The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

[Have you read Rod Bennet’s "The Four Witnesses

"? No

"…we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner…assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say) by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of that very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by the means of the successions of bishops. For it is of necessity that every (local)Church should agree with this Church(in Rome), on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere,

[/QUOTE]

 

[Nicea325]

Who said it was ? It was divided however ,as it is down to today.The wheat with the bad stuff,growing side by side.The "One " church as it is often put, is a myth. If it were not, Nicea wouldn’t have been necessary. And the “problem”, division continued even worse after the council .

Many non-Catholics I encounter truly believe the early church resembled Protestanism,fundamentalism,etc of today. Divided in terms of heresies and what not,but not into different denominations like today. I BEG YOUR PARDON? The “One” church is a MYTH? Seriously? A MYTH? A MYTH to so many non-Catholics as yourself,but that is not what Jesus or the Apostles taught in the NT. So what you are telling us Jesus did NOT found HIS ONE Church and succeeded by His twelve? It was all lie?

Nicea was not called because there existed many different denominations,but because of a doctrinal dispute. Where do you get your information? Divisions of today is a Protestant issue which was sprung from the get-go.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim
[Have you read Rod Bennet’s "The Four Witnesses

"? No

Quote:
“…we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner…assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say) by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of that very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by the means of the successions of bishops. For it is of necessity that every (local)Church should agree with this Church(in Rome), on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those (faithful men) who exist everywhere.” (Against Heresies, bk 3, chpt 3).

“Not sure”? Irenaeus is pretty clear.

"? No

"will get back to you ,time permitting ,but I disagree with your translation .But yes ,I am bad at knowledge of this stuff. i firgot about the difference of opinion with His satement.

You disagree with the translation? It has nothing to with translation,but with comprehension.If you are going to seriously DENY what Irenaeus clearly said,then no amount of references supporting the same belief will make a difference,so why bother with this dialogue?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Many non-Catholics I encounter truly believe the early church resembled Protestanism,fundamentalism,etc of today. Divided in terms of heresies and what not,but not into different denominations like today. I BEG YOUR PARDON? The “One” church is a MYTH? Seriously? A MYTH? A MYTH to so many non-Catholics as yourself,but that is not what Jesus or the Apostles taught in the NT. So what you are telling us Jesus did NOT found HIS ONE Church and succeeded by His twelve? It was all lie?

Nicea was not called because there existed many different denominations,but because of a doctrinal dispute. Where do you get your information? Divisions of today is a Protestant issue which was sprung from the get-go.

That’s the modern misconception that ultimately defies logic. Its the assumption that you can get more from less. That personal subjective opinions, confusion, divisions are what ultimately cause unity. This is Enlightenment philosophy. And while it may sound good to the ears and in politics it makes for terrible doctrine. It is compromise. And any evaluation of when men get together to “compromise” shows that what is agreed upon is the lowest common denominator. So ‘christianity’ to them is merely a lowest common denominator religion that glosses over real doctrinal differences.

This defies what happened in history when the Church gathered in Coincils under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit and under His guidence proclaimed infallible doctrine. It’s too hard and harsh for modern ears. It offends modern man’s sensibilities. They forget that Jesus confounded and offended the sensibilities of many while He was on earth.

 

[Nicea325]

That is the key assumption & misunderstanding of many if not all protestants when they read into Christian history. They assume their idea of “church”-that is the merely loose confederacy of ‘bible-believers’ who gloss over doctrinal differences.

To them when we demonstrate how one Church father or another wrote work ‘x’ or work ‘y’ they don’t see that work or the expositions in that work as being believed universally. They read those works merely as the opinion of one man-beit a bishop, a pastor, theologian, or as they put it ‘missionary’. And that those beliefs were only the witness of that particular ‘church’.

To them theologies were just as varied then as they are today. To them the only thing that makes the ‘RCC’ different is that they assume that the ‘RCC’ became corrupted & then used the political influence of secular Rome to force the ‘Roman doctrine’ upon other churches. IOW the ‘RCC’ enslaved ‘real christians’ to the ‘Roman doctrine’. Luther, Zwingly, and Calvin are heroes because they freed christianity from the “RCC’s” tyranny.

That is their view of history. It is revisionist history at best, outright dishonesty at its worse. It ignores the volumes written before Christianity’s legalization that clearly demonstrate a Universal Church in which all of the local churches, while they did have their heretics and scismatics, all believed the same doctrine, practiced generally the same worship, and all confirmed that their doctrines and practices came from the Apostles. They believed in the Real Presence, they attended Mass, they prayed to the Saints as demonstrated by graves and catecombs all over the Empire, they prayed for the dead. They believed that Mary was the Theotokos(the Mother of God) before the council of Ephesus needed to be conveined because of heretics who had betrayed the Faith. They believed in purgatory. And they believed that the Bishop of Rome was the head teaching & administrative authority for that Universal Body-even the pagan Romans before the 3rd century knew this.

When the case of Paul of Samosata was brought before the Emperor Aurelian, he himself said that he had no jurisdiction in the matter & that the case needed to be sent to “your Pope in Rome.”

All of this before either 313 or 325.

Nicea was called to answer against bishop Arius & Arianism, which denied Jesus’ divinity. Constantine was not a Christian at this time. At best he was merely a syncretist who was actually sympathetic to Arius. Constantine wasn’t baptized until he was on his death-bed. So for protestants to paint him as some great champion for pagainized Catholicism is intellectually dishonest.

Sadly many fundamentalists, and most professional anti-catholics, aren’t well known for doing their due dilligence when it comes to ancient history. Sadly they’ll find just enough to satisfy their prejudices and post what they find as “fact”. Although their methods and techniques they owe to Boettner and his ilk.

Exactly! Many times they accuse Catholic apologists of “proof-texting” ECF’s. First of all, how can they “proof-text” any ECF when many believed and taught the same (aka Real Presence). Second, it would be so coincidental for numerous to all teach and believe in the samething. Third, on the contrary,many anti-Catholics “proof-text” the ECF to present a smoking gun and/or convey a false message by the ECF.

 

[Nicea325]

That’s the modern misconception that ultimately defies logic. Its the assumption that you can get more from less. That personal subjective opinions, confusion, divisions are what ultimately cause unity. This is Enlightenment philosophy. And while it may sound good to the ears and in politics it makes for terrible doctrine. It is compromise. And any evaluation of when men get together to “compromise” shows that what is agreed upon is the lowest common denominator. So ‘christianity’ to them is merely a lowest common denominator religion that glosses over real doctrinal differences.

This defies what happened in history when the Church gathered in Coincils under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit and under His guidence proclaimed infallible doctrine. It’s too hard and harsh for modern ears. It offends modern man’s sensibilities. They forget that Jesus confounded and offended the sensibilities of many while He was on earth.

I agree with your statement earlier, many people try to re-write early church history to please their personal agendas or their denomination. I once knew a Baptist who told me Jesus founded the Baptist church and the RCC destroyed it and the “real” Christians were killed by the early popes? What a big pile of garbage! I cannot people are that gullible to believe such nonsense.

 

[Jim27290]

I’m Anglican and fully believe in the real personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don’t believe that he is locally present… if you know what I mean

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I agree with your statement earlier, many people try to re-write early church history to please their personal agendas or their denomination. I once knew a Baptist who told me Jesus founded the Baptist church and the RCC destroyed it and the “real” Christians were killed by the early popes? What a big pile of garbage! I cannot people are that gullible to believe such nonsense.

They’re gullible because it feeds into the prejudices that they are fed by their pastors on Sundays and Wednesday nights. But mostly they’re indebted to Lorranie Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”, Ralph Woodrow’s “Babylon Mystery Religion”.

Two things about Woodrow’s work is that he basically stole all of his ideas from another work called “The Two Babylons” printed in 1853 by Alexander Hislop, and later Woodrow reputiated his work because he was ridiculed just for the sheer number of errors and lack of any real evidence. Sadly professional anti-catholics disseminate information like Woodrow’s quicker that old wives do with gossip out any tabloid. And they all print their claims as if they’re the ones who made the “discovery”. So it does take a considerable amount of investigating to track down their “sources”.

They work off of the false notion that similarity necessarily implies decent. They are ignorant to the possibility that the Enemy, who knew the plan of God, would mock God’s plan and that the demons would plant tiny bits of truth in their lies so that when fully grown their cults would resemble God’s Chruch to the ignorant.

They are also ignorant that it wasn’t the Church which was “corrupted” by paganism but that the Church “baptized” pagan cultures. IOW it keep was was good so long as it pointed in some way to Christ and removed was was evil. The Catholic Church undid the lies of the demons and showed the entire western world that the truth of the Church was greater than the lies of the demons and thus converted the entire Roman Empire, survived & thrived during the Germanic invasions, and then went on to convert the rest of the continent of Europe.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’m Anglican and fully believe in the real personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don’t believe that he is locally present… if you know what I mean

Why not?

 

[Radical]

That works for me.

** The Problem of Early Philosophy**
First, let me clarify a thing that I don’t think the Catholics here have ever addressed (in their discussions with me). The thing is the Platonistic and Neoplatonistic views held by the ECFs. For the ancients “the essence of a thing is ultimately to be defined by the power by which it is possessed.” (Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West p. 40) As such, if God imparted his grace to the elements of the Eucharist such that they drew the participants deeper into the unity of the body of Christ, then it would be appropriate to identify the elements of the Eucharist as the body and as the blood of a Christ b/c the unifying power/grace of the body/blood of Christ acted through the elements, or in other words, the power of a higher level of reality acted through the elements in the lower material level of reality. Another way that the ancients looked at it or expressed it was to understand that the prototype was mediated through the image/symbol. As such, the image/symbol could be said to make the thing that it symbolized, present** (in a certain way)** to the participant…and for that reason could be said to be the thing that it represented (ie the bread could be said to be the body). It should be stressed that the image (bread) was not seen to have changed in substance, but rather, a divine power, grace or spiritual power was understood to have been added the element (and this, in no way involved a real bodily presence). As such, the “real presence” involved would be a Platonistic Real Presence (PRP) and not a real bodily presence (RBP). The significance of the material realm was down played and the significance of the spiritual realm, realm of power, realm of divine grace was emphasized so that the reality of a thing was determined by what was going on in the higher spiritual/non-material plane. Please pardon this rather pitiful description of the Platonistic and Neoplatonistic views, but hopefully it is adequate for my purposes.
The relation of the Platonistic or Neoplatonistic view to the use of realistic language
Given the foregoing, every time you approach the work of an ECF you should take into account the possibility that the father possessed a Platonistic or Neoplatonistic view. If such was the case, then that ECF could very well utilize very realistic language to describe the Platonistic Real Presence (PRP)…which is something very different from a RBP. For example, these quotes from Ignatius are often provided by Catholics here as if they unquestionably demonstrate a belief by Ignatius in a RBP:
" They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, 6.

“… so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”
-“Letter to the Ephesians”, 20

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-“Letter to the Romans”, 7

Yes, Ignatius used very realistic language…So what? Figures of speech often use very realistic language…in fact, such usage often makes the figure more effective. A Platonistic Real Presence (PRP) would be described using very realistic language, but it is something very different than a RBP b/c no conversion in substance occurs. ** What you need to pair with the realistic language are statements declaring a conversion (in the substance) otherwise the realistic language does not necessitate a belief in the RBP.** WRT Ignatius, we do not have enough to know “how” he thought “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”. It might be that he was saying that the heterodox did not admit that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ, b/c, after all, the heterodox did not believe that Christ came in the flesh. It might be that he was indicating that his community believed in a PRP which didn’t include a RBP. It might be that he was indicating that his community believed in a RBP (though I suspect that belief had not yet developed). The question is** “how was the Eucharist the flesh of Christ in Ignatius’ mind?” ** It seems that around here, the assumption is that there is only one possible meaning that could have existed for an ECF who used realistic language to say that the bread is the flesh/body of Christ…and that assumption is simply wrong. Realistic words do not establish a belief in a RBP.

WRT Ignatius, IMHO we do not have enough to be able to flesh out his philosophical viewpoint and so we can’t say with any certainty what he meant, yet it seems that Catholics around here automatically assume that his use of realistic language establishes his belief in a RBP. WRT Augustine, we have enough to know that he was Neoplatonic in his approach. As such, if you want to establish that Augustine believed in a RBP then you must be able to point to something more than his use of realistic language…you must be able to show that he taught that a change in substance occurred. By Augustine’s time, Ambrose in the west and the 4th century Antiochene school in the east had taught (clearly) that the Eucharist involved a conversion/change of substance and as such, the language of substantive change was not only available to him, but likely familiar to him. Nevertheless, Augustine never uses the language of substantive change.

(This is all I can get to at this time…so I’ll pick it up from here in my next “general” post…God bless you)

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

** The Problem of Early Philosophy**…

This whole post assumes a fatal flaw-that the ECF’s necessarily used Platonic definitions when they applied Platonic philosophical terms. Rather than redefine certain Platonic terms to apply them to Christian doctrine to clarify the Church’s beliefs in the face of Gnostic heresies.

Bottom line, Radical, I don’t accept your argument because I don’t accept your premises. The even the book of Acts shows Paul in Athens appealing to words and images familiar to Greeks in order to convert them to Christ. History has shown that the Church essentially “baptized” pagan cultures-centered their practices on Christ while disposing of that which was incompatible with Christianity. So it is reasonable to assume that the same was done with Greek philosophical terms, they used the terms but adjusted their definitions to apply to and clarify Christian theology.

You must prove your premises to be true before putting forth an argument instead of assuming your premises in your conclusion and arguing as if your premises were true.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m Anglican and fully believe in the real personal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don’t believe that he is locally present… if you know what I mean

So what you are basically saying is that you know what God can or cannot do?

 

[david_ruiz]

Many non-Catholics I encounter truly believe the early church resembled Protestanism,fundamentalism,etc of today. Divided in terms of heresies and what not,but not into different denominations like today. I BEG YOUR PARDON? The “One” church is a MYTH? Seriously? A MYTH? A MYTH to so many non-Catholics as yourself,but that is not what Jesus or the Apostles taught in the NT. ]So what you are telling us Jesus did NOT found HIS ONE Church and succeeded by His twelve? It was all lie?

In terms of being under one heirarchal leadership ,from a Catholic standpoint ,no .That desire has never been fulfilled.The Church has never been fully under the leadership of the bishop of Rome. Now if you take a different discernment as to what “Church” is , that is another thing, as to “oneness”. Are you saying we are “One” in Christ, His Bride ,His Body ,His Church, Catholics or non- Catholics alike ,despite some doctrinal differences,as long as we are baptized into his Body ?

Nicea was not called because there existed many different denominations,but because of a doctrinal dispute. Where do you get your information? Divisions of today is a Protestant issue which was sprung from the get-go.

No, not denominations as you say ,but aren’t many denominations based on doctrinal differences ? Anyways ,division is division is division ,and most I would think are doctrinal.While there were basics universal truth s in the early church there were doctrinal disputes,and carnal divisions.

 

[david_ruiz]

So what you are basically saying is that you know what God can or cannot do?

That is the same argument used for Mary and her Immaculateness and Assumption . As a church father said long ago , just because God can do something , let us not suppose he has done something simply because he can. I can,t recall who said that ,he may have gone on to say Holy Scripture gives us the outline,even boundaries.

 

[david_ruiz]

[You disagree with the translation? It has nothing to with translation,but with comprehension.If you are going to seriously DENY what Irenaeus clearly said,

It, as clear as scripture,like when Peter confessed Christ ,and the “upon this rock”.etc,something Iraneus NEVER quoted . Why ??? It was the perfect opportunity ,after all he was writing about church structure and heierachy ,of the apostles entrusting the Sacred Gospel ,not just to anyone, but to carefully chosen successors , but NO mention of Peter being the rock ,passing on the Keys .If silence doesn’t speak ,then maybe speaking is suspect also.
[/QUOTE]

 

[lyrikal]

It, as clear as scripture,like when Peter confessed Christ ,and the “upon this rock”.etc,something Iraneus NEVER quoted . Why ??? It was the perfect opportunity ,after all he was writing about church structure and heierachy ,of the apostles entrusting the Sacred Gospel ,not just to anyone, but to carefully chosen successors , but NO mention of Peter being the rock ,passing on the Keys .If silence doesn’t speak ,then maybe speaking is suspect also.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

-St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3)

Would still like you to give an answer to this, please. Good luck.

Thank you.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

In terms of being under one heirarchal leadership ,from a Catholic standpoint ,no .That desire has never been fulfilled.The Church has never been fully under the leadership of the bishop of Rome.

OK, that its just circular logic. Exactly how do you know that it was never fulfilled. It seems that you are assuming your conclusion.
david ruiz:

Now if you take a different discernment as to what “Church” is , that is another thing, as to “oneness”.

IOW the “different discernment” being the protestant one? Sorry, but no matter how bad you wish the early Church was like modern protestantism, doesn’t make it so. The ECF’s were clear, “oneness” necessitated communion with the Bishop of Rome. He was the sign and the instrument of the unity that God wanted. And if you weren’t in communion with Rome, you were not in the Church, you did not have Christ as your Lord, you did not have God as your Father, you did not have the Holy Spirit-no matter how well your intentions.
david ruiz:

Are you saying we are “One” in Christ, His Bride ,His Body ,His Church, Catholics or non- Catholics alike ,despite some doctrinal differences,as long as we are baptized into his Body ?

Whatever you have that is true, came from the Church. Whatever you have that is false, came from the “Reformers”(or as I call them Revolutionaries).

What I don’t understand is how someone could be a minimalist Christian. Why would you only want a little of Christ here and a little of Christ there? Yet that is exactly what protestants imply by remaining protestant.

Why not have all of Christ-or the “fullness” of Christ, that is found in His Church?
david ruiz:

No, not denominations as you say ,but aren’t many denominations based on doctrinal differences ? Anyways ,division is division is division ,and most I would think are doctrinal.While there were basics universal truth s in the early church there were doctrinal disputes,and carnal divisions.

True. And since the divisions are doctrinal they can and should be-and in the case of the Church have already been-answered. Divisions don’t remain because of the doctrines themselves, they remain because of the pride and disobedience of those protestants who steadfastly hold those false doctrines because they don’t want to submit to what they perceive as an “earthly” authority. Protestantism has taught them that they are their own authority, that their interpretation of scripture is just as valid as anyone else’s, including any theologian, or some group of bishops, or even that bishop in Rome.

Of course this is very appealing to modern minds fresh out of the Enlightenment, yet it is completely antithetical to the very work which they hold to be their only authoritative source-the Bible.

The bottom line is that there has to be One Church which is right and the others, in one way or many, are wrong.

I didn’t read history as a Catholic to reinforce my preconceptions. I read history as an atheist/agnostic in my search for God and found the Catholic Church as the only true Christian Church. I didn’t have any preconceptions, just and open mind and a docile heart.

I came from evangelical protestantism to atheism. And nowhere did I find anything close to it in the early Church. Anyone who does is committing eisegesis. They’re reading protestantism into history, or reading history through their protestant colored glasses. They were taught that the Early Church was protestant, so all that they read they impose their terms, experiences, and understandings upon all that they read. And when they find other passages-sometimes contained within the same work which they claim justifies their beliefs-that is too “catholic” for their tastes they either completely ignore it or explain it away as if the writer didn’t really mean what he wrote.

And for someone who loves history as I do, I find such acts highly offensive. It borders on intellectual dishonesty.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

It, as clear as scripture,like when Peter confessed Christ ,and the “upon this rock”.etc,something Iraneus NEVER quoted . Why ??? It was the perfect opportunity ,after all he was writing about church structure and heierachy ,of the apostles entrusting the Sacred Gospel ,not just to anyone, but to carefully chosen successors , but NO mention of Peter being the rock ,passing on the Keys .If silence doesn’t speak ,then maybe speaking is suspect also.

Again, arguments from silence are not proofs.

Following your line of reasoning an atheist could argue, “no one has seen God, therefore God does not exist.” And because of your answer above you would have no rebuttal.

 

[Nicea325]

That is the same argument used for Mary and her Immaculateness and Assumption . As a church father said long ago , just because God can do something , let us not suppose he has done something simply because he can. I can,t recall who said that ,he may have gone on to say Holy Scripture gives us the outline,even boundaries.

Really David? Scripture gives us the outline and boundaries? Show me where the scriptures once mention a canon for Scripture? Hhmmm? I wonder where on earth did the canon derived from?

 

[Nicea325]

It, as clear as scripture,like when Peter confessed Christ ,and the “upon this rock”.etc,something Iraneus NEVER quoted . Why ??? It was the perfect opportunity ,after all he was writing about church structure and heierachy ,of the apostles entrusting the Sacred Gospel ,not just to anyone, but to carefully chosen successors , but NO mention of Peter being the rock ,passing on the Keys .If silence doesn’t speak ,then maybe speaking is suspect also.

DENIAL…DENIAL…DENIAL. It is okay to swallow your pride.

“…we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner…assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say) by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of that very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also (by pointing out) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by the means of the successions of bishops. **For it is of necessity that every (local)Church should agree with this Church(in Rome), on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those (faithful men) who exist everywhere.” **(Against Heresies, bk 3, chpt 3).