The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

Not fifty thousand. But five thousand–which is bad enough, frankly. I’ll have to go find the list.

Don’t bother .Somewhere someone did a study(have it somewhere and debunked even your 5000 It is propaganda there are 6-7 branches of Christianity .It is David A. Barrett’s “World Christian Encyclopedia”.but “www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm” reviews his data. Uniformity at the cost of freedom of conscience, or truth ,or personal divine revelation, isn’t worth it and has never been part of God’s desire.There was division with the bite of that apple to cain and abel to us ,and it doesn’t bother God’s plan. A Christian ,whether he be catholic or orthodox or protestant ,are all unified. by one baptism. into His body,into Christ. Even if we all believed the same thing ,we would still be divided , by what really divides us all-sin .Don’t you have luke warm catholics and on fire catholics, strong ,weak, and drinking catholics and gambling catholics etc etc ,as in protestantism ? that is division also. That hurts/divides us all, ,just as division on let’s say RP or Mary’s Ascension etc.

I really doubt Protestants used catechisms first. Everything Protestants have is taken from Catholicism or their own imaginations.

Quite a range of corrections I make. First one says we are rebels and have rejected all our previous history ,and all things Catholic, to where anything good we have is from Catholics.I am sure some early Jews also looked down on the new Jewish sect -Christianity,as if their developments of the original faith promise (Adam and Eve /Abraham etc.) were “it”, and could this new sect dared offer anything better-remember, “you are from us and our ancestors -you are a Nazarite, a carpenter, you have nothing new on us” is what they said .Again ,you assume, like the Jews ,that the faith handed down to you is a perfect ,pure faith ,as from the beginning. How many times did Jesus have to, not invent the wheel as the Jews thought ,but to bring them Back to the original intent, “from the beginning”. So anything that Catholicism has ,that is from the beginning, hopefully protestants aspire to and retain.

Their “main authority” was orthodox Christianity, passed down in written and oral form from one generation to the next.

Disagree,that the main authority(for creeds or councils) was “themselves” ? We both agree to written ,and we both acknowledge oral, just put different emphasis on oral .I thought that was the whole point for creeds ,to bring into alignment the oral developments .I can’t believe that a letter by Iraneus was as authoratative as the epistle of John ., or that tradition done in Africa was as authoratative as the book of Hebrews.Notice I ackowledge ECF’s and tradition /oral , just not on par with Scripture.

So, many Protestants choose the little of what suits them from the early centuries of Christianity and throw out the rest.

No surprises there. I agree that we do that …May we both not be suited or want anything un-scriptural ,un-apostolic ,unholy or un-universal- an age old tradition.

 

[Mountain_King]

The belief Augustine believed in a symbolic Eucharist is just plain absurd and a nothing but a Protestant injection into a ECF wishing to make him appear “Protestant” in his beliefs. Some Protestants will say anything and write scores of books simply in a desparate hope that people will believe them…If Augustine believed in the RP and it was false or heretical,why didn’t many other ECF’s such as Ambrose or Jerome attack him or correct his misunderstanding?

Exactly!!!

 

[david_ruiz]

No worries at all.

In an earlier post, I told Radical that the Church does not believe that we are literally eating the body parts of Jesus. We don’t believe that one church has Jesus’ ribs while another Church has His legs. It is all sacramental, not literally flesh eating as if I were to chop off a piece of Christ and eat Him like a cannibal. I had hoped that would have cleared up my stance on the matter before arguing what Augustine believed. This is the issue at hand, I think. When Augustine (when speaking about John 6) tells us that we are not to literally eat the flesh of Christ and drink His Blood, He is not denying a RP in the Eucharist. He is telling us that we are not to understand this in a literal way where we are to go eat the body parts of Christ in a cannibalistic way.

I guess Radical needs to understand the Church’s stance on the Eucharist before arguing against it or arguing that Augustine didn’t believe in a RP (the way the Church understands it). Perhaps the issue is terminology and understanding eachother’s doctrines.

Again ,I enjoy your dialogue with radical .I did connect with a few of the ideas, but now I shake my head and say there is rp .rbp .and now substantial presence ? What scares me is i think I understand the semantics of it .Wow ( like that is good and bad)… I am wondering what years Augustine wrote the parts where he seems to suggest a figurative approach ? Was Ambrose even alive (died 397),and Augustine would have been 43, living till age 76 ? Jerome lived till 420. Could it be like the Augustinians and the Dominicans ,who fought (for centuries?) over views on Mary ? I think it was those two orders /groups that “debated” the issue. Point being two views were allowed under Catholicism . Although I could not envision Augustine arguing by debasing, as the former groups did, more because of his spiritual demeanor /respect for all things Christian,and the way enlightenment occurs. So if he disagreed with Ambrose , he may not have directly opposed him and vice -versa, but still held his ground, as two brothers, not yet “glorified”, before the Lord. Anyways ,fascinating history, and again , I admire the demeanor between you and radical .

 

[david_ruiz]

The belief Augustine believed in a symbolic Eucharist is just plain absurd

You had me going with some of your good insights of rp ,rbp substantial .You want to say Augustine believed in one of those ok ,but to say he did not also suggest a figurative approach you drop support from some historians who also agree with the former(some sort of literalness)

Some Protestants will say anything and write scores of books simply in a desperate hope that people will believe them.

. An outsider would say both Radical and especially Lyrikal have written a bunch here, and neither view is desperately absurd, as you say about Radical… Maybe Augustine is that last vestige of one truth before it changes ,develops evolves into something else ? I don’t think so ,but maybe, for you know , I believe RP dogma developed, (and that does not have to be something negative/proving from your viewpoint).

 

[lyrikal]

Again ,I enjoy your dialogue with radical .I did connect with a few of the ideas, but now I shake my head and say there is rp .rbp .and now substantial presence ? What scares me is i think I understand the semantics of it .Wow ( like that is good and bad)… I am wondering what years Augustine wrote the parts where he seems to suggest a figurative approach ? Was Ambrose even alive (died 397),and Augustine would have been 43, living till age 76 ? Jerome lived till 420. Could it be like the Augustinians and the Dominicans ,who fought (for centuries?) over views on Mary ? I think it was those two orders /groups that “debated” the issue. Point being two views were allowed under Catholicism . Although I could not envision Augustine arguing by debasing, as the former groups did, more because of his spiritual demeanor /respect for all things Christian,and the way enlightenment occurs. So if he disagreed with Ambrose , he may not have directly opposed him and vice -versa, but still held his ground, as two brothers, not yet “glorified”, before the Lord. Anyways ,fascinating history, and again , I admire the demeanor between you and radical .

Thank you

I do enjoy discussing the matter with Radical and have a lot of respect for Radical and hope it is mutual. Sometimes our words may sound harsh when they are read but I am confident that they would not sound harsh at all if they were to be heard. I don’t like debates as much as I like dialogue and discussion. We can learn a lot from each other by reasoning with each other.

God bless you, David.

 

[lyrikal]

I honestly do not know why you would waste time discussing the RP with someone like Radical? People who reject the RP are no different than people who advocate Faith Alone and the Bible-Only novelties. They will turn blue in the face and never grasp or even consider anything you tell them.

The belief Augustine believed in a symbolic Eucharist is just plain absurd and a nothing but a Protestant injection into a ECF wishing to make him appear “Protestant” in his beliefs. Some Protestants will say anything and write scores of books simply in a desparate hope that people will believe them. As I have asked Radical numerous times:

If Augustine believed in the RP and it was false or heretical,why didn’t many other ECF’s such as Ambrose or Jerome attack him or correct his misunderstanding? That is where Radical’s position falls to pieces and is weak in evidence. Come on…they attack other hersies the RP is ignored if it were truly false?

I agree with you here. I myself have learned a lot with the research that I’ve done with regards to Augustine and the Eucharist. It has given me a love for the writings of this Doctor of the Church. I hope it has been an educational experience for Radical as well; however, there is a two-fold purpose in discussing the issue with Radical. It is for other people to read and understand why we believe Augustine believed in a RP of Christ (the Catholic Church’s view). The information is not just for Radical, it is also for others who are interested in the topic. I do believe that you have presented Radical with a good question and can side with you that (IMHO) it really ends the argument that he is making. But since this isn’t sufficient to everyone, I felt it necessary to provide evidence of why we believe that Augustine believed in a RP of Christ (for the sake of people reading this thread).

By the way, did you receive your Masters Degree in Church History?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You had me going with some of your good insights of rp ,rbp substantial .You want to say Augustine believed in one of those ok ,but to say he did not also suggest a figurative approach you drop support from some historians who also agree with the former(some sort of literalness). An outsider would say both Radical and especially Lyrikal have written a bunch here, and neither view is desperately absurd, as you say about Radical…

No, what me, and I think I can speak for Nicea as well, will always consider absurd is the opinion that insist that the figurative and literal are mutually exclusive and any opinion that reduces the figurative/spiritual to the merely symbolic.

We hold to the definition of the term “sacrament”, which is at the same time a sign AND also is that reality which it signifies.

Radical rejects the reality that the sign signifies.
david ruiz:

Maybe Augustine is that last vestige of one truth before it changes ,develops evolves into something else ? I don’t think so ,but maybe, for you know , I believe RP dogma developed, (and that does not have to be something negative/proving from your viewpoint).

Do you mean “developed” as in the understanding of the sacrament was expanded upon with further study in an attempt to better understand what was believed? Or do you mean “developed” as in it “evolved” into something entirely different.

If it is the latter it begs the question.

 

[ibneahmad]

You do not know that which you speak of.

First of all, you are not Christian. Second of all you do not know the Bible.

I think the only ones who can argue with regards this matter are the Protestants because they at least believe in he Bible.

Did Jesus or Mary ever observe the feast in the manner the Christians observe it today? Please quote from Jesus or Mary.

Jesus and Mary are the role model of the Christians; not the Church; if the Church does anything against their deeds or teachings that makes the Church heretical to that extent; the Christians should not follow such things.

 

[benedictus2]

Did Jesus or Mary ever observe the feast in the manner the Christians observe it today? Please quote from Jesus or Mary.

Jesus and Mary are the role model of the Christians; not the Church; if the Church does anything against their deeds or teachings that makes the Church heretical to that extent; the Christians should not follow such things.

John 6, Matthew 16 and the entire NT. Please read them first.

 

[benedictus2]

You had me going with some of your good insights of rp ,rbp substantial .You want to say Augustine believed in one of those ok ,but to say he did not also suggest a figurative approach you drop support from some historians who also agree with the former(some sort of literalness). An outsider would say both Radical and especially Lyrikal have written a bunch here, and neither view is desperately absurd, as you say about Radical… Maybe Augustine is that last vestige of one truth before it changes ,develops evolves into something else ? I don’t think so ,but maybe, for you know , I believe RP dogma developed, (and that does not have to be something negative/proving from your viewpoint).

When St Augustine was having trouble with the doctrine of the Eucharist he heard a voice say to him:

Eat me
I am the bread of the strong.
But you will not transform me and make me part of your.
Rather, I will transform you and make you part of Me.

Besides what is the fixation with St Augustine as if he is the only doctor of the Church or the magisterium?

What was the general consensus of the Church Fathers?

 

[benedictus2]

well, any way he meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…

And should the majority of Christians believe that abortion and adultery is okay, therefore it is okay?

Since when has Truth been the subject of a ballot?

The Christians who don’t believe so are about 1500 years late. Why should we take the opinion of Christians 1500 years removed from the event?

 

[benedictus2]

The Church teaches that Jesus’ Presence in the Eucharist is Real and Substantial. Substantial does not equate to “Bodily Presence” as you would like to understand it. Nor is His Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstatiation mutually exclusive. His Presence is substantial, it is not, nor has the Church ever taught, that the accidents are parts of Jesus’ body.

** The bread and the wine are His glorified body and blood that He makes present through a miracle through the instrument of the priest and the words of consecration.
**

If His glorified body, then there is a physicality to it. His glorified body is still a body. True He went through walls, but He also ate, He asked Thomas to put his hand in His wound.

We must not water down the doctrine just because we cannot understand it. If the presence is real and substantial then His glorified body is the Eucharist.

We can’t comprehend but that is the way it is.

It is no easier to comprehend that He said of the bread and wine this is my body, my blood and yet there He was standing before the apostles.

 

[ibneahmad]

The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…

I appreciate such Christians.

Jesus never needed such made up miracles; Jesus’ morals and good teachings were enough for his miracles.

 

[benedictus2]

since it is heretical

Since they do not understand and neither do you. Even more so you.

 

[ibneahmad]

If His glorified body, then there is a physicality to it. His glorified body is still a body. True He went through walls, but He also ate, He asked Thomas to put his hand in His wound.

We must not water down the doctrine just because we cannot understand it. If the presence is real and substantial then His glorified body is the Eucharist.

We can’t comprehend but that is the way it is.

It is no easier to comprehend that He said of the bread and wine this is my body, my blood and yet there He was standing before the apostles.

What glorified body?

Jesus was very much alive at that moment; he did not die on the Cross; Thomas confirmed this fact by putting his hands in Jesus’ somewhat healed wounds. Jesus had the same enlightened body as he had before he was put on the Cross with no difference except the scars of the wounds being healed with time.

 

[benedictus2]

What glorified body?

Jesus was very much alive at that moment; he did not die on the Cross; Thomas confirmed this fact by putting his hands in Jesus’ somewhat healed wounds. Jesus had the same enlightened body as he had before he was put on the Cross with no difference except the scars of the wounds being healed with time.

Yeah right Just goes to show you know zilch about the true scripture. Jesus is God. Period. You have to deal with that. The Jesus that you know is not the true Jesus but a corruption of the true Jesus.

 

[CopticChristian]

What glorified body?

Jesus was very much alive at that moment; he did not die on the Cross; Thomas confirmed this fact by putting his hands in Jesus’ somewhat healed wounds. Jesus had the same enlightened body as he had before he was put on the Cross with no difference except the scars of the wounds being healed with time.

We differ in our understanding of death. Jesus did not die on the cross you say. Muhammed never lived I say. One of us or both of us are wrong. I would be happy to listen to you explain why I am wrong.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

If His glorified body, then there is a physicality to it. His glorified body is still a body. True He went through walls, but He also ate, He asked Thomas to put his hand in His wound.

We must not water down the doctrine just because we cannot understand it. If the presence is real and substantial then His glorified body is the Eucharist.

We can’t comprehend but that is the way it is.

It is no easier to comprehend that He said of the bread and wine this is my body, my blood and yet there He was standing before the apostles.

Brother benedictus, it was not my intent to water down the doctrine. My intent was to remove the false definitions and false dichotomies that Radical was trying to push.

It seems that it is his intent to “muddy the waters” with terms that are ambiguous. I was merely attempting to put a stop to it.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What glorified body?

Jesus was very much alive at that moment; he did not die on the Cross; Thomas confirmed this fact by putting his hands in Jesus’ somewhat healed wounds. Jesus had the same enlightened body as he had before he was put on the Cross with no difference except the scars of the wounds being healed with time.

 

[CopticChristian]

well, any way he meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball. As such, I would think that he didn’t have that purpose.
:

.

The majority of us Christians don’t believe

Reformed dialogue with Catholic Church

crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/synodical/ThisBreadofLife.pdf

3c: Presence of Christ171
Our dialogue has confirmed that both the Reformed and Roman Catholic
traditions have always held that Christ is truly present in the Supper,
and present in multiple ways.

Calvin writes:

Christ does not simply present to us the benefit of his death and
resurrection, but the very body in which he suffered and rose
again. I conclude, that Christ’s body is really, (as the common
expression is)—that is, truly given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome
food for our souls. I use the common form of expression,
but my meaning is, that our souls are nourished by the substance
of the body, that we may truly be made one with him, or, what
amounts to the same thing, that a life-giving virtue from Christ’s
flesh is poured into us by the Spirit, though it is at a great distance
from us, and is not mixed with us.

The Book of Common Prayer, Article 18, states: Angtlican

“The supper of the Lord is not only a sign of that love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death; in so much that to such that rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.”

theologyforthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/11/lutheran-catholic-joint-statement-on.html

the common statement of the 1967 dialogue states that while there has been an agreement that Christ is truly present in the supper, what has been disputed is a particular way of stating the “how,” the manner in which he becomes present.” One of the things the Lutheran participants in that dialogue learned is that contemporary Catholic expositions of transubstantiation intend to affirm the fact of Christ’s presence and of the change which takes places, not to explain how Christ becomes present. Even though Lutherans can acknowledge that transubstantiation is a legitimate way to express the mystery, they continue to believe that the conceptuality associated with it is misleading and prefer to avoid the term

.

You do not speak for the Majority. You speak for you. There is ongoing dialogue for understanding of what you do not know.

These teachings are in conflict with a teaching that is 2000 years old. The New is coming back to the Old.