The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

The reason why Evangelicals don’t believe that Christ’s Body and Blood are in the bread and wine is because they have either Zwinglian or Calvinist roots. They are told that Christ’s Body is confined to Heaven and his Spiritual Presence is only on earth ( Calvinist ), or it is symbolic ( Zwingli ).
This was Luther’s argument Zwingli at Marburg. Luther said that he would rather drink wine with the pope than with Zwingli. Zwingli was of a different spirit.

Perhaps.When one is dependent on tradition or others for truth they may believe everyone else is also.Evangelicals may believe what they believe , fully or in part simply because the Holy Spirit has "illuminated ’ them on the subject, or verse, or doctrine etc… Also it is their experience .The blind man that was healed by jesus and questioned by the elders had been taught by his church , his tradition since a youth. Yet all things were put into perspective when he met and "saw’ the Savior. He was frustrated by the questions putting God’s way into a certain box of rules and traditions, and finally exclaimed the simple truth about jesus and his experience. His (healed man) theology was pure gold, and had the wisdom of the ages.

 

[jlhargus]

That is your “manual” .What is your experience ? Were you regenerated at baptism ?

JL: Yes I was regenerated at baptism just as scripture tells us.

The thief on the cross came to believe ,and believe that he could be saved and confessed it . Jesus told him “yes, you are saved” - “The Spirit beareth witness in us”. Christ did not say ,now that you bore witness you are saved ,but more “you bore witness because your heart knew you were because of Me”.What comes first ,the confession or belief ? Do you confess then God gives you faith ? Or does God give you faith ,that you are saved and out of the abundance of the heart it speaketh of his salvation . Romans 10:14 "How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed ? " Faith comes first ,to ask for salvation ."And whoso calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Rom.10:11) I would say you are saved if you sincerely believe and confess the Lord as your savior .That is verse 9 paraphrased.and with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation…Peter and Cornelius They heard the gospel and believed and the Holy Ghost fell on them ,they even spoke in tongues just like pentecost sunday .They were regenerated with the preachers words. They were baptized in the Holy Ghost. They were born again .The LAST thing they did was to be water baptized.The credentials for water baptizing gentiles was that they were already saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was not effectual (regenerating) for them ,other than being obedient and having a clear conscience for said obedience…Is there scripture to show an instance where someone did not believe , then were baptized then came to believe ?.. Perhaps we are missing the fundamental that we can do nothing good , even our efforts of righteousness is stench in his nostrils .To believe that He is the messiah and a rewarder of those who seek Him is a good thing , that certainly came not form our Adamic nature -a dead spirit, a soul at enmity with God. Only a rekindled ,regenerated ,born-again spirit can retain saving faith .

JL: David, so as not to hijack this line. I have posted my answer to this post on the following baptism line. I will also post two more in answer to your baptism posts, if possible some times I can get on line and post and some times can’t… This line is for “The real Presents”. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=576979&page=6

 

[Radical]

The reason why Evangelicals don’t believe that Christ’s Body and Blood are in the bread and wine is because they have either Zwinglian or Calvinist roots. They are told that Christ’s Body is confined to Heaven and his Spiritual Presence is only on earth ( Calvinist ), or it is symbolic ( Zwingli ).

This was Luther’s argument Zwingli at Marburg. Luther said that he would rather drink wine with the pope than with Zwingli. Zwingli was of a different spirit.

Perhaps.When one is dependent on tradition or others for truth they may believe everyone else is also.Evangelicals may believe what they believe , fully or in part simply because the Holy Spirit has "illuminated ’ them on the subject, or verse, or doctrine etc… Also it is their experience .The blind man that was healed by jesus and questioned by the elders had been taught by his church , his tradition since a youth. Yet all things were put into perspective when he met and "saw’ the Savior. He was frustrated by the questions putting God’s way into a certain box of rules and traditions, and finally exclaimed the simple truth about jesus and his experience. His (healed man) theology was pure gold, and had the wisdom of the ages.

David, I think that you have named one of the ingredients that hn160 missed. If one is freed from an unquestioned adherence to tradition, one is free to choose a better/different answer to questions such as:

a) shouldn’t a real body be actually present if a real bodily presence is claimed?

b) did the CC get this right?

c) did Zwingli get this right?

d) what exactly did Christ mean?

Another ingredient that hn160 missed is that thing called the “real world”. One can hear the grand claims, one can hear the philosophical explanations involving accidents and substances and one can hear the emotional descriptions of the enthusiast’s experience, …but at the end of the day, the bread is still bread

 

[Nicea325]

well, as long as we are in the business of making unrealistic demands for statements by ECFs, perhaps you and Nicea325 could produce a quote from within Augustine’s many, many words that expressly declares that he believed exactly the same as Ambrose did regarding a RBP or that all the ECFs believed exactly the same thing regarding the Eucharist. Now you might want to ask why you should expect to find such a quote, but I have been waiting for such an explanation from Nicea325 from when he first demanded that I produce a quote with a certain content…I am not sure of the usefulness of Nicea325’s game, but he sure seems to enjoy playing it.

Game? You call a direct challenge on a very important matter called the Eucharist a game? Seriously? What is the matter? Got you up against the wall? Nice DIVERGENCE and dance Radical. You cannot provide a single shred of evidence from any ECF the RP was false or heretical,thus you have to turn the tables around? A clear sign you have been cornered.

Wow! I find it so many amazing countless ECF discuss heresies and so on,but not a single word about the UNORTHODOX teaching about the RP of the Eucharist?

As I said,you believe a novelty and early church history does not support your novelty until centuries later.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

what could one do that could be properly called soul eating?..or divinity eating? It would seem that these are very fuzzy concepts…**and I don’t recall Augustine ever describing eating something other than Christ’s flesh (which he described as a figure of speech) and the sacramental bread **God bless you

St.Augustine believed the Eucharist to be a Sacrament. St.Augustine knows and teaches that every valid sacrament contains the true presence of Jesus.

It would appear your interpretations from a far regarding a Catholic Saints Catholic faith and understanding regarding the Sacraments removes all doubt from ST.Augustines faith in the True presence of Jesus body and blood in His Eucharist.

To deny St.Augustine did not distribute the sacraments nor believe in them, exposes your Augustine interpretations to be false and misleading.

If your interpretation of St.Augustines Catholic faith was other than Catholic in the Eucharist, then it would be easy for you or anyone else to prove St.Augustine did not believe nor practice the sacraments?

As far as your comments reveal that St.Augustine believed in the sacraments, thus he believed in the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist. Because all the sacraments reveal a True and real presence of God in communion with our humanity.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;8188324]this sure isn’t a recipe for an honest understanding of Augustine…it is a recipe for a predetermined result…you aren’t asking, “What did Augustine mean by this?” instead you are asking, “How can I interpret this passage from Augustine so that it complies with Catholic teaching?” It gets you what you want and nothing more

.

What you create from St.Augustine’s writings is a Frankenstine, not an Augustine. You have yet to prove that St.Augustine was never a non practicing Catholic, heretic, apostate, or a fallen away Catholic who refused to believe in the Eucharist as you do today. Iam sorry but St.Augustine never held or holds to your view of the Eucharist. As much as you ask of his writings, or as much as you would like to think St.Augustines prestigious Catholic mind might in some way reveal something other than what Catholics have always believed in the True presence. Is not happening.

You know there is something you should know about your roots in Catholicism. When the Catholic Church was underground for the first 400 years after the resurrection of Jesus. The mysteries of the Eucharist were not spoken openly, if anything they were hidden from view of unbelievers, lest they get reported to the Romans. This mysterious Eucharist became the norm of the Catholic Church, that it became ingrained in societies to refrain from speaking of the Eucharist openly and only to the believers or catachumens.

I find this speech hidden in many of the ECF’s including St.Augustine. St.Ambrose knew what it meant to be underpersecution. If you take in all these known factors of the ECF’s societies and present circumstances + some, then you will begin to understand some of the mysticism of their writings. Just to give you and your scholars a heads up, in studying a ECF especially a Catholic Saint, one cannot take their writings always at face value, without knowing their present circumstances involving not only the Saint but the whole Church in general.

It’s ok for you to comment on a Catholic Saint, It is a great disgrace and a discredit to your findings to try and discredit a Catholic Saints faith especially in the Eucharist,

Twisting words to mean other than what was believed in the day when the Saint wrote them. “This wine is the blood of Christ, This bread is the body of Christ”. When St.Augustine says these words, he means them. He never held your protestant view, because you never existed in Christian history before or during Augstines time.

Peace be with you

 

[hn160]

David, I think that you have named one of the ingredients that hn160 missed. If one is freed from an unquestioned adherence to tradition, one is free to choose a better/different answer to questions such as:

a) shouldn’t a real body be actually present if a real bodily presence is claimed?

b) did the CC get this right?

c) did Zwingli get this right?

d) what exactly did Christ mean?

Another ingredient that hn160 missed is that thing called the “real world”. One can hear the grand claims, one can hear the philosophical explanations involving accidents and substances and one can hear the emotional descriptions of the enthusiast’s experience, …but at the end of the day, the bread is still bread

we believe that when Christ said “ThisisMy Body…, ThisisMy Blood…”. This is called faith. The only difference between Roman Catholics and Lutherans on this subject is that the RC try to explain how it happens, Lutherans call it a Mystery.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

we believe that when Christ said “ThisisMy Body…, ThisisMy Blood…”. This is called faith. The only difference between Roman Catholics and Lutherans on this subject is that the RC try to explain how it happens, Lutherans call it a Mystery.

Historically both Roman and Orthodox Catholics call it a mystery with Jesus true body and blood present. Martin Luther called it “consubstantial”, that Jesus is somehow present along side the bread and wine.

The Roman Catholic church does not try and explain how it happens, she only reveals to the doubters and scientific minds who deny the Eucharist as impossible., that the Church say’s Yes it is possible and it does happen by “Transubstantiation”. This defined term never exhausts the mystery of the Eucharist. It only reveals what happens to the bread and wine by “Transubstantiation”, anything more than this definition can lead into error.

So, you are correct that Trasubstantiation explains what happens to the bread and wine, after this everything else begins faith and mystery. Transubstantiation begins the faith into the mystery.

Peace be with you

 

[Nicea325]

.

What you create from St.Augustine’s writings is a Frankenstine, not an Augustine. You have yet to prove that St.Augustine was never a non practicing Catholic, heretic, apostate, or a fallen away Catholic who refused to believe in the Eucharist as you do today. Iam sorry but St.Augustine never held or holds to your view of the Eucharist. As much as you ask of his writings, or as much as you would like to think St.Augustines prestigious Catholic mind might in some way reveal something other than what Catholics have always believed in the True presence. Is not happening.

You know there is something you should know about your roots in Catholicism. When the Catholic Church was underground for the first 400 years after the resurrection of Jesus. The mysteries of the Eucharist were not spoken openly, if anything they were hidden from view of unbelievers, lest they get reported to the Romans. This mysterious Eucharist became the norm of the Catholic Church, that it became ingrained in societies to refrain from speaking of the Eucharist openly and only to the believers or catachumens.

I find this speech hidden in many of the ECF’s including St.Augustine. St.Ambrose knew what it meant to be underpersecution. If you take in all these known factors of the ECF’s societies and present circumstances + some, then you will begin to understand some of the mysticism of their writings. Just to give you and your scholars a heads up, in studying a ECF especially a Catholic Saint, one cannot take their writings always at face value, without knowing their present circumstances involving not only the Saint but the whole Church in general.

It’s ok for you to comment on a Catholic Saint, It is a great disgrace and a discredit to your findings to try and discredit a Catholic Saints faith especially in the Eucharist,

Twisting words to mean other than what was believed in the day when the Saint wrote them. “This wine is the blood of Christ, This bread is the body of Christ”. When St.Augustine says these words, he means them. He never held your protestant view, because you never existed in Christian history before or during Augstines time.

Peace be with you

Bottomline is simple: St.Augustine was never criticized for teaching the RP of the Eucharist. If Augustine were teaching something heretical (aka: RP),I find it odd not ONE ECF living during his time never bothers to say a word? Now doesn’t anyone find that striking?

 

[hn160]

Historically both Roman and Orthodox Catholics call it a mystery with Jesus true body and blood present. Martin Luther called it “consubstantial”, that Jesus is somehow present along side the bread and wine.

The Roman Catholic church does not try and explain how it happens, she only reveals to the doubters and scientific minds who deny the Eucharist as impossible., that the Church say’s Yes it is possible and it does happen by “Transubstantiation”. This defined term never exhausts the mystery of the Eucharist. It only reveals what happens to the bread and wine by “Transubstantiation”, anything more than this definition can lead into error.

So, you are correct that Trasubstantiation explains what happens to the bread and wine, after this everything else begins faith and mystery. Transubstantiation begins the faith into the mystery.

Peace be with you

Beg to differ, show me where Luther called it “consubstantial”. Luther said “in, with, and under”, yes you can see and taste the bread and wine but Christ True Body and Blood is there also. RC try to use Aristotelian logic to try to explain the accidents.

 

[Radical]

Game? You call a direct challenge on a very important matter called the Eucharist a game?

yep, it is a game when you have never shown why your question is “very important”…you have never shown why such a conflict must have occured (notwithstanding repeated requests)

Seriously? What is the matter? Got you up against the wall? …A clear sign you have been cornered.

yep, cornered with a bunch of reputable scholars…a rather comfortable corner to be in.

Wow! I find it so many amazing countless ECF discuss heresies and so on,but not a single word about the UNORTHODOX teaching about the RP of the Eucharist?

they don’t seem to have preserved their confrontations regarding whether the book of Revelation should be considered as scripture or not and they don’t seem to have preserved many of their confrontations regarding the innovations that led to the Marian doctrines either…my goodness, it would seem that the historical record isn’t exhaustive or that confrontations need not arise in every instance…feel free to prove otherwise.

 

[Radical]

St.Augustine believed the Eucharist to be a Sacrament. St.Augustine knows and teaches that every valid sacrament contains the true presence of Jesus…

I wish that you would have clarified this sooner…it would have saved a lot of time. For the record, I believe that Jesus is truly (and bodily) present in your Eucharist to the same extent as Augustine believed that that Jesus was truly (and bodily) present in the waters of baptism.

 

[Radical]

we believe that when Christ said “ThisisMy Body…, ThisisMy Blood…”. This is called faith.

we believe that when Jesus addressed his disciples at the last supper he probably spoke Aramaic and said something like, “This - my body”. Jesus was using a figure of speech…this is also called faith (and I would also call it common sense).

The only difference between Roman Catholics and Lutherans on this subject is that the RC try to explain how it happens, Lutherans call it a Mystery.

Personally, I think the “mystery” route is the better way to go, but when your belief must be classified as a “mystery” b/c you don’t know how it works, then it shouldn’t be a required belief. It is kinda like saying, “I don’t really know what I am talking about, but you still have to accept what I teach.”

 

[Pitcharan]

… Personally, I think the “mystery” route is the better way to go, but when your belief must be classified as a “mystery” b/c you don’t know how it works, then it shouldn’t be a required belief. It is kinda like saying, “I don’t really know what I am talking about, but you still have to accept what I teach.”

Belief is indeed a mystery. God is a mystery and we believe in God. Believing the unseen is a blessing. “…; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29c)

The mystery is demystified when we realise that there is something called ‘spiritual vision’ that sees divine truth but is unaffected by satanic deception.

**Faith is best understood as belief in truth by virtue of spiritual vision, even when there is no tangible evidence but unaffected by deceptive illusions.

Hardness of heart is the opposite of faith and can be best described as unbelief caused by spiritual blindness that rejects truth despite glaring solid evidence but readily accepts untruth without any proof.**

 

[Angels_Eyes]

Hardness of heart is the opposite of faith and can be best described as unbelief caused by spiritual blindness that rejects truth despite glaring solid evidence but readily accepts untruth without any proof.

Hello Pitcharan,

I love your quote. This is so true and it really stood out for me. My sister is an Athiest and stuggles with my belief…wish I could tell her this.

I think we are all very blessed by God to have our belief and faith in him. It makes me sad that some many don’t…wow, aren’t they missing out.

Your friend,
Angels Eyes.

 

[Pitcharan]

Hello Pitcharan,

I love your quote. This is so true and it really stood out for me. My sister is an Athiest and stuggles with my belief…wish I could tell her this.

I think we are all very blessed by God to have our belief and faith in him. It makes me sad that some many don’t…wow, aren’t they missing out.

Your friend,
Angels Eyes.

Thank you Angel. Hope my post is also seen by Radical.

Regards
Pitcharan

 

[jlhargus]

Bottomline is simple: St.Augustine was never criticized for teaching the RP of the Eucharist. If Augustine were teaching something heretical (aka: RP),I find it odd not ONE ECF living during his time never bothers to say a word? Now doesn’t anyone find that striking?

JL: Nicea I agree with you totally. I would add bottom, bottom line understanding the RP devleoped. Augustine’s view along with other ECF was part of that development, which led to it’s being define. Differing opinions were permitted before the definition that’s part of development. But something heretical would have been condemned The Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH discernd the Lord’s Body AND defined it as transubstantiation.

Also bottom line [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, **NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY.] If you don’t discern the LORD’S BODY then you discern a SYMBOL.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Game? You call a direct challenge on a very important matter called the Eucharist a game?

yep, it is a game when you have never shown why your question is “very important”…you have never shown why such a conflict must have occured (notwithstanding repeated requests)

Yep and it is a game when you cannot admit due to pride you have no evidence to rebuke my challenge. I’ll ask you again:

Show me one ECF rebuking Augustine for teaching a heterical/unorthodox teaching called the RP?

Quote:
Seriously? What is the matter? Got you up against the wall? …A clear sign you have been cornered.

yep, cornered with a bunch of reputable scholars…a rather comfortable corner to be in.

Confortable corner? Do you think you can be a bit more prideful? Speaking of the blind leading the blind,by all means go for it. Your mere three so-called scholars outweigh scores of other ECF’s? Really? No offense,but I find it comical.Care to show me where one of your “reputable” scholars clearly demostrate Augustine was teaching a heresy as noted by other contemporary ECF’s? Let us see how “reputable” these three heros of yours are in the trenches.

Quote:
Wow! I find it so many amazing countless ECF discuss heresies and so on,but not a single word about the UNORTHODOX teaching about the RP of the Eucharist?

they don’t seem to have preserved their confrontations regarding whether the book of Revelation should be considered as scripture or not and they don’t seem to have preserved many of their confrontations regarding the innovations that led to the Marian doctrines either…my goodness, it would seem that the historical record isn’t exhaustive or that confrontations need not arise in every instance…feel free to prove otherwise.

Speaking of games? Keeping on dancing Radical. The issue at hand is the RP based in historical writings and evidence available to us from ECF’s throughout the centuries,not the CANON of SCRIPTURE,so stick to the topic.

Century after century and NOT ONE ECF ever attacks or discusses Augustine heretical teaching on the RP?

Any time you can honestly answer it let me know,since apparently you have the confidence St.Augustine was a Protestant.

 

[Nicea325]

JL: Nicea I agree with you totally. I would add bottom, bottom line understanding the RP devleoped. Augustine’s view along with other ECF was part of that development, which led to it’s being define. Differing opinions were permitted before the definition that’s part of development. But something heretical would have been condemned The Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH discernd the Lord’s Body AND defined it as transubstantiation.

Also bottom line [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, **NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY

.] If you don’t discern the LORD’S BODY then you discern a SYMBOL.

Exactly! If the Eucharist were merely symbolic in nature,then why would ANY ECF sugar-coat it and not simply say it? Why go to such extremes to cover it and not say it is only symbolic and the RP is a total unorthodox teaching?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Beg to differ, show me where Luther called it “consubstantial”. Luther said “in, with, and under”, yes you can see and taste the bread and wine but Christ True Body and Blood is there also. RC try to use Aristotelian logic to try to explain the accidents.

Luther applied the term “consubstantial” to the Eucharist, believing the bread and wine remained present alongside the new substances of Christ’s body and blood. Your definition that you applied agrees with Luther’s new doctrien of the Eucharist that the bread and wine “see and taste the bread and wine”, “but Christ True Body and Blood is there ALSO”.

The RC did not try and use Aristotel’s teaching on matter, She did use it to defend the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist against all science who refuted the true presence, by using their own scientific term “Transubstantiation” which no science can ever refute their own intellectual logic of matter, because the Church proved the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in terms that any intellectual can begin the path of Faith in Jesus Christ.

The RC did not try and explain the True presence she did explain in natural terms what happens to the bread and wine their substance transubstantiates into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, this calls for the True Faith.

Luther took the cowards way out, but stating the bread and wine remain bread and wine and somehow thinks that Jesus is somewhere in space “in, with and under”? the bread and wiine? Luther’s definition “in, with and under” the bread and wine is officially defined as “Consubstantiation”.