G
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And yet, not nearly so much so as that of claiming a symbolic presence.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.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
Perhaps it’s as much of the nuts and bolts of what happens as we are able to comprehend.And yet, not nearly so much so as that of claiming a symbolic presence.
Jon
GKC
T
TedDC
Guest
How so?And yet, not nearly so much so as that of claiming a symbolic presence.
Jon
T
TedDC
Guest
How do we know that anything actually does happen to the bread and wine?Perhaps it’s as much of the nuts and bolts of what happens as we are able to comprehend.
GKC
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think that it is simpler in the end to say that Christ is really present in the Eucharist but it still is bread and wine to the senses.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.
Perhaps the only thing that the substance/accident idea is trying to get across is that while we believe Christ to be really present in a physical way in the Eucharist, we do not believe that his Body is subject to the same kind of constraints of normal matter in the world. In the same way as his resurrected body could pass through a solid object and did not seem to be constrained by time and space in the way we are used to, it can appear in the form of bread and wine.
At the least, Transubstantiation is a human attempt to express and understand Christ’s words, in His own testament - “This is my body”.How so?
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
We interpret the Scriptures, with reference to the witness of the early Church. Sort of like most of the things we know about the Faith.How do we know that anything actually does happen to the bread and wine?
GKC
Exactly. Melanchthon does precisely this in th Apology of the Augsburg Confession.We interpret the Scriptures, with reference to the witness of the early Church. Sort of like most of the things we know about the Faith.
GKC
He cites scripture, the early Church, and Vulgarius and Cyril.we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc.
Jon
R
Radical
Guest
- 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.
14.But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative…
You are focusing on section 11. I quoted from section 13. By the time Augustine got to section 13 he was talking about useful signs, being the OT signs that pointed to Christ and then the signs of baptism and the Eucharist which are possessed by the Church. Augustine is in the process of providing a rule for interpretation, to be used by the members of his Church. Section 13 takes this form:… 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,…
a) Someone who doesn’t know what a sign points to and who honors the sign is in bondage to it.
b) a fellow who knows that a useful sign (one which points to Christ) is a sign, really honors Christ and not the sign itself.
c) the OT patriarchs and prophets are examples of the second type of fellow.
d) Christians are free from attending to the many (useful) signs of the OT
e) baptism and the Eucharist are rites/signs received from Christ and the apostles by the Church
******** from here I’ll make Augustine’s remarks particular to the bread/body of the Eucharist **********
f) as soon as a Christian looks at the bread he knows it points to Christ’s body
g) to follow the letter, and to take the bread (the sign) for Christ’s body (the thing that is signified by it), is a mark of weakness and bondage and is error
h) a person who doesn’t know what the bread points to, but still knows that the bread is a sign is not in bondage to that sign.
i) it is better to be in bondage to the bread (as per [a] above, being someone who honors the bread w/o knowing what it points to) than to err in interpreting the sign of the bread by following the letter and (mis)taking the bread for Christ’s body
******* the first sentence of section 14 should be noted for it further clarifies Augustine’s purpose. It reads: *********
But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal , we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative.
So the crux of it is this:
- Christians have fewer signs, baptism and the Eucharist being listed
- Augustine provides a rule for Christinas to use wrt their signs
- the rule is to not follow the letter and take the signs for what they signify
- the rule guards against Christians taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal
You have it exactly backwards. Augustine wasn’t worried that someone would worship the Eucharist as bread. That would be worshipping the sign…taking the signified thing for the sign (Christ for bread). Augustine’s concern was regarding taking “signs for the things that are signified by them”. Since bread is the sign, it would be taking bread for what it signifies (Christ’s body).… 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!
S
schaick
Guest
Really? You are the first Catholic to say that!!
G
GKC
Guest
Every RC I’ve ever spoken to on the subject understands that. Assuming proper matter, form, intent and subjects. IOW, it is not the minister that determines validity in baptism/matrimony.Really? You are the first Catholic to say that!!
GKC
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Because you are setting them up to contradict one another.You are focusing on section 11. I quoted from section 13.
So you’re actually going to walk up to a Levite and tell him that the Passover and all of the sacrifices were a bunch of symbolic signs that don’t really do anything? Really? Why don’t you go up to the angel of destruction who went through Egypt killing the firstborn and tell him that the lamb’s blood on your door is only symbolic and doesn’t really do anything?By the time Augustine got to section 13 he was talking about useful signs, …being the OT signs that pointed to Christ
b) a fellow who knows that a useful sign (one which points to Christ) is a sign, really honors Christ and not the sign itself.
Uh… the OT patriarchs and prophets did not know Christ. Nor did they believe that the Levitical sacrifices were signs.c) the OT patriarchs and prophets are examples of the second type of fellow.
f) as soon as a Christian looks at the bread he knows it points to Christ’s body
g) to follow the letter, and to take the bread (the sign) for Christ’s body (the thing that is signified by it), is a mark of weakness and bondage and is error
I’m sorry, but that interpretation is ridiculous. So a pagan or an atheist walks into a Mass and goes and consumes the Eucharist believing that it is a “sign” is better off than a Catholic who believes that it is the Body of Christ? What exactly was Paul warning the Corinthians about in 1 Cor 11 then? They were all Christians and so they knew what the Eucharist was allegedly a “sign” of. So why are they all sick and dying if it is just a “sign”?h) a person who doesn’t know what the bread points to, but still knows that the bread is a sign is not in bondage to that sign.
Wow. You really do think a Nazi who goes and desecrates the Eucharist is better than St. Maximillian Kolbe.i) it is better to be in bondage to the bread (as per [a] above, being someone who honors the bread w/o knowing what it points to) than to err in interpreting the sign of the bread by following the letter and (mis)taking the bread for Christ’s body
If marriage is just a “useful sign” with no real effect then why is premarital sex sinful? If marriage is just symbolic and has no real effect on the spouses, and it’s not a sin after marriage, then why is it a sin before marriage? It’s the same man and the same woman. The only diference is whether the act occurs before or after the ritual. Thus that ritual has an actual effect. It changes the couple’s standing before God. Marriage is a sacrament, just like the other six, the Eucharist included.So the crux of it is this:
And as you can see from marriage, sacraments are more than useful signs or symbols. They are real.
C
Cheshangle
Guest
In Ireland our (Anglican) church organist lived next door to the local RC priest and they were good friends. One Ascension Day she was unable to attend the Church of Ireland eucharist in the evening, so asked the RC father if she could receive communion at his church. “Only if you believe in transubstantiation”, was the reply, and she said she didn’t.We interpret the Scriptures, with reference to the witness of the early Church. Sort of like most of the things we know about the Faith.
GKC
I mentioned this to a CofI priest I knew, and he said, “she should have asked him to explain transubtantiation”. I can see what he was getting at. I think that I would have replied by quoting the John Donne stanza.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Except if you then argue that being outside the Catholic Church necessarily implies a defect in form or intent - or perhaps even if you don’t say it necessarily does, but every time it comes up you say it actually does.Every RC I’ve ever spoken to on the subject understands that. Assuming proper matter, form, intent and subjects. IOW, it is not the minister that determines validity in baptism/matrimony.
GKC
I’ve also been told recently that in some of his recent writings Pope Benedict seems to be making a much greater correlation between validity of Sacraments and being in the Church. I haven’t read anything of his on this myself but it is interesting if it’s true.
S
schaick
Guest
So what exactly is the following saying?
Canon 900 ß1 The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest.
Canon 900 ß1 The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest.
G
GKC
Guest
That the sacrament of the Eucharist is not the same sacrament as that of matrimony or baptism.So what exactly is the following saying?
Canon 900 ß1 The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
But the RCC doesn’t say that being outside the RCC necessarily implies anything like that. Which is why it recognizes Orthodox, or OC/PNCC orders as valid, but illicit. See Ott, p. 458.Except if you then argue that being outside the Catholic Church necessarily implies a defect in form or intent - or perhaps even if you don’t say it necessarily does, but every time it comes up you say it actually does.
I’ve also been told recently that in some of his recent writings Pope Benedict seems to be making a much greater correlation between validity of Sacraments and being in the Church. I haven’t read anything of his on this myself but it is interesting if it’s true.
I have encountered RCs, on the subject of Anglican orders and Apostolicae Curae, who were convinced that the logic of the condemnation rested on Anglicans not being in communion with Rome. Nope.
Validity of intent requires only the intent to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclessia). Same as in Baptism; proper form and matter, and the RCC assumes there is proper intent. Validity of minister, for the Eucharist, requires a validly ordained priest, and such need not be in the RCC. I doubt seriously that there is anything in the Pope’s writings that will change that.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
And a validly ordained priest may be one ordained by a validly consecrated bishop, be he heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated. See (as I occasionally say) Ott, p. 458.
GKC
GKC
R
Radical
Guest
No. I provided, in point form, what Augustine said in section 13…something you haven’t even attemptedBecause you are setting them up to contradict one another.
where would you get the idea that Augustine or Augustine as protrayed by me would think that a useful sign could not or would not really do anything?So you’re actually going to walk up to a Levite and tell him that the Passover and all of the sacrifices were a bunch of symbolic signs that don’t really do anything?
this is merely your opinion…and what you have entirely failed to do is to then explain what Augustine meant (in your opinion) by mentioning the OT patriarchs and prophets. The issue is what was meant by Augustine and not what (you think) would result from Augustine’s meaning.Uh… the OT patriarchs and prophets did not know Christ. Nor did they believe that the Levitical sacrifices were signs.
You just don’t get it…Augustine (as I clearly stated), in section 13 is talking about Christians and how they should view their signs…so a pagan, Nazi and atheist are irrelevant…and then again, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion in thinking that Augustine or Augustine as protrayed by me would think that a useful sign could not or would not really do anything (besides serve as a sign).I’m sorry, but that interpretation is ridiculous. So a pagan or an atheist walks into a Mass and goes and consumes the Eucharist believing that it is a “sign” is better off than a Catholic who believes that it is the Body of Christ? …Wow. You really do think a Nazi who goes and desecrates the Eucharist is better than St. Maximillian Kolbe…If marriage is just a “useful sign” with no real effect then why is premarital sex sinful?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.