The Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter grasscutter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, sometimes I can be very blunt, other times too gentle. I’ve got to find the happy medium.

Well, they “thought” and “judged” wrongly. Protestants should really do away with their head-in-the-sand willful blindness once and for all about the Early Church. Visible, hierarchical authority. Sacramentalism. Penance. Those ideas are anathema to Protestants. But the Early Church was supposed to be Protestant. So how do you square this circle? Well… you can’t. So you pretend the Early Church was really Protestant even though this denies historical reality.

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

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 am not a fan of David Ruiz however you are I believe incorrect on the Catechism.

Luther and Calvin published Catechisms in 1529 and 1545 and the Trent Catechism was not published until 1566. I am not aware of a Catholic Catechism as we know it prior to Trent. On the other hand.🙂

Ambrose did write,on Christian faith, Augustine did write catechizing the uninstructed, Cyprian of Carthage did write Treatises, Gregory of Nyssa did write the Great Catechism to name a few so in a sense you are both correct. It would be fair to say that since the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years catechesis has been an ongoing process.:eek:👍

If David likes the Patristics try reading Denziger.👍

The Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum also known as Enchiridion or Denzinger, is a compendium of all basic texts of Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostles.👍
 
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.
Normally both terms are exclusive.One historian did say Augustine wrote sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively of the Eucharist.I will just plainly ask ,how do you define "real presence " and what is “real bodily presence” and what is “substantially present”. As a young Catholic I believe I was taught that the elements are transformed into His body and blood.I did not think of it as His elbow or calf , just that it was NOT merely bread but Him-His essence ,not symbolic.I would now say we were trying to fulfill the John 6 requirement to eat Him ,and the Last Supper,and that we were offering Him up to God,thru the priest. So what is the definition of the 3 terms -rp rbp,and substantial p ? … The term “merely symbolic” must also be defined .I thought symbolism is using one reality to represent another .Hence our U.S flag is real material with stripes and stars and red ,white and blue .It represents the real country ,government ,people ,history ,blood and guts etc…The flag itself is a literal flag ,but only figuratively represents the country.The flag is NOT the country ,literally. So when one burns or stomps on the flag ,are they not really desecrating the essence of what is represented , the USA ? When the flag is revered ,is not the USA revered ?
Radical rejects the reality that the sign signifies.
Well I am not sure.I would say you say he says he rejects the dual reality,as I would .It is like I accept the reality our flag signifies, but I would deny that the flag is also the reality , that the flag IS the country itself.
Or do you mean “developed” as in it “evolved” into something entirely different.
Sorry ,but I was quite candid that this is my view,not yours,and not my proof.
 
Hi Radical,
This here seems to summarize your counter argument rather nicely. I will deal with this part here and will show the inconsistency of your counter argument.

We both agree that Augustine has a two-fold way of looking at the Eucharist. You believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Augustine believed in a figurative understanding of the Eucharist and also a literal. In other words, Augustine believed that the Eucharist:

1.) Is figuratively the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body: The members of the Church).

2.) Is in a literal way just bread and wine.
not quite. Instead it would be:

1.) Is figuratively the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body: The members of the Church) and is also figuratively the body that went to the cross (w/o a RBP involved…typically I wouldn’t think it would be necessary to clarify that a figurative understanding does not include a RBP, but I do so b/c your earlier assertion) .

2.) Is in a literal way just bread and wine that becomes empowered by grace.

Please note that, despite GreyPilgrim’s ridiculous assertions, I know full well the Catholic position. It is more than a little disappointing that you fell for his misrepresentation despite my repeated use of “substance” and “transubstantiation” etc. RBP, or (real bodily presence ) is a standard term to reflect a belief that the body of Christ is really present… which, of course, is straight out of the Catechism (p.1374). Apparently, Greypilgrim thinks “Augustine didn’t believe nor taught a RBP in the Eucharist, neither does the Church” …he has it right wrt Augustine, but as for the Catholic Church, I’ll stick with the Catechism over GreyPilgrim’s assertions. Further, no one thinks that you actually chew on Christ’s body parts…the body (and its parts) can not be sensed, which is why you must resort to Greek philosophy to explain an alleged presence (via a change in substance) w/o corresponding accidents. (which, in turn, is why I have asserted that the Catholic position requires Greek philosophy to explain the HOW.)
Now, we cannot pick and choose what we want Augustine to believe the Eucharist to be but we have to read it the way Augustine is presenting it. My beliefs of what Augustine believed in regards to the Eucharist in Sermons 227 and 272 are as follows:
1.) It is the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body: The members of the Church) in a figurative way (we both agree on this).
2.) Is in a literal way the Body and Blood of Christ (this is where our understanding disagrees with one another).
I will now show why the latter is true and the former is false. The five examples that I provided from Augustine is key in understanding why I believe this.
1.) A physical Body that has been resurrected in a literal way.
2.) The Body of Christ (the Church) in a figurative way.
In your five examples there is a thing that is fully present with both its substance and its accidents. That is the literal thing. It is the body of Christ. The literal thing is also understood figuratively. The literal thing is literally present and also figuratively understood.

In my view, there is a thing that is fully present with both its substance and its accidents. That is the literal thing. It is the bread. The literal thing is also understood figuratively. The literal thing is literally present and also figuratively undertood. Note the parallel between that and the five examples.

In your view, there is nothing that is fully present with both its substance and its accidents. (the bread is lacking its substance and the body is lacking its accidents…nevertheless, you designate the unsensed body as the literal thing.) In your view, it is not the “literal thing” that is understood figuratively…instead it is the bread (allegedly absent of its substance) that is understood figuratively. Note the difference.

Further, your view requires a presence of the literal via transubstantiation…transubstantiation is not associated in any way with your five examples. Also note that difference.You said:
The point that I have been making is, when Augustine talks about the BODY OF CHRIST (Physical one), he relates it back to the BODY OF CHRIST (the Church). He doesn’t equate a piece of bread to the ecclesiastical Body of Christ, …
well, in sermon 272 it is exactly the qualities of the bread (watered, baked, many grains etc.) that are connected with the qualities of the body of believers. He does equate, through resemblances, the bread with the Church
What you are saying is that the Eucharist to Augustine is not even the Body and Blood of Christ in a symbolic way nor in a spiritual way. There is nothing about those two things that even suggests that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ (in any way at all). I don’t think there is a scholar out there that would agree with this.
nor would I agree with that description…I trust this from an earlier post clarifies my understanding better:

obviously, I wasn’t clear enough…like you I see that Augustine focused primarily on the unity achieved by the Eucharist and so when that focus is in play, it is the Church that is on the altar. On the other hand, if it is the saving grace imparted by the Eucharist that Augustine has in mind, then it is the incarnated body of Christ that is on the altar. Neither, is on the altar by way of a substantiated presence. Both are on the altar through the bread that symbolizes those things…What is actually on the altar is bread and wine and grace and nothing else.
 
I am not a fan of David Ruiz however you are I believe incorrect on the Catechism.

Luther and Calvin published Catechisms in 1529 and 1545 and the Trent Catechism was not published until 1566. I am not aware of a Catholic Catechism as we know it prior to Trent. On the other hand.🙂

Ambrose did write,on Christian faith, Augustine did write catechizing the uninstructed, Cyprian of Carthage did write Treatises, Gregory of Nyssa did write the Great Catechism to name a few so in a sense you are both correct. It would be fair to say that since the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years catechesis has been an ongoing process.:eek:👍

If David likes the Patristics try reading Denziger.👍

The Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum also known as Enchiridion or Denzinger, is a compendium of all basic texts of Catholic dogma and morality since the Apostles.👍
Thanks
 
With your understanding of Augustine’s Eucharist with regards to sermons 227 and 272, in what way can that be necessary for salvation?
it imparts grace
What does Augustine believe we receive when we eat the Eucharist?
bread, wine and grace
In baptism, he believes we receive the Holy Spirit, we are crafted in as the Body of Christ, and our sins are washed…To Augustine, what happens when we receive the Eucharist? How does that give us salvation?
saving and unifying grace is received

in response to this from Nicea325: “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?”

…you said:
I agree with you here…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).
so, for you and the sake of the “people reading this thread” I’ll explain why his argument from silence is weak.

From my perspective the errors associated with that argument from silence are as follows:
  1. it assumes that a RBP (as understood in the Catehicism, as opposed to whatever Greypilgrim might think it means) was introduced by Christ and passed onto the apostles. (that is bad assumption #1)
  2. next, it assumes that, from the outset, the Church held to a RBP view and it (typically) enlists Ignatius as proof (even though we don’t have enough from Ignatius to know what he believed…ie was the Eucharist the body of Christ in a Platonic way?..a symbolic way?..an RBP way? ) (that is bad assumption #2)
  3. next, it assumes that the ECFs, despite their vastly differing ways of talking about the body of Christ and the Eucharist, all still shared a view that included a RBP…(that is bad assumption #3)
After those 3 bad assumptions, it is declared that if any ECF denied a RBP, then that ECF would be attacked by the other ECFs (who, of course, are supposedly all on the RBP camp). From there it is concluded that since history does not record such an attack against Augustine, then he must have been in the RBP camp. I would imagine that you can figure out what I think of arguments from silence that are based on bad assumptions. Now, if Nicea325 could show that the 3 assumptions aren’t all that bad, then I would be prepared to reconsider that very weak argument. WRT bad assumption #1 we are stuck with interpreting scripture, and frankly, we are just going to disagree on that. WRT bad assumption #2 we are stuck with the limited words of Ignatius et al, and I expect that the RBP camp will continue to refuse to acknowledge that they possess a lack of knowledge in this regard (except that, I expect that in the academic world they’ll eventually have to make the admission). Regarding the third bad assumption, I think that there is enough evidence available to allow scholars to come to a consensus that recognizes that a RBP was not the one orthodox belief until very late in the game. (in this regard you could note that I have mentioned both Gelasius and Theodoret as later fathers who denied a change of substance…well after Ambrose and the 4th century Antiochene school had advocated such). From over here it seems rather obvious that opinions differed greatly wrt the manner of Christ’s presence at the Eucharist. Given that reality, what is some RBP father going to say to Augustine? It would have to go something like, " I know that I am in no better position to trace my belief back to the apostles than are you. I know that other Fathers are all over the map on this issue. I know that I have to explain how my view works by relying on Greek philosophy (and we all know that isn’t close to divine revelation),…but you are wrong and I am right and you better change what you believe right now!"…hmmm , and history doesn’t record such a letter being sent to Augustine…go figure.
 
You do not speak for the Majority. You speak for you.
absolutely agreed…I have not been appointed to speak for the majority, but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…IIRC barely more than half of American Catholics buy into the RBP stuff.
I am not a fan of David Ruiz…
pity, hopefully David will be able to carry on despite such a disappointing revelation. 😉
 
Reformed dialogue with Catholic Church

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

Calvin writes:

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

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.:eek:
Brilliant! Thank you for going through the trouble.👍👍👍

And even if the majority thought like Radical, they would still all be wrong because truth is not a matter of the ballot.
 
absolutely agreed…I have not been appointed to speak for the majority, but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…IIRC barely more than half of American Catholics buy into the RBP stuff.

pity, hopefully David will be able to carry on despite such a disappointing revelation. 😉
What you really mean and is accurate is that the Majority of Protestants that are called Christian that you believe you represent do not believe in the real bodily presence. There are Protestants that do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, pedobaptism, the trinity, dispensationalism and who knows what else. It is difficult to know who you speak for since as far as I can tell and have never seen there is no Protestant Church.:hmmm: that has any authority to speak for anyone. You are just one of the many fallible Protestants that speak fallibly about whatever it is you speak about.😃

David knows we went to different high schools together.:eek:

I thought that for sake of the discussion I would add this for all to read.:knight1::highprayer:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea3.asp

Beware the Term ‘Real Presence’
By Dwight Longenecker

Debates over the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament were ignited by the eleventh-century French theologian Berengar of Tours, who denied that there could be a material change at the consecration. The controversy raged for the next two hundred years and culminated in the definition of transubstantiation at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It is interesting that during this controversy the orthodox terminology is “real body and real blood of Christ.” The term “Real Presence” doesn’t occur

As Catholics we must use clear language about the sacrament. We can affirm the “real presence” of Christ which non-Catholics affirm in the fellowship of their churches, in the preaching of the gospel, and in the celebration of the Eucharist. But we must also affirm that the fullest sense of the “Real Presence” is that which we worship in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. With this in mind I suggest Catholics should avoid the ambiguous term “Real Presence” and speak boldly of “transubstantiation.”

I forgive you for not believing.👍

The Church meets challenge with definitions as needed for the faithful. There was never a need to define until challenged by Berengar until 1050 in a letter. He later recanted and was forgiven. Many recant and are forgiven.👍
 
Brilliant! Thank you for going through the trouble.👍👍👍

And even if the majority thought like Radical, they would still all be wrong because truth is not a matter of the ballot.
What is truly fascinating is how much attention is paid to Augustine. The Bishop of Hippo. His writings survive. His Church did not. Shortly before Augustine’s death, Roman Africa was invaded by the Vandals, a Germanic tribe that that had converted to Arianism.:eek:

In spite of his brilliance. Hippo succumbed to Vandals. The vote went the wrong way and the truth survived. Yes. It is not majority rule. Truth translates time and the OHCAC survived, not in Hippo but elsewhere and today.👍
 
Originally Posted by Radical
absolutely agreed…I have not been appointed to speak for the majority, but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…IIRC barely more than half of American Catholics buy into the RBP stuff.
pity, hopefully David will be able to carry on despite such a disappointing revelation.
Weak argument! And who cares if half of Catholics do not believe,what does that prove on your part? Many Christians deny Hell does that mean they are right and God is wrong? And the majority of the world does not believe Jesus is GOD! Does change an iota of anything about God?

The fact that the majority of Protestants do not believe really has no bearing on doctrinal truth. By the way,Protestants are the minority in Christianity,not the majority.
 
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?
Likewise,Radical is basing his entire argument on merely ONE ECF,not the majority.Augustine is one of hundreds of ECF’s spanning nearly 1,000 years and Augustine was not the spokesman for the entire church. More important,if Augustine truly believed in a symbolic Eucharist,then why shroud it in mystery and difficult language?

Why would he present a smoke screen and not explicitly mention a “symbolic” Eucharist? Radical’s argument is very weak regardless of his so-called scholars backing him up. I too can pick any ECF and say he really meant this and not that as so many have believed. It is called madness and theological chaos.

Yes I have a Masters in Church History and regardless what Radical says,nothing will change the fact Augustine was NOT Protestant and far from any novel Protestant belief such as a symbolic Eucharist. As I have said a billion times:

Where are the corrections or protests from other ECF’s rebuking him for believing the RP,if it were truly false?
 
Likewise,Radical is basing his entire argument on merely ONE ECF,not the majority.Augustine is one of hundreds of ECF’s spanning nearly 1,000 years and Augustine was not the spokesman for the entire church. More important,if Augustine truly believed in a symbolic Eucharist,then why shroud it in mystery and difficult language?

Why would he present a smoke screen and not explicitly mention a “symbolic” Eucharist? Radical’s argument is very weak regardless of his so-called scholars backing him up. I too can pick any ECF and say he really meant this and not that as so many have believed. It is called madness and theological chaos.

Yes I have a Masters in Church History and regardless what Radical says,nothing will change the fact Augustine was NOT Protestant and far from any novel Protestant belief such as a symbolic Eucharist. As I have said a billion times:

Where are the corrections or protests from other ECF’s rebuking him for believing the RP,if it were truly false?
“For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

-St. Augustine, “Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental”, chpt 5

(To Januarius, circa 400)I desire you therefore, in the first place, to hold fast this as the fundamental principle in the present discussion, that our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed to us a “light yoke” and an “easy burden,” as He declares in the Gospel: (Matthew 11:30 )in accordance with which He has bound His people under the new dispensation together in fellowship by sacraments, which are in number very few, in observance most easy, and in significance most excellent, as baptism solemnized in the name of the Trinity, the communion of His body and blood, and such other things as are prescribed in the canonical Scriptures, with the exception of those enactments which were a yoke of bondage to God’s ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to the times of the prophets, and which are found in the five books of Moses. As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established." St Augustine, “Letters” no. 54.

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

St Augustine, “Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental”, chpt 4

It’s all there, Augustine was a protestant! Can’t you see it!:rolleyes:
 
Weak argument! And who cares if half of Catholics do not believe,what does that prove on your part? Many Christians deny Hell does that mean they are right and God is wrong? And the majority of the world does not believe Jesus is GOD! Does change an iota of anything about God?

The fact that the majority of Protestants do not believe really has no bearing on doctrinal truth. By the way,Protestants are the minority in Christianity,not the majority.
Jack Van Impe quoted a poll concerning Christians, he is speaking of Protestants, 17% knew that they were saved by Faith alone.:whistle::sad_bye:
 
“For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

-St. Augustine, “Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental”, chpt 5

(To Januarius, circa 400)I desire you therefore, in the first place, to hold fast this as the fundamental principle in the present discussion, that our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed to us a “light yoke” and an “easy burden,” as He declares in the Gospel: (Matthew 11:30 )in accordance with which He has bound His people under the new dispensation together in fellowship by sacraments, which are in number very few, in observance most easy, and in significance most excellent, as baptism solemnized in the name of the Trinity, the communion of His body and blood, and such other things as are prescribed in the canonical Scriptures, with the exception of those enactments which were a yoke of bondage to God’s ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to the times of the prophets, and which are found in the five books of Moses. As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established." St Augustine, “Letters” no. 54.

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

St Augustine, “Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental”, chpt 4

It’s all there, Augustine was a protestant! Can’t you see it!:rolleyes:
Have you not seen many including Lutheran, Anglican and Buddhists calling themselves Catholic?:eek:

I agree with your presentation. The tragedy is those that take the name for themselves can read this and say, well of course that is me.:eek:

Eusebius and other history translates that fantasy into reality.👍
 
Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

🙂
I’ve asked the same question a few times myself. Obviously, as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ, as defined by the Catholic Church. As far as whether or not this question has been asked before, my response is, as long as there are people out there who reject an important Christian belief like this, it’s good to continue to discuss it, so that others my learn and know something that Catholics and the early Christians (also Catholics) have known all along. 👍
 
Normally both terms are exclusive.
Only in terms of material creation. This is metaphysics. Paradoxes are only contradictions in appearence, not in fact. Since when do we Chirstians negate an article of belief just because we can’t “see” or “know” how it works?
david ruiz:
One historian did say Augustine wrote sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively of the Eucharist.
david ruiz:
I will just plainly ask ,how do you define "real presence " and what is “real bodily presence” and what is “substantially present”.
You’re still assuming protestantism in your remarks. I don’t “define” anything. My job is to obey what has been handed down by the Apostles and their successors. But I will disregard anything that attempts to eliminate the literal understanding, such as protestantism tries to do.
david ruiz:
As a young Catholic I believe I was taught that the elements are transformed into His body and blood.I did not think of it as His elbow or calf , just that it was NOT merely bread but Him-His essence ,not symbolic.I would now say we were trying to fulfill the John 6 requirement to eat Him ,and the Last Supper,and that we were offering Him up to God,thru the priest.

david ruiz:
So what is the definition of the 3 terms -rp rbp,and substantial p ? …
Real Presence is exectly what it implies. Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharistic elements.

It is a substantial presence, which eliminates such presences as someone else implied by using an “Obama speaking on TV” analogy.

“Real Bodily Presence”? I see no need to add another adjective-“bodily”-to a phrase that we already have to describe His presence. Unless it is to cause division and confusion.
david ruiz:
The term “merely symbolic” must also be defined .I thought symbolism is using one reality to represent another.
“Merely symbolic” means that all that there is is the exterior appearence, or accident, of the sign. And that the sign is all there is.
david ruiz:
Hence our U.S flag is real material with stripes and stars and red ,white and blue .It represents the real country ,government ,people ,history ,blood and guts etc…The flag itself is a literal flag ,but only figuratively represents the country.The flag is NOT the country ,literally. So when one burns or stomps on the flag ,are they not really desecrating the essence of what is represented , the USA ? When the flag is revered ,is not the USA revered?
This is where analogy falls short in trying to explain spiritual realities. We call it the American flag, we don’t say that the flag is America.

But Jesus took bread and said, “This IS my body…”

Stomp on the Eucharist and you ARE stomping on Jesus.
david ruiz:
Well I am not sure.I would say you say he says he rejects the dual reality,as I would .It is like I accept the reality our flag signifies, but I would deny that the flag is also the reality , that the flag IS the country itself.

Sorry ,but I was quite candid that this is my view,not yours,and not my proof.
So did Jesus offer His literal flesh on the cross or His symbolic flesh?
 
I’ve asked the same question a few times myself. Obviously, as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ, as defined by the Catholic Church. As far as whether or not this question has been asked before, my response is, as long as there are people out there who reject an important Christian belief like this, it’s good to continue to discuss it, so that others my learn and know something that Catholics and the early Christians (also Catholics) have known all along. 👍
It is important to know because the unity of any Church with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church will be based on the Eucharist and its meaning, thus the probably union of the Orthodox.👍
 
Radical;8297482]no, I believe that it is only your assumption that Augustine is speaking about a transubstantiated presence. **Remember Augustine is a neoplatonist **and so before you can declare that the quoted phrase indicates a RBP, you must eliminate the possibility of a neoplatonistic interpretation (that does not involve a RBP)…
Wow your whole argument about St.Augustine went out the window because you have St.Augustine remaining a neoplatonist after his conversion to Catholicism.

Rest assured Augustine was a teacher of philosophy of both schools Platonism to Neoplatonism while he remained a pagan, he kept graduating into different philosophical thoughts that could never quench his thirst, until he discovered Catholicism which quenched his thirst, leaving his pagan philosphical ideologies in the dust, to which you are still holding him too while being a Catholic.

By doing this you placed St.Augustine as a heretic not a Catholic canonized Saint. This explains why you may have St. Augustine all mixed up about his belief in the Eucharist being the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity which the Catholic Church held to this belief long before St.Augustine converted to Catholicism.

Had Augustine remained a pagan neoplatonist as a Catholic? His contemporaries of his tme in the popes, and other saints would of exposed him and labeled him a heretic, not to mention he would of never became a Bishop of Hippo holding and mixing pagan philosophies to his Catholicism which you have him doing from your misunderstanding of St.Augustine. Please take this into consideration when evaluating his writings.
 
Wow your whole argument about St.Augustine went out the window because you have St.Augustine remaining a neoplatonist after his conversion to Catholicism.
I don’t think the claim that Augustine had a neoplatonistic mindset even as a Catholic is really that absurd. I do think that him REMAINING to have a neoplatonistic mindset throughout his Catholic years is pushing it. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism.
The article goes on to say:
The position held by St. Augustine is at present the subject of a spirited controversy, since the adversaries of the Church rather confidently maintain that he favored their side of the question in that he was an out-and-out “Symbolist”. In the opinion of Loofs (“Dogmengeschichte”, 4th ed., Halle, 1906, p. 409), St. Augustine never gives, the “reception of the true Body and Blood of Christ” a thought; and this view Ad. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1897, III, 148) emphasizes when he declares that St. Augustine “undoubtedly was one in this respect with the so-called pre-Reformation and with Zwingli”. Against this rather hasty conclusion Catholics first of all advance the undoubted fact that Augustine demanded that Divine worship should be rendered to the Eucharistic Flesh (Enarration on Psalm 33, no. 1), and declared that at the Last Supper “Christ held and carried Himself in His own hands” (Enarration on Psalm 98, no. 9). They insist, and rightly so, that it is not fair to separate this great Doctor’s teaching concerning the Eucharist from his doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice, since he clearly and unmistakably asserts that the true Body and Blood are offered in the Holy Mass. The variety of extreme views just mentioned requires that an attempt be made at a reasonable and unbiased explanation, whose verification is to be sought for and found in the acknowledged fact that a gradual process of development took place in the mind of St. Augustine. No one will deny that certain expressions occur in Augustine as forcibly realistic as those of Tertullian and Cyprian or of his intimate literary friends, Ambrose, Optatus of Mileve, Hilary, and Chrysostom. On the other hand, it is beyond question that, owing to the determining influence of Origen and the Platonic philosophy, which, as is well known, attached but slight value to visible matter and the sensible phenomena of the world, Augustine did not refer what was properly real (res) in the Blessed Sacrament to the Flesh of Christ (caro), but transferred it to the quickening principle (spiritus), i.e. to the effects produced by a worthy Communion. A logical consequence of this was that he allowed to caro, as the vehicle and antitype of res, not indeed a mere symbolical worth, but at best a transitory, intermediary, and subordinate worth (signum), and placed the Flesh and Blood of Christ, present under the appearances (figuræ) of bread and wine, in too decided an opposition to His natural, historical Body. Since Augustine was a strenuous defender of personal co-operation and effort in the work of salvation and an enemy to mere mechanical activity and superstitious routine, he omitted insisting upon a lively faith in the real personality of Jesus in the Eucharist, and called attention to the spiritual efficiency of the Flesh of Christ instead. His mental vision was fixed, not so much upon the saving caro, as upon the spiritus, which alone possessed worth. Nevertheless a turning-point occurred in his life. The conflict with Pelagianism and the diligent perusal of Chrysostom freed him from the bondage of Platonism, and he thenceforth attached to caro a separate, individual value independent of that of spiritus, going so far, in fact, as to maintain too strongly that the Communion of children was absolutely necessary to salvation.
Source: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top