Did the early church fathers believe in the real precsence of Jesus in the Eucharist

[Defensor Christi]

I understand...it happens...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Defensor Christi
Ah, this old hat again...context is always key....

Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Here is the relevant passage often foisted by critics of the Catholic faith:

Seems I have heard that term used elsewhere before....ah yes, here it is


http://www.christianforums.com/t7385593-32/
The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

.


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."



SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations


While Real Presence was nearly universal, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problematic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common beginging in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here, literally anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?

Still others accepted that "is" does mean a literal presence, but they argued this is solely Christ's DIVINE nature, a "spiritual" presence. It's more than in the usual sense of "I am with you always" but not in the sense of "Real Presence."

This view stresses the "Remember me...." of the Institution rather than the "is" aspect of it.

Comments? Evaluations? Beliefs?
.

MY view:

Symbolic:

I use to hold this view. While I'm always reluntant to not take God at His word, this HAD to be a metaphor. Two things dissuaded me.

1. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the text above, we read First Corinthians 11:27-30. To me, this makes moot at best and probably problematic for a symbolic view.

2. I came to understand that this veiw, while not entirely unheard of, had very very little historic or ecumenical consensus. While it is a POSSIBLE interpretation (and thus I do NOT regard as it "heretical" and respect those who hold this view), it has no historic or ecumenical support.

Transubstantiation:

I learned of this during my Catholic days. For a time, I embraced it, but as I came to understand it, I rejected it, primarily for 4 reasons:

1. It is entirely untextual. The Eucharistic texts say NOTHING of alchemy or Aristotle's accidents. The texts never even mention "change." The words "is" signify being, not alchemy.

2. It is entirely unnecessary. It accomplishes nothing. It only makes Real Presence dependent upon a long ago forgotten and rejected pre-science dream and a theory of Aristotle, long ago rejected in physics. It's goal of explaining away the Mystery doesn't. It only creates problems.

3. It creates textual difficulties. Paul actually mentions "bread" and "wine" FAR MORE OFTEN after the Consecration than before it. But Transubstantiation requires that we ignore such, and regard such as "Aristotelian accidents." The word "is" in the texts must be deleted and replaced with, "hereby undergoes an alchemic transubstantion" and each time "bread" and "wine" appear in the text, we must insert, "the Aristotelian Accident of...." It requires the same "split" interpretation that symbolic presence does: HALF of the time, the words mean what they are, and HALF of the time they mean something symbolic. MIXED interpretations in a sentence is usually associated with a problematic hermeneutic.

4. This lacks any historic or ecumenical support. It was invented in the 9th century by western Catholic "Scholastics" as just one possible theory to explain away the Mystery.


Real Presence:

I learned of this view in my religion studies as a part of my high school education, largely from Lutheranism. (Ironically, the RCC, which also embraces this, seems to use the title but substitute the teaching of Transubstantiation). It seems very textual to me, and it has solid historic and ecumenical embrace.

I totally admit it raises questions and IS a "mystery." But, like Christians for the past 2000 years, I lay such aside: along with how God can be three yet one, how Jesus can be both God and man, and a whole lot of other mysteries. I really don't understand exactly WHAT Christ being physically present means in terms of PHYSICS (my college degree is in physics), but it seems to ME - in the light of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 - this is the correct view, and it has come to be powerfully spiritual and significant to me.


Just MY perspective.

What's YOURS?
.

.




.

 

[Standing Up]

Your personal feelings about what Tertullian wrote have no bearing on this conversation...the fact remains that he was arguing against heresy...not the real presence.

Someone reading their theology into such things is what causes so much division in Christianity...it is done with scripture as well. Please do not attempt to twist Tertullian's words to fit your beliefs...that is my point.

Nothing to do with personal feelings. Here's Tertullian again:

" Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,”50835083 Luke xxii. 19. [See Jewell’s Challenge, p. 266, supra.] that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.50845084 Corpus veritatis: meant as a thrust against Marcion’s Docetism. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure."

The bread is a figure of Christ's body, which was proof of the reality of Christ's body because a phantom is incapable of a figure.

You may disagree with Tertullian, which you do, because he sees the bread as a figure, which RC does not, but try, at least, to understand his argument before talking about it.

 

[BBAS 64]

I understand...it happens...

All to much with in your denomination:

As I predicted;

"Some now a days in Rome would like to dimiss this, but the historical facts are very clear."

And you made it come true really quickly.

 

[Thekla]

Nothing to do with personal feelings. Here's Tertullian again:

" Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,”50835083 Luke xxii. 19. [See Jewell’s Challenge, p. 266, supra.] that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.50845084 Corpus veritatis: meant as a thrust against Marcion’s Docetism. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure."

The bread is a figure of Christ's body, which was proof of the reality of Christ's body because a phantom is incapable of a figure.

You may disagree with Tertullian, which you do, because he sees the bread as a figure, which RC does not, but try, at least, to understand his argument before talking about it.

How is the term "form/figure" meant by Tertullian - and can you confirm this through comparative usage across his texts and in the original language use ?

Recall another instance of "form/figure/appearance" ...

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form/morphin of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ..." Phil 2:7

 

[Defensor Christi]

Nothing to do with personal feelings. Here's Tertullian again:

" Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,”50835083 Luke xxii. 19. [See Jewell’s Challenge, p. 266, supra.] that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.50845084 Corpus veritatis: meant as a thrust against Marcion’s Docetism. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure."

The bread is a figure of Christ's body, which was proof of the reality of Christ's body because a phantom is incapable of a figure.

You may disagree with Tertullian, which you do, because he sees the bread as a figure, which RC does not, but try, at least, to understand his argument before talking about it.

Again...context is key.

 

[Defensor Christi]

All to much with in your denomination:

As I predicted;

"Some now a days in Rome would like to dimiss this, but the historical facts are very clear."

And you made it come true really quickly.

Um...did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not... Here it is again...#110

You cannot take something out of context and attempt to apply it to your own theological stance...doesnt work.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Nothing to do with personal feelings. Here's Tertullian again:
​

Again...context is key.

Do you mean according to the context of Roman Catholicism or Christianity in generally?




.

 

[Defensor Christi]

Do you mean according to the context of Rome or Christianity in generally?

Let's just begin with the context of history first...the context of the document...to whom were they writing? Why?

It is a favorite trick of some to pull a paragraph or two out of context and attempt to apply a "gotcha" to it...

It's quite amusing really...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Let's just begin with the context of history first...the context of the document...to whom were they writing? Why?

It is a favorite trick of some to pull a paragraph or two out of context and attempt to apply a "gotcha" to it...

It's quite amusing really...

So you and your Denomination find that amusing




.

 

[Defensor Christi]

So you and your Denomination find that amusing
.

Come now LLoJ...you know that I find it amusing, I do not speak for the entire RC...

P.S you may define us as a denomination...but I do not FYI...

 

[BBAS 64]

Um...did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not... Here it is again...#110

You cannot take something out of context and attempt to apply it to your own theological stance...doesnt work.

Good Day,

I read it and it is very flawed and it is plain to see,

Who ever wrote this must take the time to read they wrote

" At best, Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance[accidents] "


Umm wrong Gelasius is very clear "yet the substance of the bread and wine does not"

The writter of this may wish Gelasius said something else, or is very weak on differance of "substance vs. accidens" as Gelasius is quite clear "substance". If the later (inability to understand) is the case then it is useless to discuss.

If it is the former than the best this person can do is read what the good Bishop said. If I what to know what the Bishop of rome thought I read the Bishop of Rome.

Now I do understand that the current Bishop iof Rome may see things differnet than the historical view of Gelasius. I am ok with that it may bother him at night but, not me.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Defensor Christi]

Good Day,

I read it and it is very flawed and it is plain to see,

Who ever wrote this must take the time to read they wrote

" At best, Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance[accidents] "


Umm wrong Gelasius is very clear "yet the substance of the bread and wine does not"

The writter of this may wish Gelasius said something else, or is very weak on differance of "substance vs. accidens" as Gelasius is quite clear "substance". If the later (inability to understand) is the case then it is useless to discuss.

If it is the former than the best this person can do is read what the good Bishop said. If I what to know what the Bishop of rome thought I read the Bishop of Rome.

Now I do understand that the current Bishop iof Rome may see things differnet than the historical view of Gelasius. I am ok with that it may bother him at night but, not me.

In Him,

Bill

My point is that Pope Gelasius was not writing a treatise on transubstantiation...and thus, taking what he said and attempting to apply it to the entire teaching of the Church simply doesnt work...

I can pull the same trick...

If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you....better start hacking!!!

That is what the Lord said right?

"Therefore, do not base your understanding of the Eucharist during this time on one single passage from Pope Gelasius. Instead cull the passages from contemporaries of Pope Gelasius which speak directly on the Eucharist. Here you will find a clear and broad witness on behalf of Transubstantiation"

Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web Page

The theological definition of Transubstatiation was not officially adopted until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215...although the theological meaning was clearly taught before such time...thus, Pope Saint Gelasius would not have been speaking of it in the 5th Century...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

So you and your Denomination find that amusing
​

Come now LLoJ...you know that I find it amusing, I do not speak for the entire RC...

P.S you may define us as a denomination...but I do not FYI...

My bad.

CF defines ya'll as "Christian Community"

http://www.christianforums.com/f942/
Sub-Forums : Christian Communities

http://www.christianforums.com/f26/
One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues.


.

 

[Defensor Christi]

My bad.

CF defines ya'll as "Christian Community"

http://www.christianforums.com/f942/
Sub-Forums : Christian Communities

http://www.christianforums.com/f26/
One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues.


.

Good thing I dont belong to the Church of CF...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

My bad.

CF defines ya'll as "Christian Community"
​

Good thing I dont belong to the Church of CF...

Me too




.

 

[brinny]

Good thing I dont belong to the Church of CF...

Is there such a thing?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Defensor Christi

Good thing I dont belong to the Church of CF...
​

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

My bad.

CF defines ya'll as "Christian Community"

Good thing I dont belong to the Church of CF...

Me too

Is there such a thing?

Not really sure.
First I have heard of it until now

Hebrew 8:1
Now [this is] the main point of the things we are saying:
We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

 

[Defensor Christi]

Me too
Not really sure.
First I have heard of it until now

My point is that what others define me as has no bearing on my beliefs...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Me too
Not really sure.
First I have heard of it until now

My point is that what others define me as has no bearing on my beliefs...

I don't think it is a matter of defining you individually, but on your beliefs in Roman Catholicism, which you defend rather well I might add....