When was "Real Presence" first denied?

Carson,

"Would you please first answer trying2understand above?"

I did.

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

Fine. See "On Christian Doctrine" 3:16:24

Better look it up before you toss around accusations of false witness.

Your integrity has already takena beating today. Quit while you're at least not behind.

 

Fr. Jaggar responds well to the Protestant claim that Augustine admitted nothing more than a figurative eating of our Lord's Body:
http://www.catholic-convert.com/writings/augustine.html

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Latreia,

You wrote, "Your integrity has already takena beating today. Quit while you're at least not behind"

May God bless you too.

You referred me to "'On Christian Doctrine' 3:16:24," in which Augustine writes, ""If a sentence seems to enjoin a crime or vice, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," Christ says, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice: it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.""

I would refer you to the apology of Fr. Jaggar, S.J. at

http://www.catholic-convert.com/writings/augustine.html (fourth paragraph)

Now, for more of what Augustine wrote:

"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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"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 THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NNE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

Let's review:

(1) The bread having been sanctified "IS THE BODY OF CHRIST"

(2) The wine having been sanctified "IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST"

(3) We know Christ in the breaking of the bread; and not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ "BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY."

(4) When Christ said "THIS IS MY BODY" He carried "HIS OWN BODY" in "HIS OWN HANDS"

(5) Christ is "IMMOLATED" (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or "making present" before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice)

(6) Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him

(7) All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ's Sacrifice in Holy Communion

(8) The souls of the dead in Christ find relief through the Sacrifice of the Mediator OFFERED for them and through the prayers of the living Body of Christ on earth

(9) The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers -- the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died "in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ" so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins

(10) Christ gave us His own flesh "to be eaten unto salvation" and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation

Ad Majorem Dei, Gloriam,

Carson Weber

 

"May God bless you too."

I accept your apology for assuming I was making a false witness.

I am not really interested in the fr's apology. I've read a few efforts at avoiding the obvious.

As fro the other Augustoine quotes, I have no problems that philosophically, Augustine was a "realist". I have already done this a few times. But realism does not require one to accept a physcial presence.

I also freely acknowledge that Augustine said some exalted things. But he also said some things that are incosistient with your belief.

Your problem remains thre same. You assume that Augustine meant what you mean whenm YOU say those kinds of things. But given that Augustione says many things that are simply incompatioble with your belief, it cannot be that he means what you do. Nevertheless, you assume he does, wiothout evidence. You wish to use a begged definition of all key terms.

Again, I reject that. So, again, you have not proven anything other than that the ECFs believed in some form of Real Presence. You have not proven that they believed YOUR form of Real Presence. Indeed you have admitted already that at least some don't. This is, as I mentioned, already a contradiction of the official pronouncement on that doctrine. In for a penny in for pound?

So, since you still haven't anythig relevant to say, back to my nap...

 

(lifts his head... opens an eye...)

Oh. You want me to address (yawn) that again?

I told you already what I believe, or what you believe is irrelvant in understanding Justin. You need to understand Justin in his cultrual milieu, in HIS terms to know what he is saying.

You cannot hope to understand what he means by asking your question. It invoves an assumption as to what he means. You have to first find out what he means, Otherwise you'll never escape the circular reasoning you're engaging in.

So first establish what Justin means. Don't assume it becaue you think that he is a member of your denomination adn so he should agree with you.

Because, after all, it is perfectly possible for a person to say what he does without holding to a physical presence.

Kind liks Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor 1:6)

(lays head back down...)

 

Actually yes. After all, I want them to be able to think, and understand. Not simply parrot spoonfed stuff.

And I did give yo an answer. Just not the one you like. You would rather that I answer using the definitions of key terms that you want to use. But you have not shown that I should do that. Indeed, I reject the premise you start off with, that Real Presence means what yousay it does, and that the ECFs beliveed that it meant what you say it means.

That makes your quesion, logically, a "complex" one. To answer it directly would be to accept the faulty premise. You basically asked a "do you still beat your wife" type question. Unfortunately for you, I recognise that, and so don't get caught.

You can try poisoning the well all you like. It is clear to all here that I am right to no let you use begged definitions. I am quite comfortable with my credibility here. Your attempt at goading is an immature tactic.

"Will you please explain what Justin means, in light of the above and the numerous other quotes that I previously offered, and also, how it is perfectly possible for a person to say what he does without holding to a physical presence?"

Justin menas that the elements, in some way, become the body and blood of Christ. Duh!

How is it possible to say that without meanign a physical presenvce? Same way Jesus does.

Like it or not Ron, you're going to have to actually do the work of demonstrating from Justin himself what he means. I am not going to let you assume what he meant, or allow you to not ignore the burden of proof that is yours to prove that Justin meant Phsycial Presence.

You are still trying to find a way to use your little circular argument. It ain't gonna happen guy. So eitehr prodice your proof tha Justin meant Physical presence or stay quiet and let me sleep.

 

"Well, now we are getting somewhere.

So do you believe that in your "Lord's Supper" the elements (bread & wine or grape juice) become the body and blood of Christ?

"Same way Jesus does."

Could you expand on that a little?"

Trying,

The burden of proof is yours.

I won't play your game.

Either support your assertions or stay quiet.

In fact, it is obvious to me that you are eitehr unwilling or unable to shoulder that burden. I suspect both.

Oh well. You know you really are boring me with this.

 

Sigh....

This shouldn't be that hard to understand. You ask:

When was Real Presence first denied?

What is your definition of Real presence? The RCC one first promulgated by Radbertus and given a full Aristotelian makeover by Aquinas? One of the several understandings we see in the ECFs?

You ask the question as if the definition of "Real Presence" is a given. It isn't.

I could assume any one of these. For instance I could assume that you are talking about what Radbertus innovated. In that case it was first denied in Radbertus' time. His view did not get initial acceptance. But his view was an innovation. It was so viewed in his time.

If you want to asume Aquinas' view, then I suppose you could say the Reformation.

The ECFs? Pick an ECF. There was a variety. Some were realists (using platonism). Others were not. In that sense they denied each other's view.

But if you want to know how a person can affirm a real presence without a physical presence, then just think about it for a bit. One can stress the reality of what is being symbolised without denying the symbolism. Symbolism does not require one to deny the reality of what is symbolised; it only requies that one not identify the symbol with that which is symbolised. That is what the ECFs did. That is what Jesus did.

The truth is that when it comes to the eucharist, RCs engage in the worst kind of proof-texting. Lancelot Andrewes said it well: "It is perfectly clear that Transsubstantiation, which has lately been born in the last four hundered years, never existed in the first four hundred."

The remarks that the ECFs make are addressing issues and contexts that have nothing to do with Transsubstantiation. You would do well to see if you can find Ratramn's "Christ's Body and Blood". (Ratramn was Radbert's abbot.)I have seen it cited in several places and is a refutation of Radbert's view from the Fathers. ( I am also trying to find the works of Peter Martyr, Cranmer's "Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine" and "Answer", and Jewel.) It is much more, from what I can gather (I have never found a copy in print), than Augustine's famous "believe and thou hast eaten." (Gore, in his "Dissertations" remarks that `obscure though his view fo the eucharist undoubtedly is, it is at any rate certain that he did not believe in transsubstantiation.) His conclusion is that the biblical and patristic teachng is that the presence of Chris tis "real in the general sense of the term, but not the technical sense (referring to transsubstantiation)."

In one sense though the answer to your question is: It has never been denied. Andrewes: " We belive no less than you that the presence is real. Concerning the method of the presence, we define nothing rashly... It is perfectly clear that transsubstantiation, which hgas lately been born in the last four hunmdred years, did not exist on the first four hundred... there is a kind of union between the visible sacrament and the invisible reality of the sacrament which there is between manhood and the Godhead of Christ, where, unless you want to samck of Eutyches, the manhood is not transsubstantiated into the Godhead."

You RCs like to go on as if it is transsubstantiation or nothing. Extreme Zwinglian types act like it is purely remebrance, or nothing. Historically however there has been a middle ground. The medieval theologians made the misatke of simply interpreting the ECFs in terms of their own contemporary Aristotelianism rather than biblical terms. Transsubstantiation is NOT Real presence, but an attempt at describing the meanbs of Real Presence. They are related but not the same.

Now, can I go back to bed?

 

Hi Latreia,

So, what was Bishop L. Andrewes' belief and how does it differ from your own?

Andrewes writes, "there is a kind of union between the visible sacrament and the invisible reality of the sacrament which there is between manhood and the Godhead of Christ, where, unless you want to samck of Eutyches, the manhood is not transsubstantiated into the Godhead."

If the visible sacrament of Christ's manhood is inseparably united hypostatically to the divinity, then would not the substance of bread and wine (albeit really present) be inseparably united to the God-Man in the sacrament? If you're going to quote Andrewes, then I would suggest taking his analogy to its conclusion (consubstantiation). Otherwise, your quotation of an Anglican authority only disproves your own Anabaptist tradition.

God bless,

Carson

[ September 05, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Dont you think all this constant "God Bless you" and "May God Bless you too" from certain individuals on this board is phoney and taking God's name in vain. I like it when I know it is sincere but I sense sarcasm from certain pompous hypocrites who dont really mean it and they know it.

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

 

I agree, it's quite annoying.

 

I would also like to add that the Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the prefiguring Old Testament Passover feast in which the sacrificed paschal lamb was consumed (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

In the original Greek, Luke 22:19 is "Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin". The Greek word "poiete" (do) is also translated as "offer" in Exodus 29:38, and the Greek word "anamnesin" (remembrance) has the sacrificial overtone of a memorial offering such as its use in Hebrews 10:3.

[ September 05, 2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

And here is a copy of St. Ambrose's prayer before communion. Ambrose of Milano catechized and baptized Augustine of Hippo.

"To the table of Thy most sweet banquet, O gracious Lord Jesus Christ, do I a sinner approach with fear and trembling, relying in no wise upon mine own merits, but having confidence in Thy mercy and goodness. My heart and my body are stained with many sins; my mind and my tongue are not watched over with care. Therefore, O loving God, O fearful Majesty, wretchedly caught in the midst of my extremities do I turn to Thee, the fountain of mercy; to Thee do I hasten to be healed; to Thy protection do I fly. And for Thee, before whom as Judge I cannot stand, as Saviour do I yearn. To Thee, O Lord, do I show my wounds; to Thee do I uncover my shame. I know that my sins are many and great, and for them I am fearful. I hope in Thy mercies, for of them there is no number.

"Therefore look upon me with Thine eyes of mercy, O Lord Jesus Christ, eternal King, God and man, crucified for man's sake. Graciously hear me who hope in Thee; have mercy on me who am full of wretchedness and sin, Thou who ceasest never to flow as a fountainhead of mercy. Hail, Saving Victim, offered up upon the gibbet of the Cross for me and for all men. Hail, noble and Precious Blood, flowing from the wounds of my crucified Lord Jesus Christ and washing away the sins of the whole world. Remember, O Lord, Thy creature, whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Blood.

"I repent that I have sinned; I desire to amend what I have done. Take from me, therefore, O most merciful Father, all my iniquities and my sins, so that cleansed in mind and body I may worthily taste the Holy of Holies. Grant that this holy reception of Thy Body and Blood, which I purpose to take, unworthy though I am, may bring to me pardon for my sins, the perfect cleansing of my faults, the expulsion of evil thoughts, and the renewal of good feelings, the health and efficacy of good works, pleasing unto Thee, and a most strong protection both in soul and body against the wiles of my enemies. Amen."

--

You guys ever heard of Scarecrow & Tinmen? ( http://www.scarecrowtinmen.com ) They're both converts from Evangelical Protestantism & I sit next to Chris Padgett (Scarecrow) in "Mary in the Modern World" - what a great guy! This morning he gave me a burned CD of some of their latest worship tracks, and it's been replaying for the past 2 hours in my stereo while I work on my studies. If you haven't heard them, I suggest checking them out. Their latest national release is "Superhero".

[ September 05, 2002, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]