The Real Presence

[Nicea325]

really?..You walk about with this sort of quotation filling your mind? In any event, four things wrt JND Kelly. First, why do Catholics here always label him “Protestant”? Is it that you believe that Kelly came from a communion that denied a real bodily presence so that you think that your quote represents an admission that Kelly would have preferred not to make? Second, although JND Kelly was a great historian, his stuff is getting a little dated…(the words in your quote were likely written before you were born). Third, I suspect that you think that the quote is far more supportive of your view than it actually is…for example, in Hebrews 13: 15-16 it reads: * Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise–the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased (NIV) *. Obviously then, by God’s standards (and hopefully the standards of the ECFs) a real bodily presence is not required for a sacrifice… Fourth, here is what I posted earlier in the thread from some other renowned and more current scholars:

Pelikan, in his first volume of *The Christian Tradition * wrote:

Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence .

So here we have a very respected and established scholar who understood that early Eucharistic views were very diverse with one extreme being close to a purely symbolic view. What does one need to believe in order to hold to something which is just less than a purely symbolic view? Is it that the bread is viewed as a symbol, but that it is understood that the symbol and the act possess the power to unify the participants in the body of Christ (aka the church)?

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

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.

If Pelikan and van der Meer are correct, then it would seem that Africa (from Alexandria to Carthage), to a large degree, wasn’t on board with this real bodily presence stuff. Now if a RBP mass was always the centre piece of Christian worship form Christ onwards, it is rather odd that the earliest ECFs weren’t all on board. As we learn more and more about the earliest church it becomes clearer that a considerable variety existed amongst the orthodox wrt things such as the Eucharist. That variety is consistent with the RP view as being a product of the imagination of the pious. Nicea325, who commented on your post doesn’t seem to get what I am saying. I don’t expect to find evidence of a big blow-up amongst the ECFs wrt the introduction of a RBP. Kilmartin sees the Antiochene school of the 4th century as the place where the real somatic presence got its real start. It seems that what happened is that Christianity was introduced into a culture that was accustomed to sacrifices and rites. It was hard for them to believe that Christianity could be as straight forward and ritual free as Christ made it and so in ruminating on Christ’s words the layers of meaning (that they perceived) gradually piled up so that what was a fellowship meal became a ritualistic mass with, at first, a real presence and then a real bodily presence. If you look at the works of the ECFs you see how the doctrines wrt the Eucharist grow ever more detailed. Augustine wrote sermon after sermon on the Eucharist, but as Garry Wills noted (another Augustine biographer) “in all of Augustine’s hundreds of sermons delivered at the eucharistic meal, ‘he does not speak of a real presence’ in the bread and wine.” Nicea325, if he stays true to form will dismiss the scholars that I have quoted here (all Catholics BTW) as revisionists and ask that I produce something that I don’t think exists (and that he can’t show must exist). As I said before on this thread, the diversity (seen by Pelikan) and the absence (seen by van der Meer and Wills) sure would be odd things if a Real Bodily Presence was taught from the outset, but would be rather expected if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus. Kelly would have clasified that building as a “development” whereas I believe it goes much beyond a mere development.

Radical,

Why are you dodging my challenge to you?

Give me ONE ECF’s works/writings cleary teaching the RP of the Eucharist was a heresy or usurpation of Christ? We have writings against heresies,but none on the RP?

 

[Radical]

Radical,

Why are you dodging my challenge to you?

Perhaps you should read these sentences again and try a little harder to understand why I might think that your “challenge” is a waste of time.
Nicea325, if he stays true to form will dismiss the scholars that I have quoted here (all Catholics BTW) as revisionists and ask that I produce something that I don’t think exists (and that he can’t show must exist). (from post #98…and I note that, as expected you continue to ask that I produce something that I don’t think exists and again, you haven’t shown it to be something that must exist in order for my view to be correct )
Here are some other things that I haven’t done:

1. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that the Shepherd of Hermas = scripture was a heresy or false. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that Revelation was not scripture was a heresy or false. It is almost as if the early church, in some instances where the teaching wasn’t received from the apostles, was prepared to allow divergent views to exist w/o having a serious blow-up about the matter (with one local church calling another local church heretical for possessing a different view)…it is almost as if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus…at least once that approach of adding to the original deposit seems to have worked quite well, other times, not so much from post #46…explaining in part why the thing you demand need not exist for my view to work

Give me ONE ECF’s works/writings cleary teaching the RP of the Eucharist was a heresy or usurpation of Christ?

off the top of my head the closest that I can come to is this bit from Augustine:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III p.13)*:…as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error. *

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist (celebration of the body and blood of the Lord)
2. Elsewhere he made it clear that the bread and wine are signs of the Lord’s body and blood
3. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood of Christ) is error.

That seems pretty clear, but Augustine is inclined to call the error “carnal” as opposed to heretical, likely b/c the error was not all that uncommon in the Church in his day.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Radical,

Why are you dodging my challenge to you?

Give me ONE ECF’s works/writings cleary teaching the RP of the Eucharist was a heresy or usurpation of Christ? We have writings against heresies,but none on the RP?

It isn’t just you. No one has responded to post #10 either.

 

[Cat_Herder]

off the top of my head the closest that I can come to is this bit from Augustine:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III p.13)*:…as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error. *

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist (celebration of the body and blood of the Lord)
2. Elsewhere he made it clear that the bread and wine are signs of the Lord’s body and blood
3. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood of Christ) is error.

That seems pretty clear, but Augustine is inclined to call the error “carnal” as opposed to heretical, likely b/c the error was not all that uncommon in the Church in his day.

Read the whole thing please.

And if ever any of them endeavoured to make it out that their idols were only signs, yet still they used them in reference to the worship and adoration of the creature. What difference does it make to me, for instance, that the image of Neptune is not itself to be considered a god, but only as representing the wide ocean, and all the other waters besides that spring out of fountains? As it is described by a poet of theirs, who says, if I recollect aright, “Thou, Father Neptune, whose hoary temples are wreathed with the resounding sea, whose beard is the mighty ocean flowing forth unceasingly, and whose hair is the winding rivers.” This husk shakes its rattling stones within a sweet covering, and yet it is not food for men, but for swine. He who knows the gospel knows what I mean. What profit is it to me, then, that the image of Neptune is used with a reference to this explanation of it, unless indeed the result be that I worship neither? For any statue you like to take is as much god to me as the wide ocean. I grant, however, that they who make gods of the works of man have sunk lower than they who make gods of the works of God. But the command is that we should love and serve the One God, who is the Maker of all those things, the images of which are worshipped by the heathen either as gods, or as signs and representations of gods. If, then, to take a sign which has been established for a useful end instead of the thing itself which it was designed to signify, is bondage to the flesh, how much more so is it to take signs intended to represent useless things for the things themselves! For even if you go back to the very things signified by such signs, and engage your mind in the worship of these, you will not be anything the more free from the burden and the livery of bondage to the flesh.
…
13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honours a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honour the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the Sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error

Augustine is contrasting the sacraments with pagan idolatry. The target for his condemnation are those who “reference to the worship and adoration of the creature” instead of God, such as those would worship, for example, baptism as water or the Eucharist as bread. If you interpret his writing consistently according to your interpretation you would be forced to conclude that the sacraments are not only “signs” but “useless things.” Surely he does not mean that!

 

[Elixir]

To those brothers & sisters in Christ who do not believe in the Eucharist:

Go to an Adoration Chapel. You will receive an answer.

I went because I very much wanted it to NOT be true and would not accept this teaching (this hard saying)…and for pete’s sake I could be anything but Catholic.

Try it but be prepared to have your foundations shaken by an encounter with the risen Christ, truly present in the tabernacle waiting for you to visit and experience his peace.

 

[Nicea325]

Perhaps you should read these sentences again and try a little harder to understand why I might think that your “challenge” is a waste of time.
Nicea325, if he stays true to form will dismiss the scholars that I have quoted here (all Catholics BTW) as revisionists and ask that I produce something that I don’t think exists (and that he can’t show must exist). (from post #98…and I note that, as expected you continue to ask that I produce something that I don’t think exists and again, you haven’t shown it to be something that must exist in order for my view to be correct )
Here are some other things that I haven’t done:

1. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that the Shepherd of Hermas = scripture was a heresy or false. I haven’t shown you one ancient source from an orthodox Christian (first 300 years) teaching that the belief that Revelation was not scripture was a heresy or false. It is almost as if the early church, in some instances where the teaching wasn’t received from the apostles, was prepared to allow divergent views to exist w/o having a serious blow-up about the matter (with one local church calling another local church heretical for possessing a different view)…it is almost as if the ECFs were prepared to allow themselves the opportunity to suggest various ideas (some innovative, some not) and to build upon those ideas to come to a consensus…at least once that approach of adding to the original deposit seems to have worked quite well, other times, not so much from post #46…explaining in part why the thing you demand need not exist for my view to work

off the top of my head the closest that I can come to is this bit from Augustine:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III p.13)*:…as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error. *

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist (celebration of the body and blood of the Lord)
2. Elsewhere he made it clear that the bread and wine are signs of the Lord’s body and blood
3. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood of Christ) is error.

That seems pretty clear, but Augustine is inclined to call the error “carnal” as opposed to heretical, likely b/c the error was not all that uncommon in the Church in his day.

Radical,

Tell me what part of my challenge you fail to comprehend? Nothing you posted comes from the mouth of an ECF,which does not answer my question at hand:

Where does ONE ECF teach the RP is false or heretical and strictly a symbol?

For the 10th million time, I DO NOT CARE what your scholarly list has said or wishes to say,Catholic or not…period! Nothing you have provided is NEW to me…nothing. Why would I as a holder of a Masters be alarmed or shocked with your references?

As for Augustine? Unbelievable! It is you who wants Augustine to be an opponent of the RP,not Augustine. Again,Augustine WAS NOT Protestant nor does he ever once claim the RP is bogus,novel,insane,unorthodox,pagan,ursupation,etc,etc. It is your poor understanding of Augustine’s writings and the RP,not vice versa.

 

[Nicea325]

Read the whole thing please.

And if ever any of them endeavoured to make it out that their idols were only signs, yet still they used them in reference to the worship and adoration of the creature. What difference does it make to me, for instance, that the image of Neptune is not itself to be considered a god, but only as representing the wide ocean, and all the other waters besides that spring out of fountains? As it is described by a poet of theirs, who says, if I recollect aright, “Thou, Father Neptune, whose hoary temples are wreathed with the resounding sea, whose beard is the mighty ocean flowing forth unceasingly, and whose hair is the winding rivers.” This husk shakes its rattling stones within a sweet covering, and yet it is not food for men, but for swine. He who knows the gospel knows what I mean. What profit is it to me, then, that the image of Neptune is used with a reference to this explanation of it, unless indeed the result be that I worship neither? For any statue you like to take is as much god to me as the wide ocean. I grant, however, that they who make gods of the works of man have sunk lower than they who make gods of the works of God. But the command is that we should love and serve the One God, who is the Maker of all those things, the images of which are worshipped by the heathen either as gods, or as signs and representations of gods. If, then, to take a sign which has been established for a useful end instead of the thing itself which it was designed to signify, is bondage to the flesh, how much more so is it to take signs intended to represent useless things for the things themselves! For even if you go back to the very things signified by such signs, and engage your mind in the worship of these, you will not be anything the more free from the burden and the livery of bondage to the flesh.
…
13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honours a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honour the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the Sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error

Augustine is contrasting the sacraments with pagan idolatry. The target for his condemnation are those who “reference to the worship and adoration of the creature” instead of God, such as those would worship, for example, baptism as water or the Eucharist as bread. If you interpret his writing consistently according to your interpretation you would be forced to conclude that the sacraments are not only “signs” but “useless things.” Surely he does not mean that!

And that is the whole issue here,Radical’s poor interpretation of Augustine,no matter how much he denies it.

 

[hn160]

I am not asking about your body posture. I am asking about your interior disposition.

Kneeling when receiving Communion is not proof that one worships the Eucharist. Everyone kneels when they pray whether or not they happen to be recieving Communion at the time. On top of that, many Protestants who do NOT accept the Real Presence kneel during their communion rite.

So what does your church do with the leftover elements from your communion rite?

If your church throws throw them away, feed them to animals or give them to poor people then your church is treating these elements as common food, not the Body of Christ. If you truly believed that those elements were the Body of Christ then why aren’t you doing anything about it?

The left over consecrated elements is kept separate containers for the sick and shut-ins or used at the next communion. Since we use a common cup and individual glass glasses ( the pastor is trying to eliminate these ), they are rinsed and the water is poured on the ground. If the consecrated elements are used in the next communion, they are always placed separately on the altar away from the non-consecrated elements to be blessed.

 

[Cheshangle]

My son in law (ordained deacon) used to remark that it was a good thing he was rather large and sturdy, since he was called to consume the Holy Blood remaining, regularly.

GKC

There was a letter in the Irish Times from a RC priest who served various parishes, driving from one to the other. He said that since in each church he had to finish off the wine, and that this affected his driving ability, which he felt was a bit incongruous since it was the Blood of Christ.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Jim_Roberts:
Please understand, you must have interpreted by statement.

Of course I believe in the Real Presence.

I attend daily mass; I recite the Lturgy of the hours; the DIvine Mercy CHaplet; rosary, etc,

Besides, I was studying for the priesthood.

I do not recall what my answer is, but remember: I DO BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE

Perhaps you misconstrued my answer.

God bless you now,

Jim Roberts

 

[Cat_Herder]

There was a letter in the Irish Times from a RC priest who served various parishes, driving from one to the other. He said that since in each church he had to finish off the wine, and that this affected his driving ability, which he felt was a bit incongruous since it was the Blood of Christ.

That is because of the accidents of wine remaining. No surprise there.

 

[TedDC]

That is because of the accidents of wine remaining. No surprise there.

The whole “substance vs. accidents” thing to justify a belief in the “Real Presence” is simply one of the most amazing acts of mental contortion I’ve ever heard.

 

[GKC]

There was a letter in the Irish Times from a RC priest who served various parishes, driving from one to the other. He said that since in each church he had to finish off the wine, and that this affected his driving ability, which he felt was a bit incongruous since it was the Blood of Christ.

Odd thing for him to say.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Odd thing for him to say.

GKC

Well, perhaps he was being a bit tongue in cheek? I can imagine feeling that if God really wanted me to be driving from parish to parish for the Eucharist, he would make sure I didn’t get tipsy as a result.

But I don’t see why he didn’t get someone else to drink it rather than get tipsy and drive - usually there would be someone willing I would think.

 

[schaick]

Thank you everyone for the interesting discussion. I especially appreciated the protestants and fundamentalists taking time to share their viewpoints. And, I’m not actually sure why I assume that you automatically don’t believe in the Real Presence.

Anyway, I glad that it didn’t turn into too much of a :slapfight: !

Why? It is possible because Catholics have been told that only priests can confect the bread and wine. As if the Holy Spirit comes only to priests. How then do mere christians get baptized that the Catholic Church accepts their baptism?

I believe in real presence in under and with the bread and wine. GOD is Spirit and Spirit gives life and that is how Jesus is present for me.

 

[Cheshangle]

That is because of the accidents of wine remaining. No surprise there.

I’m glad you said that, because it’s precisely the understanding I had (from the book on Chritianity I have, written by an Anglican clergyman but approved by a RC priest).

 

[Cheshangle]

Odd thing for him to say.

GKC

Why?

Apparently the priest in question is regarded as being “a bit of a card”. Which is not to say that he is not a good priest.

In passing, a priest in Dublin, who died recently, was an expert racing tipster. The hierarchy were a bit uncomfortable about this, but he was very popular.

 

[Cheshangle]

Well, perhaps he was being a bit tongue in cheek? I can imagine feeling that if God really wanted me to be driving from parish to parish for the Eucharist, he would make sure I didn’t get tipsy as a result.

But I don’t see why he didn’t get someone else to drink it rather than get tipsy and drive - usually there would be someone willing I would think.

i) See my comment to GKC.

ii) Well, certainly the Anglican wine I helped the priest drink was certainly alcoholic. Whether this proves that it was not the blood of Christ, I don’t know.

I was reasurer of our cash-strapped parish in Ireland. Congregations were small and we had to make sure the wine was strong, otherwise it would become vinegary fairly quickly. So I stopped buying Vino Sacro from the local wine store and bought “grocer’s port” from a discount German-owned supermarket instead: it was cheaper and stronger.

 

[GKC]

i) See my comment to GKC.

ii) Well, certainly the Anglican wine I helped the priest drink was certainly alcoholic. Whether this proves that it was not the blood of Christ, I don’t know.

I was reasurer of our cash-strapped parish in Ireland. Congregations were small and we had to make sure the wine was strong, otherwise it would become vinegary fairly quickly. So I stopped buying Vino Sacro from the local wine store and bought “grocer’s port” from a discount German-owned supermarket instead: it was cheaper and stronger.

Sandemanns’ Port is the usual, in my parish.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Why?

Apparently the priest in question is regarded as being “a bit of a card”. Which is not to say that he is not a good priest.

In passing, a priest in Dublin, who died recently, was an expert racing tipster. The hierarchy were a bit uncomfortable about this, but he was very popular.

Depends on the seriousness of what he was suggesting. But, sure, could have been tongue in cheek.

GKC