The Real Presence

[Jim27290]

So then God cannot be omnipresent?

Why can God not be omnipresent? The Scriptures clearly point to God’s Omnipresence and though Christ’s earthly and physical body is in Heaven he is still present through His Word.

Here’s an example… President Obama’s presence may be manifested by his voice on radio or his appearance on TV yet he is personally thousands of miles away. In like manner God’s presence is seen, felt and manifested throughout the universe, but His personal presence is in heaven. Thus He is both present in Earth as He is in Heaven… and thus omnipresent.

Just because Christ is locally present in the Eucharist does not mean that He is not present… in fact it is quite the opposite, rather than being absent he is really and truly present.

But Jesus didn’t say ,“this signifies my body”, He said, “this IS my body.”

It’s like looking at the American flag. The threads, the dye, the weave pattern, etc., don’t make the American flag THE American flag. What makes it the American flag is the essence-or substance-that all of those things combined together form.

And in the Eucharist the bread and wine do really and truly become the the body and blood of Christ. They do not simply represent or signify (as I feel you are trying to imply I believe) the body and blood but are - really and truly - the body and blood of our Saviour.

If I may be permitted to modify your example:
It’s like looking at the American flag. The threads, the dye, the weave pattern, etc., don’t make the American flag THE American flag. What makes it the American flag is that one day it was declared to be The American flag (before then it was simply a group of stars, stripes and colours). In the same way the bread and wine at the Eucharist do not become the Body and Blood of Christ because man says so, nor because some medieval man said so… but because Christ has declared it so when He said “This is my Body” etc. It is Christs declaration that the significance of this simple bread and wine has changed that makes the bread and wine the Body and Blood… in the same way that if God where to say Light is Dark or Black is White it would be so by the very virtue that God is True and cannot lie or be wrong.

The bottom line is that if by the Word of God the entirety of the universe can be formed into existence, why is it so hard to accept that God can make Himself substantially present in the species (accidents) or bread and wine?

The real bottom line is that if by God’s Words the entirety of the universe can be formed into existence, why is it so hard to accept that God can make Himself present in bread and wine by His Words? Or can God not be present unless His presence agrees with the philosophising and aristotelian views of medieval men? :ehh:

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Why can God not be omnipresent? The Scriptures clearly point to God’s Omnipresence and though Christ’s earthly and physical body is in Heaven he is still present through His Word.

Here’s an example… President Obama’s presence may be manifested by his voice on radio or his appearance on TV yet he is personally thousands of miles away. In like manner God’s presence is seen, felt and manifested throughout the universe, but His personal presence is in heaven. Thus He is both present in Earth as He is in Heaven… and thus omnipresent.

The presence of Obama’s voice cannot be mistaken for Obama himself(as if I’d want to be in his presence-it is strange to me that you would think of him of all people to use as an example, but it may be nothing). Obama would never say," your TV is my body." And Obama is not God. But I don’t think I need to tell you that. I don’t blame you. It’s just a really bad analogy.

Jesus did say, “I am the door”; but Jesus never held up a door and said, “This is my body.” He did hold up bread and wine and say, “This is my body…this is my blood.”

Just because Christ is locally present in the Eucharist does not mean that He is not present… in fact it is quite the opposite, rather than being absent he is really and truly present.

And in the Eucharist the bread and wine do really and truly become the the body and blood of Christ. They do not simply represent or signify (as I feel you are trying to imply I believe) the body and blood but are - really and truly - the body and blood of our Saviour.

I think that we can agree that transignification cannot happen without an actual change in the substance of the accidents.

If I may be permitted to modify your example:
It’s like looking at the American flag. The threads, the dye, the weave pattern, etc., don’t make the American flag THE American flag. What makes it the American flag is that one day it was declared to be The American flag (before then it was simply a group of stars, stripes and colours). In the same way the bread and wine at the Eucharist do not become the Body and Blood of Christ because man says so, nor because some medieval man said so…

Where does the Church teach that the elements are changed, “because man says so, nor because some medieval man said so”?

but because Christ has declared it so when He said “This is my Body” etc. It is Christs declaration that the significance of this simple bread and wine has changed that makes the bread and wine the Body and Blood… in the same way that if God where to say Light is Dark or Black is White it would be so by the very virtue that God is True and cannot lie or be wrong.

God would not say that “light is dark” or “black is white”, not because he couldn’t do it, but because it wouldn’t make any sense and He doesn’t look to deceive His children.

The real bottom line is that if by God’s Words the entirety of the universe can be formed into existence, why is it so hard to accept that God can make Himself present in bread and wine by His Words?

I accept that God can make Himself present in bread and wine by His words as recited by His bishops & priests at Mass.

What I do not accept is that anyone can make Jesus present just because they recite His words while being outside of apostolic succession and holding false doctrines.

Or can God not be present unless His presence agrees with the philosophising and aristotelian views of medieval men? :ehh:

So do you really want to start getting inflammatory?

OK, how far back in Church history are you willing to go to find out just how wrong you are? It is a bad assumption that because the Church coined a term in the 13th century to infer that the belief was invented then.

 

[hn160]

Because Christ is locally in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
(ROM 8:34, HEB 9:24-25, ACT 1:11)

I have maybe made a mistake but I believed this thread was about the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist and Protestant views of that and I do not understand how my saying that I believe in the Real Presence somehow means that I am pretending to know the limits of the limitless God. No what I am basically saying is:

If you want it really simple… I mean that I believe in transignification.

I believe that the bread and the wine truly and really become the Body and Blood of Christ at consecration, and that Christ is truly and really present in the consecrated elements of the Eucharist… that is how my feeble human mind understands the Sacred mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

How can you believe that Christ is truly and really present in the bread and wine at consecration when you say that His Body is locally present in Heaven at the right Hand of God? Sounds Calvinist. The Right Hand of God is everywhere in time and space.

 

[Jim27290]

The presence of Obama’s voice cannot be mistaken for Obama himself(as if I’d want to be in his presence-it is strange to me that you would think of him of all people to use as an example, but it may be nothing). Obama would never say," your TV is my body." And Obama is not God. But I don’t think I need to tell you that. I don’t blame you. It’s just a really bad analogy.

Actually its’s not a bad analogy at all, regardless of your criticism. It shows succinctly how a person’s presence can be felt without that person being locally present. It was an analogy about presence not manifestation. It is called an example scenario and is not a real occurrence, I used Obama because I figured you were probably an American and you would know who I was talking about.

“I think that we can agree that transignification cannot happen without an actual change in the substance of the accidents. “

No I disagree, only a change in the significance of the substance of the accidents is necessary for transignification.

“Where does the Church teach that the elements are changed, “because man says so, nor because some medieval man said so”? “

The church takes what is a mystery, and tries to explain it using the medieval and aristotlian philosophy of men. I am content to say it is a mystery and though I may have my own views I would not force them onto others when it is impossible to know if I am correct… unlike some others.

God would not say that “light is dark” or “black is white”, not because he couldn’t do it, but because it wouldn’t make any sense and He doesn’t look to deceive His children.

So God can’t do something in case it confuses or deceives you? I thought God was limitless? The point I made (about God’s Words having the power to change the bread and the wine’s significance) still stands even if you do not want to address it…

I accept that God can make Himself present in bread and wine by His words as recited by His bishops & priests at Mass.

What I do not accept is that anyone can make Jesus present just because they recite His words while being outside of apostolic succession and holding false doctrines.

So you don’t believe that God can make Himself present in the Holy Eucharist by His own words contained in Scripture unless a Priest is there? God isn’t powerful enough to make His own presence felt but needs a priest to help?

So do you really want to start getting inflammatory?

OK, how far back in Church history are you willing to go to find out just how wrong you are? It is a bad assumption that because the Church coined a term in the 13th century to infer that the belief was invented then.

Apologies Grey Pilgrim I thought when the OP asked about Protestants who believed in the Real Presence he wanted to know about Protestants who believe in the real presence (like moi), but I must have missed the bit where answering the OP’s question was going to lead to an attack on any belief that wasn’t Roman enough. Of course though you have denied my priests and bishops, though you have denied my communion, and though you have denied my faith it is I who has been inflammatory towards you because I said that transubstantiation was formulated in medieval times.

The problem with Church history is that you are going to go back, pull up a load of quotes about the real presence and then use them to say that the church fathers believed in transubstantiation, when the same quotes could just as easily be used in support of transignification or almost any other belief supporting the real presence. Not that you will realise that of course.

How can you believe that Christ is truly and really present in the bread and wine at consecration when you say that His Body is locally present in Heaven at the right Hand of God? Sounds Calvinist.

But Scripture says Christ is in Heaven… and will only return at the end for the general resurrection and judgement. I can believe what I do because I believe that Christ is personally present in the consecrated bread and wine yet locally present in Heaven, which is both agreeable to Scripture AND Tradition. It most certainly isn’t Calvinist, they believe in pneumatic theory concerning the presence.

 

[david_ruiz]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/topic.gif

Let’s get back on the road.

Sorry. We have been starying ,haven’t we. Thanks for your "poster " indicating that. It gave me a much needed chuckle.

 

[Radical]

Hello Lyrikal …continuing from post #432 of this thread…where I ended with:

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.

Therefore, when you produce a statement from an ECF (including Augustine) that uses very realistic language wrt the Eucharist, my response is: So what? Realistic language merely allows for the possibility that the ECF in question believed in a RBP and is also consistent with other views that do not include a RBP. Nicea325 wants me to produce the outcries of “heresy” that (he believes) would have occasioned the introduction of a RBP (if it was indeed a innovation as I have claimed). He seems to think that innovations can’t be introduced through a gradual process w/o a grand battle w/i the Church (although that seems to be exactly what happened with the introduction of a NT canon). Pope Gelasius, in * De Duabus Naturis,* quite some time after Augustine wrote:

** “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” **

  In that work,  Gelasius was trying to argue, using the Eucharist as an example,  that the Divine nature of Christ did not overwhelm and eliminate the human aspect of Christ (the human aspect is fully present....it wouldn't be just the accidents of the human aspect that are present).  As such, Gelasius would not have believed that the substance of the bread was replaced....even though many years earlier such had been suggested by Ambrose and by the 4th century Antiochene school. J. 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 .

In other words, quite a wide range of descriptions existed in the early Church as to HOW Christ was present in/at the Eucharist. The common ground was that Christ was somehow present in a special way (a way that need not have been distinct in nature from how he was present in the Church, ie where 2 or 3 are gathered). It seems that Catholics commonly fail to see the variety that existed (and still exists today BTW). Instead they recognize the common theme of a special presence and then wrongly equate all varieties of a special presence at/in the Eucharist with a real somatic presence in the elements of the Eucharist.

Likewise, when you produce a scholar who claims that the ECFs were consistent in asserting a real presence with regard to the Eucharist, my response is: So what? There are a number of views that contemplate a real presence, but also stop short of a RBP. Did this scholar actually take into account that the ECF was possibly writing from a Platonistic/Neoplatonistic perspective, or did the scholar merely make an assumption that equated realistic language with a belief in RBP? Please keep in mind that a Calvinist could also use very realistic language and assert a “real presence” at his Lord’s Supper, but it would be a real spiritual presence that the Calvinist would envision. For what it is worth, IMHO the presence contemplated from the Platonistic/Neoplatonistic view has much more in common with a Calvinistic spiritual presence than it has with a RBP. (Which is why the Reformed believers are inclined to appeal to Augustine’s work in regard to this matter). As such, if you want to prove that Augustine believed in a RBP you must do more than merely produce quotes that use realistic terminology. (You should also consider the latest and best scholarship on the matter…JND Kelly’s was brilliant, but his work is starting to get a little dated in that much has been written since he penned what you quoted ). What you need to do, is to show that Augustine’s “HOW” requires a change in substance/requires a RBP. Conversely, if I want to prove that Augustine did not believe in a RBP, I must show that his “HOW” prohibited a change in substance/prohibited a RBP (We’ll see how I do in my posts to come). That is why I keep focusing on Augustine’s “HOW”. At this point, I haven’t seen you produce anything from Augustine that is inconsistent with a Neoplatonic real presence (that does not involve a RBP). Perhaps you could indicate what you think would be the strongest candidates (for such a thing) from the numerous quotes that you have produced?

 

[Radical]

This whole post assumes a fatal flaw-that the ECF’s necessarily used Platonic definitions when they applied Platonic philosophical terms.

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I didn’t make the alleged assumption, but instead I stated: “WRT Ignatius, we do not have enough to know “how” he thought “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”.”…Being honest as to our level of knowledge is not a bad idea.

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. …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.

Interesting approach. Apparently we shouldn’t assume that the ancients, when using terminology from an ancient philosophy, retained the common meanings for that ancient terminology. Instead, we should assume that the ancients redefined the meaning of the ancient terminology away from the established ancient meaning and towards a meaning that just happens to validate your modern belief. How very convenient. If that is the sort of thing that must be done (so that one can claim that one’s belief [in a RBP] has a continuous history w/i the Church going all the way back to the apostles), then you surely can’t expect the rest of us to have any respect for such a claim.

Again, what I advocate is asking “What did Augustine mean when he wrote X?” I am interested in an honest answer…I am not interested in an approach that really doesn’t ask that question, but asks, “How can X from Augustine be interpreted so that it is compatible with the position of my church?” The latter is not a recipe for proper history, it is a recipe for propaganda for that church…and it won’t stand up to peer review in scholarly circles. Perhaps GreyPilgrim, you could provide the titles of some peer-reviewed recent works that argue “this ECF used Neoplatonistic terminology, but redefined the terms and so that he wasn’t really a Neoplatonist”?

No doubt I’ll be accused of the doing what I dismiss, namely interpreting Augustine so as to make him compatible with my own beliefs. This is where the reader, (hopefully with reference to the opinions of learned scholars) will simply have to decide for himself: Which interpretation allows Augustine to speak for himself, from the perspective of his time and culture?

That brings me to another point. The “development” of Eucharistic theology is a development that is mired in Greek philosophy. Since we (for the most part) no longer follow those philosophical views, how can the modern Catholic legitimately co-opt descriptions which rely on an ancient greek philosophy and claim that those descriptions (ie a Neoplatonistic real presence) are consistent with modern Catholic descriptions? On these threads I have repeatedly asked Catholics for a detailed explanation (in plain language) of the “how” Christ is really bodily present at their Eucharist. I can’t recall that I have ever received a proper response…most will simply avoid the question. They can parrot the “substance” and “accidents” explanation, but when pressed as to what the substance of Christ’s flesh actually is (in simple langauge) and how it be fairly said to be actually present, the well runs dry. I suspect that the reason (in most cases) has to do with the fact that they don’t approach life with a greek philosophical outlook and so the philosophical foundation of the “how” is absent. In any event, I find the philosophy behind the RBP claims to be seriously lacking and so I view the RBP claim as seriously flawed. Any Judeo-Christian claim that depends on Greek philosophy for support is not a claim that originates with Christ or his Jewish apostles…IMHO, it is a claim that originates with later Greek converts.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Actually its’s not a bad analogy at all, regardless of your criticism. It shows succinctly how a person’s presence can be felt without that person being locally present. It was an analogy about presence not manifestation. It is called an example scenario and is not a real occurrence, I used Obama because I figured you were probably an American and you would know who I was talking about.

John 6:[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

No I disagree, only a change in the significance of the substance of the accidents is necessary for transignification.

The church takes what is a mystery, and tries to explain it using the medieval and aristotlian philosophy of men. I am content to say it is a mystery and though I may have my own views I would not force them onto others when it is impossible to know if I am correct… unlike some others.

So God can’t do something in case it confuses or deceives you? I thought God was limitless? The point I made (about God’s Words having the power to change the bread and the wine’s significance) still stands even if you do not want to address it…

So you don’t believe that God can make Himself present in the Holy Eucharist by His own words contained in Scripture unless a Priest is there? God isn’t powerful enough to make His own presence felt but needs a priest to help?

Apologies Grey Pilgrim I thought when the OP asked about Protestants who believed in the Real Presence he wanted to know about Protestants who believe in the real presence (like moi), but I must have missed the bit where answering the OP’s question was going to lead to an attack on any belief that wasn’t Roman enough. Of course though you have denied my priests and bishops, though you have denied my communion, and though you have denied my faith it is I who has been inflammatory towards you because I said that transubstantiation was formulated in medieval times.

The problem with Church history is that you are going to go back, pull up a load of quotes about the real presence and then use them to say that the church fathers believed in transubstantiation, when the same quotes could just as easily be used in support of transignification or almost any other belief supporting the real presence. Not that you will realise that of course.

But Scripture says Christ is in Heaven… and will only return at the end for the general resurrection and judgement. I can believe what I do because I believe that Christ is personally present in the consecrated bread and wine yet locally present in Heaven, which is both agreeable to Scripture AND Tradition. It most certainly isn’t Calvinist, they believe in pneumatic theory concerning the presence.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

disregard above post…tried to edit but was not allowed due to “time” issues

I will provide a complete reply later.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I didn’t make the alleged assumption, but instead I stated: “WRT Ignatius, we do not have enough to know “how” he thought “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”.”…Being honest as to our level of knowledge is not a bad idea.

You’re essentially saying that because we don’t know enough to know “how” he thought, and that you assume Platonic philosophy to be inherently false, we can’t accept what he writes as being true.

Which really means, “because I, on principle, disagree with & don’t like what Augustine says about the Eucharist, & because he was a Catholic, I have to cast aspersions on how Augustine came to his conclusions.”

How very honest.

Interesting approach. Apparently we shouldn’t assume that the ancients, when using terminology from an ancient philosophy, retained the common meanings for that ancient terminology. Instead, we should assume that the ancients redefined the meaning of the ancient terminology away from the established ancient meaning and towards a meaning that just happens to validate your modern belief. How very convenient. If that is the sort of thing that must be done (so that one can claim that one’s belief [in a RBP] has a continuous history w/i the Church going all the way back to the apostles), then you surely can’t expect the rest of us to have any respect for such a claim.

“Eucharist” orginally meant merely a “thank-offering”; the cannotation changed with the advent of the Church. So did “martyr”. After the first century the entire Roman Empire knew that “the Church” didn’t mean any common assembly. I’m sure in the ancient world the word “gospel” never again had the same meaning that it had prior to the Resurrection of Chirst.

“Faith alone” strictly speaking really doesn’t mean “faith alone”-protestantism has added meaning-or essentially changed the meaning-of the phrase.

I could multiply examples. But I think you get my point.

Again, what I advocate is asking “What did Augustine mean when he wrote X?” I am interested in an honest answer…I am not interested in an approach that really doesn’t ask that question, but asks, “How can X from Augustine be interpreted so that it is compatible with the position of my church?” The latter is not a recipe for proper history, it is a recipe for propaganda for that church…and it won’t stand up to peer review in scholarly circles. Perhaps GreyPilgrim, you could provide the titles of some peer-reviewed recent works that argue “this ECF used Neoplatonistic terminology, but redefined the terms and so that he wasn’t really a Neoplatonist”?

1)I’m still waiting for you to prove that Platonic philosophy adapted to Christian theology is inherently evil.

2)“Peer-reviewed recent works”-we’re not resorting to chronological snobbery are we? I didn’t know truth was told by a clock.

3)No, you’re just rejecting propaganda you don’t favor to perpetuate propaganda you do favor.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

No doubt I’ll be accused of the doing what I dismiss, namely interpreting Augustine so as to make him compatible with my own beliefs. This is where the reader, (hopefully with reference to the opinions of learned scholars) will simply have to decide for himself: Which interpretation allows Augustine to speak for himself, from the perspective of his time and culture?

Protestants can’t even let the Bible speak for itself, there is always flawed logic, false conclusions, & verses taken out of context not only in individual books but on the Bible as a whole.

What you’re essentially doing is calling Augustine’s character into question. To you he’s an admitted Catholic so there is no way he wrote anything in good faith much less that what he wrote was orthodox.

That brings me to another point. The “development” of Eucharistic theology is a development that is mired in Greek philosophy. Since we (for the most part) no longer follow those philosophical views, how can the modern Catholic legitimately co-opt descriptions which rely on an ancient greek philosophy and claim that those descriptions (ie a Neoplatonistic real presence) are consistent with modern Catholic descriptions? On these threads I have repeatedly asked Catholics for a detailed explanation (in plain language) of the “how” Christ is really bodily present at their Eucharist. I can’t recall that I have ever received a proper response…most will simply avoid the question. They can parrot the “substance” and “accidents” explanation, but when pressed as to what the substance of Christ’s flesh actually is (in simple langauge) and how it be fairly said to be actually present, the well runs dry.

1)You still have not proven that Greek philosophy, or philosophy-the science of thought-in general is inherently evil. Is geometry evil because of the pythagorean theorem was discovered by a Greek? Or is math false because of those pagan Egyptians?

My problem here is that I know that you have no problem with other sciences that have pagan origins and that were dicsovered by the mind of man(& by the grace of God), but this one you insist is false. Why? Because you don’t like the Catholic Church.

You’re whole argument is just based on prejudicial conclusions that you use as premises.

2)Wait a minute! You don’t ask “how” God can become a baby inside the womb of a virgin, or “how” God the Son can die on the cross, or “how” the Son was resurrected, but THIS you have to KNOW “how”. THIS is what you’re incredulous about?

The substance-the essence-that which He really is, is divine. Again, if you’re objection is that you don’t see anything divine in the host or the wine in the cup, then that says more about you than about the accidents of bread and wine.

I suspect that the reason (in most cases) has to do with the fact that they don’t approach life with a greek philosophical outlook and so the philosophical foundation of the “how” is absent. In any event, I find the philosophy behind the RBP claims to be seriously lacking and so I view the RBP claim as seriously flawed. In my opinion… Any Judeo-Christian claim that depends on Greek philosophy for support is not a claim that originates with Christ or his Jewish apostles…IMHO, it is a claim that originates with later Greek converts.

1. There is a big difference between “supports” and “elaborates” or “clarifies”.
2. What’s really behind your objection is the audacity that your opinions, 2000 years removed, are more true and of greater significance than the greater majority of believers and sages from the first 600 years of the Church. That Christ knew that the very Greeks that Jesus sent Paul to evangelize would immediately be apostates and mire “true christanity”(which you mean to mean protestantism) in pagan philosophy. Rather than Paul taught them exactly what the Church today teaches and that they applied elements of that philosophy to Christian theology to better understand what they believed.

Let’s put it this way. For every “proof” you put forth as being a Catholic/“Neo-platonic” contrivance on the part of the Church I can demonstrate how Protestant beliefs are not only false, but regurgitations of pagan & gnostic beliefs.

So if you’re willing to argue that the Apostles and the first century Church were really gnostics and/or pagans? You know I do believe that Marcion and Valentinus taught “bible alone”; you know the protestants were everywhere.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

Peace of Christ be with you. I will reply to your posts in more detail another time but I wanted to reply to the bolded part to your post.

Also, I would like to thank you for your posts, opinions, and arguments because I have learned a lot from them and they have challenged me in a positive way.

That brings me to another point. The “development” of Eucharistic theology is a development that is mired in Greek philosophy. Since we (for the most part) no longer follow those philosophical views, how can the modern Catholic legitimately co-opt descriptions which rely on an ancient greek philosophy and claim that those descriptions (ie a Neoplatonistic real presence) are consistent with modern Catholic descriptions? On these threads I have repeatedly asked Catholics for a detailed explanation (in plain language) of the “how” Christ is really bodily present at their Eucharist. I can’t recall that I have ever received a proper response…most will simply avoid the question. They can parrot the “substance” and “accidents” explanation, but when pressed as to what the substance of Christ’s flesh actually is (in simple langauge) and how it be fairly said to be actually present, the well runs dry. I suspect that the reason (in most cases) has to do with the fact that they don’t approach life with a greek philosophical outlook and so the philosophical foundation of the “how” is absent. In any event, I find the philosophy behind the RBP claims to be seriously lacking and so I view the RBP claim as seriously flawed. Any Judeo-Christian claim that depends on Greek philosophy for support is not a claim that originates with Christ or his Jewish apostles…IMHO, it is a claim that originates with later Greek converts.

In John 1, St. John talks about the Word or the Logos. That ideology stems from Greek philosophy prior to 1st Century AD (I believe 600 years prior). With that said, that doesn’t mean that the concept of the Logos was not taught in 1st Century AD by the Greeks. The point is, the concept of the Logos did not originate from the Apostles or from Jesus or from the Old Testament. The idea originated from Greek philosophy and yet you and I both accept it as Gospel truth and the Word of God. I believe that people have scattered truths in their beliefs at the time of Christ and prior to Christ’s Incarnation.

Perhaps this article/scholarly work can help: web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/logos.html

More replies to come (God willing).

Grace and peace be with you, Radical.

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical,

Peace of Christ be with you. I will reply to your posts in more detail another time but I wanted to reply to the bolded part to your post.

I am up to the point of making speciifc responses…hope to do that shortly

Also, I would like to thank you for your posts, opinions, and arguments because I have learned a lot from them and they have challenged me in a positive way.

you are welcome and thanks for your posts in return

In John 1, St. John talks about the Word or the Logos. That ideology stems from Greek philosophy prior to 1st Century AD (I believe 600 years prior) … The point is, the concept of the Logos did not originate from the Apostles or from Jesus or from the Old Testament.

I disagree…“What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus.” James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making , 167…I think you can trace the orthodox “logos theology” to the OT (at least to a degree that allows it some independence from Greek philosophy)…the “Gnostic logos theology” strikes me as being very much influenced by Greek philosophy.

 

[lyrikal]

I am up to the point of making speciifc responses…hope to do that shortly

you are welcome and thanks for your posts in return

I disagree…“What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus.” James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making , 167…I think you can trace the orthodox “logos theology” to the OT (at least to a degree that allows it some independence from Greek philosophy)…the “Gnostic logos theology” strikes me as being very much influenced by Greek philosophy.

I can respect your disagreement although I disagree with your disagreement. I do think the idea of the logos is influenced by Greek philosophy (although not in the same way) and the Gospel writer used it in regards to Christ who IS the Word (Logos) of God. The idea is not the same as those of the Greeks but one can make an argument that the source is from the Greeks (in one way or another).

With that said, here is Paul quoting from secular and Greek philosophers of his time and attributes the ideas to Christianity:

Acts 17:28—“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Paul is quoting the pagan poets Aratus and Epimenides of Crete. “It is not by accident that Paul can quote from classical Greek poetry. He has obviously studied it and can use it as a bridge to reach the sensibilities of his Greek audience. Yet Paul keeps it in subservience to the divinely inspired Word of God” (Witness to Christ: A Commentary on Acts, pp. 253–54).

With that said, I don’t think we can judge a doctrine or an idea by the source that it comes from. One can argue that the Jews had a stronger emphasis on the idea of heaven and hell AFTER their encounter with the Zoroastrians. That doesn’t make the idea of heave and hell false, but it means that there are scattered truths in a lot of religions.

Also, whether you accept this fact or not, it is not a stretch for early Christians at the time to take the words of Christ “This is my body” to be taken literally. That does not have to come from Greek philosophy but it can easily come from the Scriptures (granted you don’t accept that interpretation but my point is that it is not a stretch to believe that someone CAN take those words of Christ literally without any influence of Greek philosophy).

God bless.

 

[david_ruiz]

Don’t know if this has been shown, - “Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice, after the ascension of Christ , this sacrifice is COMMEMORATED in the sacrament”- Augustine,Faustus 20-18-20,"But when this shall be, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man’s life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth eaten spiritually and drunken spiritually. For we have heard the Lord himself saying, “It is the spirit that gives life ,the flesh pofiteth nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life”. I noticed Augustine’s “if”. Apparently he believed to be symbolic and from other quotes some kind of RP. Perhaps he was not dogmatic on this issue ,nor was the Church yet…Again notice his “if”, as if it his opinion, allowed by his beloved Catholic Church.

 

[david_ruiz]

Could not find it again but someone posted that Jesus said, " This is my Body…" and not, “This is a symbol of my Body…” at the last supper .Actually many times when speaking allegorically, or figuratively, or symbolically ,we don’t preempt the statement with those words, but rather speak in literal terms ,else you lose the power of the statement. Christ many times spoke figuratively ,not because he said it was figurative ,but because it was understood to be so. And if you didn’t understand it , it was meant so (lest you be saved ,with an unchanged heart -remember why He spoke in parables ?). The John 6 folks who didn’t understand the figurative speech were unbelievers.They took His words literally.They were Jewish. Jesus came to fulfill the law , not break it .Eating His flesh is un-Jewish totally .Animals are a foreshadow of sacrifice only .The eating of the sacrifice was ok cause we it them anyways(animals) .But eat a human ? Never. Others example of figurative speech:“I am the Good Shepherd”. Well he was a carpenter ,but never a literal shepherd .If you take it literally ,then are we,believers in His flock. literally sheep ?. Was he literally a Gate,a Vine, the Greek alphabet. Is He literally the Bread of Life ? He said if you eat it this Bread you shall not die , yet we die. If we eat the bread of life ,we should not go hungry, yet we can hunger and be thirsty.

 

[Trebor135]

Don’t know if this has been shown, - “Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice, after the ascension of Christ , this sacrifice is COMMEMORATED in the sacrament”- Augustine,Faustus 20-18-20,"But when this shall be, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man’s life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth eaten spiritually and drunken spiritually. For we have heard the Lord himself saying, “It is the spirit that gives life ,the flesh pofiteth nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life”. I noticed Augustine’s “if”. Apparently he believed to be symbolic and from other quotes some kind of RP. Perhaps he was not dogmatic on this issue ,nor was the Church yet…Again notice his “if”, as if it his opinion, allowed by his beloved Catholic Church.

It seems that you’re taking “spiritual” to refer to what is “figurative” or “symbolic”. To use the hermeneutical principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture, however, St. Paul appears to regard “spirit” quite differently–as pertaining to being “godly”:

Galatians 5:13-26: [13] For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.
[14] For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
[15] But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another.
[16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.
[17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
[18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
[20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
[21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
[23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
[24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
[25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
[26] Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

If St. Augustine is employing “spiritual” to mean “godly”, as St. Paul does in the above passage, it would seem that the former would have in mind that partaking unworthily in communion is actually harmful to the individual doing so–a sinful act of the “flesh”.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Could not find it again but someone posted that Jesus said, " This is my Body…" and not, “This is a symbol of my Body…” at the last supper (…)

Okay, do you want to go back in time and tell a first century Jew that he didn’t need to eat the flesh of the passover lamb while you’re at it?

 

[david_ruiz]

Okay, do you want to go back in time and tell a first century Jew that he didn’t need to eat the flesh of the passover lamb while you’re at it?

Thanks for your reply .No, I said they ate the Animal sacrifice ,as prescribed by law .It was also prescribed by law NOT to eat Human flesh,at the very least by inference.That is what heathens do, sacrifice flesh (infants ,virgins and sometimes eat them ) .They also ate brave warriors hearts ,their enemies , so as to gain their brave “essence”.This was anathema to the Jews.

 

[Nicea325]

Thanks for your reply .No, I said they ate the Animal sacrifice ,as prescribed by law .It was also prescribed by law NOT to eat Human flesh,at the very least by inference.That is what heathens do, sacrifice flesh (infants ,virgins and sometimes eat them ) .They also ate brave warriors hearts ,their enemies , so as to gain their brave “essence”.This was anathema to the Jews.

Exactly! As it was to drink Blood. Precisely why those Jews left and no longer followed Jesus when he said: EAT My flesh and DRINK my Blood or else you have no life.

If it is merely symbolic,why be offended and leave? They knew exactly what Jesus meant.