When was "Real Presence" first denied?

Thanks for your replies and God bless...

AITB

 

Getting back to the original post. I posted something from an early daddy (Clement of Alexandria) and it was ignored so I'll put it up again.

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols,(emphesis mine of course) when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor(emphesis mine again) the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)

 

Besides, alot of the Fathers were heretics anyway.

 

Hi [Name edited],

You continue to surprise me with your posts.

You wrote, "Besides, alot of the Fathers were heretics anyway."

What is asserted without evidence is as easily denied without evidence.

How about this: "Besides, the New Testament is filled with errors."

What is asserted without evidence is as easily denied without evidence.

You quoted from the Paedagogus (also translated as "The Tutor" and "The Instructor"), which was written by St. Clement of Alexandria who died ca. A.D. 215, served as a Greek Catholic theologian, and was head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt.

You may read the 3 Books that the Paedagogus is comprised of here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0209.htm

The Alexandrian catechetical school was extremely popular for its spiritual reading of the Scriptures in contrast to the literal reading of the Antiochian catechetical school. Origen, a product of Alexandria, serves as a prime exemplar of Alexandrian exegesis, which sought to find allegory, typology, and anagogy in every example of Scripture.

To see St. Clement (of Alexandra, not of Rome) interpreting a portion of John 6 in a symbolic fashion is part and parcel with the Alexandrian school.

Further on in the same work (Book 2, Chapter 2), St. Clement speaks again, but this time directly of the Eucharist in the liturgy (apart from any Alexandrian allegorical exegesis of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel):

"For the blood of the grape - that is, the Word - desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both - of the water and of the Word - is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul."

The above sounds, in its first reading, enigmatic. But, one who is familiar with the Eucharistic liturgy should immediately recognize what St. Clement is speaking of when he speaks of "water" and the "wine".

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Carson Weber

[ September 03, 2002, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Actually Carson,
[Name edited] is the name of the individual who owns this computer and he may not appreciate his name associated with my posts. Very dirty trick indeed! And not very Christ-like I might add.

[ September 03, 2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

I concur with Ps104_33. Violating the personal security of another guest is a good way to get banned from the BB.

 

Thanks Doc

 

Protestants don't ignore those statements. The only thing those quotes show is that the Fathers were not Zwinglian. The Lutheran camp and the Calvinist camp of Protestanism do not deny the Real presence. Read Luther's Catechism or the Concordia Study Bible (Lutheran view) or read Calvin's Institutes, The Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles of Religion (Calvinist view) and both can claim the same statements. Personaly I believe Calvin and Cranmer's view are the correct view of the Real Presence but simply cutting and pasting the Father's belief in a Real Presence only shows they were not Zwinglian, not that they held to a Roman Catholic view.

 

Hi Ps104_33,

You wrote, "Very dirty trick indeed! And not very Christ-like I might add."

I neither did intend nor do intend any "dirty trick", and your elaborate accusation is both hostile and indecorous.

Hi Doc,

You wrote, "Violating the personal security of another guest is a good way to get banned from the BB."

Referring to someone by a first name is certainly far from breaching the personal security of the addressee.

It is typical for Anti-Catholicism to degenerate to this level of accusation and language, while, at the same time, avoiding the theological issues at hand.

Let us address the thread topic and grow in wisdom and knowledge of our Lord in lieu of noisy personal disputes that only divide and tear down.

May God bless both of you,

Carson Weber

 

Hi Kiffin,

How would you describe the traditional Lutheran and Calvinist views of the Real Presence? Can you demonstrate this view in the Fathers by giving us some examples?

From what I understand, Calvin sought to bring about a compromise between the extremes of the Lutheran literal and the Zwinglian figurative interpretations. He suggested a presence that was not substantial or the merely symbolical but a dynamic presence which consists essentially in this: that at the moment of reception, the efficacy of Christ's Body and Blood is communicated from heaven to the souls of the predestined and spiritually nourishes them.

Do you find this view in keeping with Augustine when he writes, "Being in doubt, I turn to Christ and I find how without impiety the earth may be adored ... flesh is from the earth and from the flesh of Mary He has received flesh, and because in flesh itself He has walked here, and has given flesh itself to us to be eaten unto salvation; but no one eats that flesh unless he shall first have adored; we have found how the footstool of the Lord may be adored, and not only how we do not sin in adoring it, but sin in not adoring it" (In Ps. xcviii. n. 9) ?

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

Carson,

It is indeed a breach to post a person's name as you did. People have pseudonyms for a reason. To not respect that is bad form. It is worse form to justify your gaffe by accusing others of just hating you. The rules are not applied to you just because you're RC.

Just apologise for the mistake. And don't do it again.

Oh, and Augustine said a lot of things about the Eucharist, amongst which is that it was symbolic. Augustine, like many Fahters was not of one voice on the topic.

You should also have a care about citing Fathers protestants,as you shold know, don't claim that there's is a view supported by everyone everyowhere at all times.
It would also be helpful if some RCs could figure out what Real Presence meant ito the ECFs intheir context. Mark Shea documents a development in the understanding of Real Presence; a tacit admission that the ECFs did not believe that Real Presence as that term is defined by later ages.

So unless one of you can fuinally stop the ittle circular argument based ona begged definition... like so many RC atteptds at prving their beleifs are true, this one fails.

I'll lurk for a bit, but until I see something of substance (pun intended) to repsond to, I won;t bother.

 

Hi Latreia,

Apparently, you do not agree with me when I suggest that it would be good to return to the topic of the thread instead of bantering around in no-man's land concerning an action that I took in all sincere ignorance. I apologize for making this mistake.

You also wrote, "It is worse form to justify your gaffe by accusing others of just hating you."

Never did I state such an accusation. God bless you.

You wrote, "Oh, and Augustine said a lot of things about the Eucharist, amongst which is that it was symbolic. Augustine, like many Fahters was not of one voice on the topic."

Augustine writes that it is a sin not to give latria (the worship that God alone deserves, lest we commit idolatry) to the Eucharist. This should put a firm end to the discussion concerning whether Augustine, in the heart of Catholicism, gave worship and adoration to what appears to be bread and wine after the consecration.

You wrote, "You should also have a care about citing Fathers protestants,as you shold know, don't claim that there's is a view supported by everyone everyowhere at all times."

There is, what we term, the unanimous consent of the Fathers - which does exist on various doctrinal issues.

Granted, the exact definition of "Real Presence" varied for the Fathers (transubstantiation or consubstantiation, etc?), but the dogma was always held in the heart of believers from the beginning.

This is analogous to other dogmas of the faith, namely, the Trinity, which, took a number of centuries to be understood and defined as it is today - though the dogma was held in the heart of believers from the beginning.

God bless you,

Carson

 

O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:10

 

Carson -

Dr. Cassidy's admonishment had nothing to do with theology nor anti-Catholic rhetoric. It has to do with obeying the rules of this board of which you have a free membership, specifically:

You may review the entire set of rules along with the registry agreement here: http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

Believe me, Carson, Dr. Cassidy and I both would protect your privacy the same way despite whatever disagreements we may have in our theologies. It's our duty to this site and neither of us take it lightly.

Clint Kritzer
Administrator

 

Carson,

Clint is referring to the same comment I did. You essentially cried "prejudice". But it didn't work.

Augustone said also that things that, if taken literally would lead to vice should be taken figuratively. He swpecifically mentioned John 6, and sai that this is therfore a figure.

That isn't an RC belief... Go figure.

 

Hi Clint,

You suggested, "Dr. Cassidy's admonishment had nothing to do with theology nor anti-Catholic rhetoric. It has to do with obeying the rules of this board of which you have a free membership, specifically"

And then you quoted Rule #9, "Respect the privacy of others. Do not post phone numbers, home addresses, pictures, etc., without permission."

Would you please recount where I posted anyone's home address, picture, or phone number? Or, would you please recount where I intentionally disrespected the privacy of anyone on this board? What is the matter of the apparent violation at hand?

Thank you & God bless you,

Carson Weber

[ September 04, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Perhaps as a gesture of Christian charity, you will answer the question which I have asked a couple of times previously in different words.

Will you please give your understanding of Real Presence as it relates to the following quote , as well as the numerous other quotes which I have offered?

"...so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh ."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165)

(edited starting here)

I have provided many quotes from the first century which show that, at a minimum, some Christians believed that the bread & wine became the flesh & blood of our Lord.

My question which has not even been remotely addressed is: when was this belief first denied? Where is historical evidence that any Christian took exception to that belief?

To say that Chrisitians also held other beliefs not in conflict with it says nothing. Scripture can have meaning at multiple levels. Communion would not be an exception.</font>[/QUOTE]Trying,

You should note Carson's admission that ther was no agreement as to the meaning of Real Presence amongst the ECFs (that is contrary to the official definition of the doctrine as I recall). I do not grant mind you that his designation for those beliefs is accurate mind you (trans- or consun=bstantiation).

What you need to do is stop using begged definitions. What did a given father mean by transmutation? That is the question you need to ask, and without assuming that he meant what you would mean. A lot of the ECFs were philosophical realists (see Platonism) but that does not require a belief in Phyical Presence.

So has your question been addressed? Yes actually. I mentioned that so far as I know, it is still believed. Just not as the RCC defines the term Real Presence. But you have never established that your definition is the true one. That, indeed, is the heart of the matter. You just want us to assume that what the RCC memans now is what has always been meant.

That's called a begged definition. I don't grant it.

Still waiting...

 

Hi Latria,

You wrote, "Augustone said also that things that, if taken literally would lead to vice should be taken figuratively. He swpecifically mentioned John 6, and sai that this is therfore a figure."

Would you please first answer trying2understand above?

Next, would you please back your statement above with evidence?

St. Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo wrote in In Ps. xcviii. n. 9:

"Being in doubt, I turn to Christ and I find how without impiety the earth may be adored ... flesh is from the earth and from the flesh of Mary He has received flesh, and because in flesh itself He has walked here,"

Creation may be adored (i.e. given "latria", which is due to God alone) in Christ's flesh, only because it is united to the divinity of God.

"and has given flesh itself to us to be eaten unto salvation; but no one eats that flesh unless he shall first have adored; we have found how the footstool of the Lord may be adored, and not only how we do not sin in adoring it, but sin in not adoring it"

Christ has given his flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But, no one eats the flesh unless he has first adored it. If we don't adore it, we sin.

That's Augustine, quoted word for word. Enough false witness, okay?

God bless,

Carson