P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, then, Radical, you post the sermon on the thread that I started at your challenge.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, you are.
You are correct, but I am correct also. If you did testing on the consecrated host, it would show up as carbohydrate molecules, 'tis true this.Well, if the substance of the bread is carbohydrate molecules, then your official teaching would be subject to testing by scientific methods…we could see if carbohydrate molecules (and hence the substance of bread) are still present after the consecration…please, tell me I am wrong and that you are right. Tell me that the CC holds that the substance of the bread is carbohydrate molecules…I gladly resolve this issue by that test…there, I now consider my speculation as to your error backed up.
In fact, if you are an alcoholic and drink the Precious Blood, its substance could induce you to an alcoholic binge drinking episode, if such is your trigger.
The Catholic Church does not teach otherwise, Radical. It does not state that those with Celiac Disease ought to take the host because “gluten isn’t there anymore.” The accidents are bread and wine, and your senses will tell you that it’s bread and wine. But its substance has been transformed into Him.
A
AlexPetrosPio
Guest
- Nature obeys God.
- Jesus is God.
- Bread and wine are a part of nature that we live in.
- Jesus as the God-Man entered into the part of nature that we live in.
- Jesus took bread and called it His Body and took wine and called it His Blood.
- Nature obeys God.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Many disagree because of their spiritual blindness and arrogance. Who are we has fallen creatures to truly believe God CANNOT give himself 100% in the bread & wine? I personally do not know one non-Catholic who questions God about the Incarnation,but the Eucharist is not possible or not reasonable? Pure carnal beliefs at their best!
R
Radical
Guest
It seems to me that your argument could be summarized as:
a) if one accepts the canon of scripture which was determined by the early church (as valid), then one must also accept the doctrine of the real bodily presence (b/c it was also determined to be truth by that same early church).
There is another similar argument that goes:
b) if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity which was declared as truth by the early church (and which is not expressly stated in scripture), then one must also accept the doctrine of the real bodily presence (which is clearly stated in scripture if one denies a figurative interpretation) b/c it was also declared as truth by that same early church.
I have seen scholars make a similar argument, albeit the scholarly argument is toned down considerably. It goes like this:
c) if one accepts the canon of scripture which was determined by the early church (as valid), then one must acknowledge that:
1)the early church was capable (by God’s grace) of making an infallible/authoritative determination; and
- then it is possible that the early church’s determination regarding a real bodily presence is also valid/authoritative (by God’s grace).
- It is not that I think that the validity of the doctrine of a RBP should be assessed and that the doctrine of the Trinity or the formulation of the canon should be accepted w/o question. All of these things should be assessed as to legitimacy (b/c the early church consisted of people who were all quite capable of making mistakes both individually and collectively). It is legitimate and good to consider whether the long ending of Mark should be in or out. In this regard, I note that the early church wasn’t in an upheaval b/c some congregations accepted Revelation and others did not. If they could have various, unidentical collections of sacred works, why do we require all to accept the same canon? The fact that Revelation and the long ending of Mark were eventually included by the early church doesn’t make their inclusion legitimate.
- You are comparing apples to oranges. For example, wrt the doctrine of a RBP, it is a question of interpreting whether Christ was speaking figuratively or non-figuratively. Did he mean “is changed into” or “is a symbol of”? Further, we can hold the bread in our hands and investigate its status. We also experience bodies and flesh on a daily basis and so we can assess whether the claim of a RBP makes any sense whatsoever based on our extensive experience with bodies, flesh and the eating of flesh. To deal with the obvious observation problems with a RBP, one must either simply admit that it is an unsolvable mystery or must resort to a philosophy that envisions the existence of substances w/o accidents. In contrast, regarding the Trinity, we do not handle the Trinity at all, let alone regularly. No one has seen the Trinity. It has nothing to do with a philosophy that envisions the existence of substances w/o accidents. It is a question of reconciling seemingly contradictory passages…passages that state that God is One with passages that refer to three (seemingly distinct) persons each as God.
- The three determinations aren’t interdependent. In other words, The acceptance of the canon does not necessarily lead to Trinitarianism (wasn’t it that the Arians and the Trinitarians were working off the same set of sacred works?..it wasn’t as if the Arians had a Modalistic NT containing a different set of sacred works that supported their view and denied Trinitarianism). Likewise, the acceptance of the canon does not necessarily lead to a RBP (you and I share the same NT, but differ on the RBP)…it wasn’t as if the ECFs rejected a set of works (which were considered for inclusion in the NT) b/c those works taught a symbolic-only view of the Lord’s Supper. Instead what we have is a NT that allows for a Modalistic understanding of God, a Trinitarian understanding of God (which I think is the better understanding), a RBP understanding of the Lord’s Supper (which, IMHO requires a denial of common sense and a woodenly literal interpretation) and a symbolic/memorial understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Said another way, the belief in a RBP was not the measuring stick by which books were included or excluded from the NT (I am not aware that it was factored into any decision regarding the inclusion of exclusion of any work) So by accepting their canon, but rejecting the RBP I am not accepting a determination of the ECFs which was based on a belief in the RBP. It would also seem that Trinitarianism and a belief in a RBP are not connected. Tertullian defended the Trinity, but referred to the bread as a “figure”…something much less than a RBP.
R
Radical
Guest
continuing…
- The history of the early church does not disclose a universal belief in a RBP. Kilmartin (in The Eucharist in the West) p(name removed by moderator)oints the development of the view of a real somatic presence to 4th century Antioch. It wasn’t instantaneously accepted…for example, Augustine did not advocate a real somatic presence (like it or not, this is the direction of the modern analysis of Augustine’s works [Catholic historians included]…it really seems to me that the “unanimous consent of the early church fathers regarding a real bodily presence” has become a pretense needed to legitimize the claim) Before the doctrine of a real somatic presence developed and before it became official, various views regarding Christ’s presence at the Lord’s supper existed w/i the early church spanning everything from nearly “symbolic-only” to nearly “full bodily presence”. It seems to me that when a group is devoted to, enthused about and grateful to a person (in this case God) it is much easier to add to what that person has actually done, than it is to detract from what that person has actually done. As such, the range of views that existed early on wrt the Lord’s Supper, seems to be more consistent (IMHO) with an initial symbolic understanding that has been added to, than with a real bodily presence view that has been subtracted from.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is interesting, Radical. I had made mention in an earlier post to this argument being similar to discussions with Mormons regarding the Incarnation.Isn’t the official teaching that the substance of the bread is no longer present and that the substance of the body becomes present?..hence “transubstantiation” …am I right?
You said: “Well, it’s not protein molecules. It’s the substance of bread, which is carbohydrate molecules. But during transubstantiation the bread actually becomes the Body (flesh) of Jesus.”
Well, if the substance of the bread is carbohydrate molecules, then your official teaching would be subject to testing by scientific methods…we could see if carbohydrate molecules (and hence the substance of bread) are still present after the consecration…please, tell me I am wrong and that you are right. Tell me that the CC holds that the substance of the bread is carbohydrate molecules…I gladly resolve this issue by that test…there, I now consider my speculation as to your error backed up.
And it brings to mind another discussion I’ve had with non-Trinitarians regarding Homoiousios vs Homoousion. These non-Trinitarians proclaim that the Scriptures are silent on Jesus being of one essence with the Father. And they are correct. One needs an outside authority–that of Sacred Tradition–to be able to proclaim that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father and one in being with the Father.
One gets into intricate detail regarding molecules of substance–divine and human–in discussions with these non-Trinitarians. Despite using sound logic, Greek metaphysics, ontological arguments, reason, science, Scripture, history, they are adamantine that Jesus was not homousios with the Father.
Similar paradigm here. Despite using sound logic, Greek metaphysics, ontological arguments, reason, science, Scripture, history, some are adamantine that transubstantiation is not possible at the word of He Who Breathed the Universe into Existence.
R
Radical
Guest
it strikes me that we should simply admit we don’t know how God is made up…as opposed to trying to describe divinity with words such as Homoiousios or Homoousion
nope, you have that wrong…it is that some are adamant that God did not teach something that would require the existence of Christ’s body by way of transubstantiation…quite a difference really. Is it that you can’t see the difference or that your prefer to belittle my position by ignoring the difference?
E
exnihilo
Guest
The Resurrection makes no sense based on our experience with bodies and flesh. Jesus’ resurrected body is both a mystery and a reality experienced by many.
R
Radical
Guest
the apostle Thomas seemed to approach it differently…kinda resorted to his sensory experience of Christ’s body and flesh
people who reject the resurrection tend to do so on the basis of “miracles don’t happen…so the resurrection didn’t happen” or “Jesus wasn’t God’s Son so God didn’t work a miracle at that time”. Some will reject the claim of a RBP for similar reasons, but there is a whole different issue WRT the RBP…it requires the acceptance of an entirely different mode of existence…a mode of existence that envisions presence w/o “accidents” and “accidents” w/o presence. Surely you can see that you are comparing apples to oranges.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s a good thing the greatest Christian thinkers of the world do not follow your paradigm. Your spiritual paradigm, without their contributions, is greatly impoverished.
See the response of the Protestant above. Great point he made!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Your challenge was accepted a while ago, Radical. You have yet to follow up.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=570877
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, yes, that and the Words of the Divine Savior, no?
'zactly.
And in your universe this mode of existence cannot exist because…*why? *
R
Radical
Guest
The challenge was to:
a) post the whole of Sermon 227; and then
b) explain how it supports the claim that Augustine held to a RBP.
You have done neither
E
exnihilo
Guest
You are talking about Thomas not believing the other Apostles. But Thomas’ faith has nothing to do with the truth of the resurrected body. If anything this story helps to point out how humans are not pure spiritual creates. We live in a fleshly world and God most certainly understands this and our needs in regards to that.
No, there is no difference. God is supernatural. He created all the physical laws of the universe. He can and does, according to anyone with any Christian faith, influence the world by way of miracles. A God who can resurrect can most certainly transform physical matter in a way we dont comprehend (and when you really examine it our understanding of the physical world is very incomplete). Not believing in the Real Presence is one thing, but to say God cant do it is to completely undermine God’s power.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I totally agree with your last sentence,which I bolded in black. Deny something or rejecting does not make it true or unreal. I find it at odds how many Christians have no issues with God being the Creator of everything,but have an issue with the RP of the Eucharist? So in other words, God cannot give Himself in two simple elements: Bread & Water? Better yet,God would not offer Himself to us through bread & wine? I call it spiritual blindness and arrogance.
N
Nicea325
Guest
AUGUSTINE:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“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 which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Sorry Radical,but you DEAD WRONG! St.Augustine WAS NOT Protestant!
P
PRmerger
Guest
I have done both.
You have not been able to respond or refute.
Why post a challenge if you’re not going to address it, except if it was a bluff in the first place?
(Which, incidentally, I knew was a bluff all along, which is why I called it. I am one mean poker player, BTW.
)
R
Radical
Guest
Well, mostly it has to do with terminology. If someone wants to claim that we are surrounded by a host of angels that we can’t see or touch…that is fine, but one shouldn’t assert that the angels are bodily present. Otherworldly present? Sure. Extra-dimensionally present? Why not. Spiritually present? OK. Bodily present? Nope, not by any standard use of those terms…one feels like one has been invited to take a giant step down the rabbit hole with Alice. And then there is that use of “trogos” that started this thread. Apparently that is seen as a strong indication that Christ had a RBP in mind, b/c with a real bodily presence one actually “eats the flesh of Christ”…or so the claim goes, but again it seems that one has been invited to take a giant step further down that rabbit hole. At your Eucharist nothing resembling flesh chewing occurs. Flesh never touches teeth, teeth never tear and grind flesh to bits, flesh never meets tongue, throat or stomach. What makes it even more unlike actual meat eating is the claim that with every breaking of the bread into smaller bits, the flesh is not said to be broken into corresponding smaller bits, but rather the entire body is claimed to be bodily present in each and every smaller bit. It seems that words are terribly misapplied so that it can be claimed that one “eats the flesh of Christ” as required in John 6. As such, my first objection is to your words of description…the words simply do not properly describe either the objects or the actions involved. Your words claim something that doesn’t exist (if one relies on normal meanings)…a body is a physical thing and so it is beyond me as to how a body can be really bodily present w/o any physical attributes of that body being present. Your words claim an action that doesn’t occur. Chewing is a physical action and flesh is a physical thing…flesh isn’t chewed unless it is physically present to be chewed. If one is to agree that this mode of existence can exist in one’s universe, then one has to have the mode of existence properly described with words that retain their normal meanings…with words that actually describe that mode of existence and not with words that are used (through a misapplication) to satisfy a religious interest. Provide such a description and one can actually decide if the thing you are suggesting is possible or impossible.And in your universe this mode of existence cannot exist because…*why? *
From there, let’s suppose that you grant my request and actually describe what you think goes on at your Eucharist using words that mean the same thing to Tom, Dick and Harry (whether they are 1st century Jew, Evangelical or Atheist)…what would that description look like? Let’s call that the Clear Description. I am not sure what you would produce and I would be curious to see your effort. If you did a good job of it, one thing that I am sure of is, that the Clear Description would not look anything like, “This - my body” (the likely translation in english of what Christ likely said in Aramaic in the upper room when he handed out the bread) or anything like the “trogos passage” of John 6. That is my second objection…this mode of existence that you propose is unlike the existence of any other known body/flesh in the universe. Why should I believe that such a mode of existence is used by God? Your answer is, “B/c that is what Jesus taught” or something of the sort…but Jesus never taught anything about an existence of his body behind the accidents of bread, about the almost endless multiplication of his body through innumerable consecrations, about the even greater multiplication of his body by the breaking of the bread into smaller bits, about his full bodily presence travelling behind each and every.bit of consecrated bread…yet I am to believe that Christ created this new mode of existence so as to supply essential grace through a repeated ritual w/o bothering to mention that this absolutely unique, wonderously bizarre and terribly vital thing was being introduced? Come to think of it, he didn’t mention supplying essential grace in that fashion either. Catholics complain that if Jesus was speaking symbolically, then he should have said so. From over here it seems unnecessary that Christ explain the obvious…and the symbolic meaning appears all too obvious. What can’t be labelled obvious by any stretch of the imagination and what cries out for an explanation is the mode of existence that you allege, this almost endless reproduction of the body of Christ that you insist occurs and this lingering appearance of bread after it has ceased to be there.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I have already addressed this. Flesh chewing does indeed occur. His Flesh is present. I chew. Therefore, flesh-chewing does indeed occur.
How you can identify what happens during an experience that you’re not part of is absurd.
It’s like you’re looking into the marital bed of a couple and telling them, “You’re not really engaging in a loving union.” How in the heck do* you *know?
- Status