The Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter grasscutter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is really a battle between scholars and opinions. This all comes down to authority though. This WHOLE debate, this WHOLE thread points to a need for a final authority to tell us what the truth really is. Not so much concerning Augustine’s beliefs on the Eucharist (this is not an essential belief in believing the Catholic teaching on Trans…). I am talking about the belief on what the Eucharist is. Why should I let a scholar (who can’t trace his succession to any of the Apostles) be the final authority on the matter? I can listen to their views and note their work but when it comes to the general question on what the truth is in general, I think I will stick with the Catholic Church. If we don’t, then I guess we should all throw our Bibles away (although this is a topic for another thread). Christ gave His authority to the Bishops, not to the scholars (although the Bishops can also be scholars since they go through numerous years of study). The fact that we have disagreements on this topic points to the fact that there needs to be authority. Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are indications and strong evidence of those. Now, one may argue “yes, but that authority wasn’t supposed to be passed down to other men other than the Apostles.” Alright, then why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the infallible cannon of the NT? If you don’t accept them as infallible, and accept them as just fallible, then what you are saying is “I don’t know if I have the Word of God in my NT or the words of men, because the cannon is fallible.”
 
lyrikal;8303524… This all comes down to authority though…
Authority, that’s it!

These arguments are based on flawed interpretations of verses from a Catholic Book, the Bible. Protestants don’t have a problem with the fact that the Catholic Church and Catholic Popes collected, protected and preserved and translated, also, selected what was going into the Bible and what wasn’t… and put verses and books into a specific order… They don’t have a problem with the fact that Catholic Church and Catholic Popes approved the Bible, bases on authority from God. Protestants don’t have a problem with the authority given the Catholic Church, from God to get the Bible right. They just have a problem with the few things that they reject in Catholicism and what early Christian (Catholics) practice and believed… They only have a problem with the authority to make those decisions that they disagree with.
 
Howdy .Strange the Lord did not say i will transform the bread to Me.
Read more slowly and you will get it.

Here it is again.

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.
 
That is quite a time span .Divisions,forgeries and falsehoods were occurring during the apostle’s ministry.So just what is apostolic hundreds of years later is a challenge. I have read the Fathers a hundred years after Christ, and you see very little of anything divisive .That is ,we would both agree with them almost completely . Some of the peripheral issues of RP however are evident : no priest needed (a president is mentioned once), no monstrance (one says we are His monstrance) , no veil or tabernacle, no offering per say, instead it was a love feast , then a thanksgiving, probably weekly.
I think we can confidently say that despite some disagreements, they viewed the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. This is why both the Eastern and Western Church have maintained this belief.

While the Orthodox have not defined this Real Presence further, they do agree that it is the Body and Blood of Christ but how it comes to be they prefer to leave as mystery.
 
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.
It is a made up story like the made up vision of Paul.
 
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.
Not only weak but quite irrational. Rather ill thought I must say. Which is not surprising since a lot of so called Christians have become relativists.
 
It is a made up story like the made up vision of Paul.
You mean the fairy tale in the Quran? That is definitely made up.

Do you know that when Mohammad first started having visions he was convinced that it was the devil appearing to him? It was only his wife who convinced him otherwise.
 
Do you know that when Mohammad first started having visions he was convinced that it was the devil appearing to him? It was only his wife who convinced him otherwise.
Please quote from Quran- the root source of Islam, to support your claim in this connection.
 
Benedict describes this in Jesus of Nazareth pt-II extremely well. I see no alternative theology to what is Biblically stated, or that stands up to what Benedict alone has defined as of most recent.

Peace,
 
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
This is out of my field , but a “mixing” can be had without being a heretic. Mars Hill (Paul) and ,"being all things to all men that some might be saved "is an example of proper “mixing” . That is using any thing ,person ,idea ,philosophy ,practice ,tradition,to show Christian , even biblical truth .After all, the sun shines on the wicked as well as the righteous (so does knowledge , even though worldly, because they honor not the creator , not because it is false knowledge) .Even Augustine admired and acknowledged the wisdom of this world ,as far as science, that they could be better experts in their field of study ,and that we should look at their "knowledge " and weigh it against Scripture .He also believed science would not contradict Scripture…Another kind of mixing can be found in the practices of Easter and Christmas . Even the system of honoring saints may have Roman roots . Some have said Egyptians also had a wafer with RP of their deity…So I wonder if indeed the either or approach ,which many have denounced when protestants apply it to something, is wrong with Augustine and philosophy of his day.
 
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:

The article goes on to say:

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2
The United States of America has determined that Slavery is not acceptable. We can go back in time and examine the founding fathers for their perspective on Slavery and find one that proposes that Slavery is acceptable and lose sight of the facts that transpired from that one to the present. The United States of America does not tolerate slavery. We can then examine how it came to be.👍

This is the same approach I see for the Eucharist. The OHCAC has declared transubstantiation. We can go back and look at each individual Patristic and determine what they thought and believed however the consensus does not deny the present conclusion. This dialogue loses sight of the facts that transpired from Augustine to the present. The OHCAC has declared transubstantiation. The faithful adhere to and believe it. We can then examine how it came to be.👍

Faith is the substance of those things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Jesus said you must eat my flesh. This passage as I hear on EWTN coming home network has been the turning point passage for many Protestants that ignored, denied and finally succumbed to the knoweldge that there is no other way to understand this passage unless they become members of the OHCAC.🙂
 
This is out of my field , but a “mixing” can be had without being a heretic. Mars Hill (Paul) and ,"being all things to all men that some might be saved "is an example of proper “mixing” . That is using any thing ,person ,idea ,philosophy ,practice ,tradition,to show Christian , even biblical truth .After all, the sun shines on the wicked as well as the righteous (so does knowledge , even though worldly, because they honor not the creator , not because it is false knowledge) .Even Augustine admired and acknowledged the wisdom of this world ,as far as science, that they could be better experts in their field of study ,and that we should look at their "knowledge " and weigh it against Scripture .He also believed science would not contradict Scripture…Another kind of mixing can be found in the practices of Easter and Christmas . Even the system of honoring saints may have Roman roots . Some have said Egyptians also had a wafer with RP of their deity…So I wonder if indeed the either or approach ,which many have denounced when protestants apply it to something, is wrong with Augustine and philosophy of his day.
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
We in the know too can look in the world and see what God has done. Those in the world outside the Covenant are God’s people. In the World there is either or. In the Covenant there is a deposit of Faith. In the world there is evolution. In the Covenant there is creation. In the Covenant there is not either creation or evolution there is creation and the world has evolution and as far as evolution is concerned I can in the Covenant know it, understand it and even believe it has value as long as I do not deny Creation of Adam/Eve the creation of the first human/souls. It is not either or in the Covenant. It is both and, it is Creation and Evolution with a conclusion that conforms to the Covenant.👍

My mind rests easier with my head out of the sand.👍
 
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." 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,"-CE
Now, when did he write his eucharistic views,in terms of his slowly dropping other pholiosophy ? Did he write later to correct himself ? Indeed many retractions were written by ECF’S .Good info .thanks
 
Authority, that’s it!

These arguments are based on flawed interpretations of verses from a Catholic Book, the Bible. Protestants don’t have a problem with the fact that the Catholic Church and Catholic Popes collected, protected and preserved and translated, also, selected what was going into the Bible and what wasn’t… and put verses and books into a specific order… They don’t have a problem with the fact that Catholic Church and Catholic Popes approved the Bible, bases on authority from God. Protestants don’t have a problem with the authority given the Catholic Church, from God to get the Bible right. They just have a problem with the few things that they reject in Catholicism and what early Christian (Catholics) practice and believed… They only have a problem with the authority to make those decisions that they disagree with.
You forgot one very important doctrine =infalliblilty .That closes the circular argument .That shuts out the idea ,in fact the history , in the old testament with Israel, that one can receive “light ’ and righteousness” ,and lose it ,or water it down ,or add or detract from it ,or indeed , not be perfect. It is like applying “once saved ALWAYS saved” to only one patriarchal church,to the exclusion of all others. The whole idea of shutting out other interpretations or having them come from one source(earthly) ,is foreign in the old testament. Otherwise you would not have had the Talmud ,a book collecting all the different thoughts and possible interpretations. (There is a place, time and method, for exclusion,and rejection)…We hear it often ,but yes Catholics did much good , but many just don’t accept they are perfect ,and there has always been a segment that has believed that. So it is very logical to read “your” bible ,and not “carte blanche”, buy into things that happened a thousand years later. Ironic isn’t it ? “Your” bible tells me that is proper and righteous. As one pesky Jesuit said, “Dang, if it weren’t for that “book” we wouldn’t be in this mess”-(combatting protestants- my paraphrase).
 
Read more slowly and you will get it.

Here it is again.

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.
We could go on and on ,believing is eating, the bread is figurative etc etc.
 
“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:
Yes…he is was Baptist.😃
 
This is really a battle between scholars and opinions. This all comes down to authority though. This WHOLE debate, this WHOLE thread points to a need for a final authority to tell us what the truth really is. Not so much concerning Augustine’s beliefs on the Eucharist (this is not an essential belief in believing the Catholic teaching on Trans…). I am talking about the belief on what the Eucharist is. Why should I let a scholar (who can’t trace his succession to any of the Apostles) be the final authority on the matter? I can listen to their views and note their work but when it comes to the general question on what the truth is in general, I think I will stick with the Catholic Church. If we don’t, then I guess we should all throw our Bibles away (although this is a topic for another thread). Christ gave His authority to the Bishops, not to the scholars (although the Bishops can also be scholars since they go through numerous years of study). The fact that we have disagreements on this topic points to the fact that there needs to be authority. Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are indications and strong evidence of those. Now, one may argue “yes, but that authority wasn’t supposed to be passed down to other men other than the Apostles.” Alright, then why do you accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the infallible cannon of the NT? If you don’t accept them as infallible, and accept them as just fallible, then what you are saying is “I don’t know if I have the Word of God in my NT or the words of men, because the cannon is fallible.”
I would advise not to try to escape our conundrum, by placing it in someone elses hands. Perhaps it is fitting that much energy is on Augustine , for he believed in His Catholic Church and in the Authority of Scriptures ,and the role of teahcers .But his greatest security out there on the battlefield of thought ,was that he had the Teacher himself, sticking closer than a brother , and that indeed he is rewarder of those that diligently seek him. In the end , the conundrum MUST be given to Him , for “He teaches us”-as in your prayer closet . The apostles were in a conundrum - they had teachers , rabbis , tradition , the Talmud, the Torah (bible), the Sanhedrin ,and experiences with Jesus himself .What led them out of the conundrum ? of taking all the "data’ from those God given resources just listed ? It was divine revelation, “The father in heaven has revealed this to you ,Peter, that I am the Christ”. We are alike in that we have a final authority .You rest on your magisterium and I rest on Holy Scripture .We both have churches and fellow believers who have made decisions on the matter .But you and I can not escape bringing it before Him .I must ask Him what is the right interpretation , and you must ask Him does my Church have it right ? Hence, we cherish His blessing on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top