The Universal Church

[mcq72]

It would be as effective as me, who is not validly ordained, standing there and speaking the same words as a validly ordained priest. NOTHING happens . It doesn’t matter how sincere I say the words. NOTHING happens to the elements because I’m not validly ordained.

Correct. That was one of the points per CC transubstantiation. Now Ignatius or Martyr even Augustine had the chance to be as explicit as you, but I don’t think they were.

So again I wonder who was the first to be so explicit?

 

[mcq72]

The topic above is about who can serve who with reference to who can consecrate and that it is the “Body of Christ”. (which also disputes your contention again earlier anyone can consecrate)

Ok, canon 18 had some specificity as to who can conduct communion. Yet it does not distinctly say a deacon can not transubstantiate, that the elements will not convert. Seems to be more something of ettiquette or custom to adhere to.

Might also say the canon is a bit respector of persons, of whom shall sit where, that the presbyter is to have the better honorary and seperate seat, and is to eat first, touch first. Seems contrary to what Jesus taught. Almost like deacons should stay in their lower place.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It would be as effective as me, who is not validly ordained, standing there and speaking the same words as a validly ordained priest. NOTHING happens . It doesn’t matter how sincere I say the words. NOTHING happens to the elements because I’m not validly ordained.

Correct. That was one of the points per CC transubstantiation. Now Ignatius or Martyr even Augustine had the chance to be as explicit as you, but I don’t think they were.

So again I wonder who was the first to be so explicit?

It was Jesus

Then

Jesus taught that to His apostles,

AND

They taught that to everyone else in the Catholic Church

How else would Ignatius, a Catholic bishop, et al teach what THEY taught about the Eucharist.

As for Justin Martyr & Augustine:

We covered Justin already

As for Augustine,

He wrote

…“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice / cup, or rather, what is in that chalice/ cup having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ”… Sermons 227-228 A.D. 411.

 

[mcq72]

As for Augustine,

He wrote

… “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice / cup, or rather, what is in that chalice/ cup having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” … Sermons 227-228 A.D. 411.

Well that answers everything. As a new believer I am supposed to think from Augustine’s brief statement that the sanctifying word changes the substances and leaves the accidents, and rules out any representative or figutative speech?

 

[mcq72]

It was Jesus (being explicit with transubstantiation)

Ok, if so He used one word to do so (“is”), so why did Aquinas need hundreds of words?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As for Augustine,

He wrote

… “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice / cup, or rather, what is in that chalice/ cup having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” … Sermons 227-228 A.D. 411.

Well that answers everything. As a new believer I am supposed to think from Augustine’s brief statement that the sanctifying word changes the substances and leaves the accidents, and rules out any representative or figutative speech?

You spend way too much effort and time trying to twist the simple into a pretzel.

I gave you the context to go along with the brief quote that contradicted your previous impressions of those you mention.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It was Jesus (being explicit with transubstantiation)

Ok, if so He used one word to do so (“is”), so why did Aquinas need hundreds of words?

Because of people who argue over everything and can’t accept simple answers

 

[mcq72]

You spend way too much effort and time trying to twist the simple into a pretzel.

Transubstantiation is too much effort in twisting a simple “is” into a pretzel, in my humble and un Greek opinion.

 

[mcq72]

I gave you the context to go along with the brief quote that contradicted your previous impressions of those you mention.

Indeed you implied a context to Augustine’s words, but I would rather have him speak for himself, and more than a few humbly submit his context being contrary to transubstantiation.

 

[mcq72]

Because of people who argue over everything and can’t accept simple answers

That could be seen to go both ways.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

You’re forgetting one important fact: For 300+ years, the Catholic Church was persecuted. The early Church didn’t write down everything and even if they had, lots of Scripture and other early Catholic literature was confiscated, destroyed or hidden. The early Catholic apologists didn’t write down everything in Q & A form like St. Thomas Aquinas. They defended the Church from erroneous opinions only when it was necessary.

 

[mcq72]

You’re forgetting one important fact: For 300+ years, the Catholic Church was persecuted. The early Church didn’t write down everything and even if they had, lots of Scripture and other early Catholic literature was confiscated, destroyed or hidden. The early Catholic apologists didn’t write down everything in Q & A form like St. Thomas Aquinas. They defended the Church from erroneous opinions only when it was necessary.

Yes, agree thank you. Again this would seem to cut both ways. So for example we may have lost a writing being more explicit towards a transubstantiation understanding of communion just as well as losing one explaining the figurative understanding.

Finally, we seperate in understanding from the get go of the scripture we have and from the little we have on earliest fathers. For example we differ on what the meaning of “is” is, to use a famed Clinton verbiage, in the last supper consecratory words, and then in father writings.

Agree that persecuted church defended only what was necesary. We have two choices then as to communion views. One is that church was unanimous in its understanding and therefore no further invention of explanation was needed. The other was that some understanding was there, but more subjective in nature and therefore with some variation. Yet any diversity was overidden by deeper desire for unity and survival, and charitableness and holiness. Dogmatism was limited more to those fundamental issues surrounding communion, and highlighted by thanksgiving of an objective Calvary. Only later would some come to have the luxury of looking not so much at the object of our affection, a propitiating Christ, but in the desire to reign in any subjectivity in the ceremony itself.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

For example we differ on what the meaning of “is” is, to use a famed Clinton verbiage, in the last supper consecratory words,

A famed Clinton verbiage on CAF?

 

[lanman87]

This famous theologian says basically the same thing as Augustine.

For these are words which can never lie nor deceive — Take, eat, drink. This is my body, Which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy of the sacrament, consists in these words, It is broken for you: it is shed for you.

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 3

And just as Calvin, in other writings fleshes out (no pun intended) his views of the Eucharist so to does Augustine.

If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine Book 3

 

[mcq72]

A famed Clinton verbiage on CAF?

And on such a matter!

 

[mcq72]

Thank you…fitting quotes!

In particular, the focus, the centrality or object of our affection in the sacrament…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You spend way too much effort and time trying to twist the simple into a pretzel.

Transubstantiation is too much effort in twisting a simple “is” into a pretzel, in my humble and un Greek opinion.

Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than the inspiration required to make what looks like words on a page into scripture

are the 27 books we call the NT, just words on a page… or are these physical writings also scripture?
Can you see what changed those words into scripture? Can you see what took place when they became scripture? Do YOUR senses tell you what is scripture and what is NOT scripture? How do you prove it?

Who told you something is scripture and another work is NOT?

AND

Why do you believe it?​

said another way

Which is more difficult to believe: that one finite, material thing can be changed into another thing spiritually while retaining its physical properties, or that apparently contradictory properties can coexist in one person? If one cannot accept transubstantiation simply because it seems counter-intuitive or implausible, it is difficult to see how one could remain a Christian at all. [excerpted from ]

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I gave you the context to go along with the brief quote that contradicted your previous impressions of those you mention.

Indeed you implied a context to Augustine’s words, but I would rather have him speak for himself, and more than a few humbly submit his context being contrary to transubstantiation.

It is you who couldn’t accept the clear language Augustine used. Besides, Augustine is a Catholic saint and doctor of the Church. He wouldn’t go contrary to Church teaching.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Because of people who argue over everything and can’t accept simple answers

That could be seen to go both ways.

AND

that’s why for clarification, we have definitions identifying people on the wrong side of things

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[mcq72]

It is you who couldn’t accept the clear language Augustine used. Besides, Augustine is a Catholic saint and doctor of the Church. He wouldn’t go contrary to Church teaching.

Well then, perhaps the CC later went contrary to the clear language of Augustine. However apparently Calvin did not, per post 1738