucharist as a means of receiving merit; it is a means of receiving grace. Not a work performed but a channel by which God’s graces may be received by faith. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Nicea325]

yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars (listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

yep, sermon 227 is the twin of 272…the congregation offers itself…no real bodily presence involved…but feel free to post the whole sermon and let’s review it a sentence at a time.

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I provided (and you didn’t address) it is the metaphorical that makes sense.

yep, me and them brilliant scholars think it is pretty clear…pity you can’t see it too.

Brilliant scholars? And I can bet all of my life savings none of your so-called brilliant scholars lived during the time of Augustine? In other words, your ‘brilliant’ scholars are revisionist and the notion Augustine taught a symbolic eucharist is comical to say the least. Amazing to what extent so many as yourself will say to teach and believe something totally contradictory to the obvious.

Augustine a Protestant?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Brilliant scholars? And I can bet all of my life savings none of your so-called brilliant scholars lived during the time of Augustine? In other words, your ‘brilliant’ scholars are revisionist and the notion Augustine taught a symbolic eucharist is comical to say the least. Amazing to what extent so many as yourself will say to teach and believe something totally contradictory to the obvious.

Augustine a Protestant?

To believe in teh Eucharist requires one to convert into the CC. Do they desire such a treasure? They are convinced that they know more than the early Church. What a distortion of the mind that is.

 

[Nicea325]

To believe in teh Eucharist requires one to convert into the CC. Do they desire such a treasure? They are convinced that they know more than the early Church. What a distortion of the mind that is.

Exactly! Precisely why it is called revisionism of history. Totally absurd to believe Augustine taught and believed a symbolic Eucharist? If the Eucharist was taught as being merely symbolic,then where are the countless writings of the ECF’s condemning the Real Presence? I find it so ironic how the ECF’s wrote against heresies,but not one against the Real Presence? Radical’s argument is weak and speculative to say the least. Radical wants to put words in others mouths and wants them to say what he wants them to say. Bad,bad,bad understanding of history.

 

[Michael1978]

yep, that is why it is nice to be able to refer to his biographers who have studied his work in great detail…see my post to Joe above…and I can sit back content with the knowledge that those scholars (listed in that post) nicely agree with me and think that it is you who doesn’t understand Augustine’s work…

yep, sermon 227 is the twin of 272…the congregation offers itself…no real bodily presence involved…but feel free to post the whole sermon and let’s review it a sentence at a time.

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I provided (and you didn’t address) it is the metaphorical that makes sense.

yep, me and them brilliant scholars think it is pretty clear…pity you can’t see it too.

You just proved that St. Augustine taught and believed in the real presence. Yes, he did carry himself in a certain way. He carried himself as the consecrated bread and wine. How you cannot see that is beyond me.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Exactly! Precisely why it is called revisionism of history. Totally absurd to believe Augustine taught and believed a symbolic Eucharist? If the Eucharist was taught as being merely symbolic,then where are the countless writings of the ECF’s condemning the Real Presence? I find it so ironic how the ECF’s wrote against heresies,but not one against the Real Presence? Radical’s argument is weak and speculative to say the least. Radical wants to put words in others mouths and wants them to say what he wants them to say. Bad,bad,bad understanding of history.

Protestants are free to believe what they want. Are you surprised that they reject what they dont understand?

 

[wisdomseeker]

You just proved that St. Augustine taught and believed in the real presence. Yes, he did carry himself in a certain way. He carried himself as the consecrated bread and wine. How you cannot see that is beyond me.

Jesus taught His Apostles but the ears and eyes of those outside could not hear or understand. Jesus Himself said. I am not surprised that those outside the Church cannot hear or understand what Jesus taught. They reapeat the Words but they cannot know what the Word means.

 

[Nicea325]

You just proved that St. Augustine taught and believed in the real presence. Yes, he did carry himself in a certain way. He carried himself as the consecrated bread and wine. How you cannot see that is beyond me.

Because it is called spiritual blindness. Read John Ch.9

 

[Nicea325]

Protestants are free to believe what they want. Are you surprised that they reject what they dont understand?

Indeed. I do not read anywhere in the NT where Jesus altered or waivered His teachings in order to suit non-believers. I do not recall Jesus going after those who no longer followed Him after not understanding and accepting His teaching on the eucharist.

 

[DavidY]

Yes, he WOULD have to call it a symbol. Apparently, you don’t understand the Doctrine of the Real Presence. Nobody is saying that the properties of bread and wine no longer exist – the DO. That changes is the substance**.**

This was already mentioned and reiterated in the other 3 Gospels so there was no need to reiterate again. John was bringing another perspective which harmonized with the other Gospels. He showed the origins of the Doctrine of the Real Presence, whereas, the others showed the institution** of the Doctrine.**

**Actually – I had my feet washed at Mass on Holy Thursday last year in front of the congregation – **along with 11 others. Anyway – that’s not what Jesus said. He told them that unless Peter let him wash HIS feet he (Peter) could have no inheritance with him (Jesus). He then told them that he gave them a model for them to follow – to SERVE on another. The foot washing was an example of HOW to serve.

This doesn’t address my longer, previous post, but let’s save time…

I have read all about the doctrine of the real presence, and the Aristotlean notion of substance of and accidents but Jesus called it ‘the fruit of the vine.’ To tell the truth is to tell things as they are in reality. Not what they appear to be…

Are you really saying making the following two claims as evidence for the real presence?

1. Jesus’ calling the bread and wine His body (NOT as they appeared) at the Last Supper, demonstrates it.
2. Jesus’ calling the wine the fruit of the vine (AS it appeared) demonstrates it?

Talk about ad hoc, selective exegesis.

Regarding John’s lack of mention of the Last Supper, I agree that the gospels harmonize. I’d just expect John to include that most important of events since He was actually present. Instead He includes the event but only the foot washing.

Finally, I stand corrected on the foot washing. I was not aware of that, and I applaud the Catholic Church for doing that!

 

[panevino]

…

there is no “elemental” part in play that day…the Lord’s Supper was a thing of the future…no one in the audience could have possibly tied the bread of life lesson to some future ritual involving the elements of bread and wine

My understanding is that the following verses occur prior bread of life discourse

Mat16: 19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to [his] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

John6:11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.

Of course the are the clear OT types of bread/wine/lamb…
Passover/sin offerings/firstfruits etc… See my post #103 on pg 7 of this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7624647&postcount=103

Not so sure you can confidently say that “…no one …could of possibly…” given above.

I would say the words in John 6:52 illustrate that the Jews (who had the OT types fresh in mind) understood a future “ritual”. Though they could not grasp the sublime nature of it ie:view it with the lenses of spirit but" only" saw it through lenses of “way of flesh”.

I note the quote from Augustines Confessions combining the loaves and fish of John 6:11 to the Eucharist
BookXIII
“…through the sacrament of the Eucharist, when the Fish which was raised from the depths is held out to us and is received as food by the faithful earth…”
Any thought on my posts #283&284 on pg 19 thread?
Though see u are juggling alot here allready.

 

[Nicea325]

This doesn’t address my longer, previous post, but let’s save time…

I have read all about the doctrine of the real presence, and the Aristotlean notion of substance of and accidents but Jesus called it ‘the fruit of the vine.’ To tell the truth is to tell things as they are in reality. Not what they appear to be…

Are you really saying making the following two claims as evidence for the real presence?

1. Jesus’ calling the bread and wine His body (NOT as they appeared) at the Last Supper, demonstrates it.
2. Jesus’ calling the wine the fruit of the vine (AS it appeared) demonstrates it?

Talk about ad hoc, selective exegesis.

Regarding John’s lack of mention of the Last Supper, I agree that the gospels harmonize. I’d just expect John to include that most important of events since He was actually present. Instead He includes the event but only the foot washing.

Finally, I stand corrected on the foot washing. I was not aware of that, and I applaud the Catholic Church for doing that!

I’ll make it easier for you. Please provide one single historical writing from orthodox Jews teaching they only ate a symbolic lamb at the Passover? Likewise, the countless writings from the early church teaching the Real Presence is a usurpation from Christ teaching?

 

[Radical]

Sorry if you have already touched on this earlier in this post but what do you think about the significance of the Eucharist in Ignatian Theology?

no need to apologize…I greatly appreciate a response that demonstrates that you have either read the artilce that I earlier linked or that you have some familiarity with the scholars listed in it.

It seems to be the central point of gathering in worship,…

I believe that might be overstating the matter…

… a point of division between schismatic and orthodox belief and separation of the two, it unifies the body of Christ in one confession and is valid only when a bishop or his representative is present at the meal with the church.

agreed, but I suspect that the need for the bishop has more to do with Ignatius’s desire to make the bishop the monarchical unifying force than it has to do with some theology of the Eucharist

He seems to have seen the Eucharist as medicine for immortality and an antidote for heresy.

agreed

To my understanding guys like Kelly, Bradshaw, Cummings, Johanny, Schoedel, LaVerdiere etc see real presence in the Eucharistic references of Ignatius of Antioch.

yep, that article that I linked examines their views at parts 3 and 4…the minority who don’t see a real presence are discussed at part 5. One of the observations WRT Bradshaw reads:

Paul Bradshaw has written one of the latest attempts to refute the four-action Eucharistic theory of Dix. The thrust of his argument against Dix is that he believes the second century rite for the Eucharist to be very fluid and thus susceptible to influence from both Judaism and paganism. With regard to real presence, Bradshaw suddenly, all doubts are swept aside, sees it within the text of Ignatius. He never explains his view in a substantive manner.

Like the author of that article I see a “disconnect”. Bradshaw recognizes the diversity WRT the Eucharistic rite, but then doesn’t seem to take that diversity into account when assessing Ignatius’s view WRT a real presence. As indicated above, there was a great deal of diversity WRT Eucharistic views in the first centuries and a real bodily presence (RBP) was not accepted by Augustine (the scholars seem to be lining up pretty nicely for me on that issue…notwithstanding the protests of the pundits that we have heard from here). So what are we to believe? It just doesn’t seem credible that:

a) the apostles taught a real bodily presence in the Eucharist;

b) the Eucharist was the central point in worship;

c) notwithstanding (a) and (b), this RBP was abandoned by some and amended by others (all of whom remain within the body of orthodox believers) to create the observed diversity and to result in the absence of that teaching in 400 AD Carthage

with that in mind, we then ask, “Should we, like Bradshaw, jump to the conclusion that Ignatius held to a RBP?” Given the little that we have from Ignatius, given his tendency to wax metaphorically, given his usage of words similar to John’s (which, if John wasn’t speaking of a RBP, then we shouldn’t assume Ignatius was) and given that the diversity we see in the 2nd century would mitigate against the possibility of a clear RBP arising this early (though, I guess it could be a localized innovation), there seems to be good reasons not to jump to that conclusion. ]