question for evangelical Protestants..

[Anoetos]

For the record and at the risk of alienating my fellow Catholics:

While I accept Transubstantiation, I consider it, along with a couple others to have been declared dogmas rather unfortunately. These things appear to be markers evidencing a trend toward definition and compartmentalization that has run through the history of the church, especially in the west.

What I find to be ironic is that at this great distance very few (myself included) question the right of the church, in council, to have defined the Trinity, but that is a different question.

 

[Albion]

I can't be too critical of you for this because you appear to be doing something I often do and which, I think, a lot of people do:

You seem to be assuming a motive or intent on the part of the author of the OP.

Now, I cannot deny that it is very likely that he believes that the ECF's were right and that everyone else should too, but none of this comes out in the question he asks which is simply whether those Christians who disbelieve in the Real Presence believe that the ECF's (who clearly did believe in it) were wrong.

It might be best to allow him to do the follow up and argument advancement.

It's true that we all tend to do that at times--read something into another's statement. In this case, however, and after reviewing the posts, I think you are being tooo generous.

Here's the OP:

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks

Note that an either-or choice is given the Protestants to respond to. In addition, the ECF's were not mentioned in the OP, contrary to what you write here, BUT they were mentioned by the same poster in the next four which are given over totally to quotes from them under the heading of "evidence." Now, can you really say that the author is not asking how the "evangelical Protestants" cannot agree with the ECFs who are to be seen as evidence (or shall we say "proof?") of what the early Church supposedly believed?

 

[Anoetos]

It's true that we all tend to do that at time--read into another's statement. In this case, however, and after reviewing the posts, I think you are being tooo generous.

Here's the OP:

this is a question for any Protestants here, especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

do you consider it important/significant that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? or do you hold the opinion that the early Church was mistaken? Just wondering. thanks

Note that an either-or choice is given the Protestants to respond to. In addition, the ECF's were not mentioned in the OP, contrary to what you write here, BUT they were mentioned by the same poster in the next four which are given over totally to quotes from them under the heading of "evidence." Now, can you really say that the author is not asking how the "evangelical Protestants" cannot agree with the ECFs who are to be seen as evidence (or shall we say "proof?") of what the early Church supposedly believed?

Granted, the OP does presuppose an agreement between "the early church" and the ECF's he quotes.

I'll modify my point: It seems a bit precipitous though certainly understandable to conclude that he therefore assumes a one-to-one perfect and categorical concurrence between this doctrine of the Early Church and the doctrine of his church today... precipitous because it seems to be an effort to preempt the author's intent.

 

[Albion]

It is certainly true that the ECF's did not explicitly teach Transubstantiation, but it is also true that Transubstantiation in no way militates against or obscures or denies what they did actually believe, teach and confess.

It represents an attempt to put into the philosophical language of the day (a later day admittedly) what happened in the Eucharist.

FWIW--and I don't mean to launch into a big argument over it--CJ and I both reject the idea that Transubstantiation is merely a more emphatic way of saying RP. It is, rather, a denial of RP or a replacement of RP with a different idea, one that has come to be considered identical to RP by Catholics only because they consider whatever definition their church has dogmatized to be the only possible explanation.

The argument, from our perspective, then becomes one of who has the right and duty to make these definitions.

I know, but I have to reject that approach, too. It is no one's right or duty to add to or embellish Scripture. I have much more sympathy with something you said elsewhere--that defining might better be left undone sometimes.

 

[Albion]

Granted, the OP does presuppose an agreement between "the early church" and the ECF's he quotes.

I'll modify my point: It seems a bit precipitous though certainly understandable to conclude that he therefore assumes a one-to-one perfect and categorical concurrence between this doctrine of the Early Church and the doctrine of his church today... precipitous because it seems to be an effort to preempt the author's intent.

Oh, but we haven't basically done that. Maybe something along those lines has appeared here or there in this now long debate, but for the most part the conclusion was that she was asking about the Protestants' current views vs. those of the early Church, as though the Protestants must be at odds with the early Church. As I recall, we might have gotten into what the RCC believes at present thanks to having to decide if the intention of the OP when saying "Real Presence" and "Eucharist" was to paing the early Church as believing in the Real Presence or Transubstantiation instead.

 

[Anoetos]

Yes, I left the whole "who has the right and duty" thing open because its uncomfortable territory for me. I really do not like the typically strident Catholic position that "we're right because we say so, we're The Church".

This may not be the place but I would be interested in hearing exactly why you think Transubstantiation actually militates against the belief of the early church and the Bible.

 

[Albion]

Boy, I hate to start down that road, especially since we all had it out here to the tune of about a thousand posts only a month or two ago. For one thing, and as my church's only more or less official statement of beliefs puts it, the nature of a sacrament is overthrown by Transubstantiation in that all sacraments (good Catholic theology now!) require physical elements.

 

[Anoetos]

I don't think we've done that. The issue was presented as the Protestants' current beliefs vs. that of the early Church. Where the present RC view may have entered in could have been when we had to decide if the OP meant to say "Transubstantiation" when it used the terms "Real Presence" and "Eucharist."

I think it is exactly what Josiah has done.

The OP was clearly pointed at those Protestants who deny the Real Presence and therefore not at those who do not, there was no mention at all of Transubstantiation.

Yes, there is an assumption that a belief in the RP is historical and orthodox. I found the introduction of an argument over mode distracting and troubling and evident more of his (and maybe your) polemical inclination.

 

[Anoetos]

Boy, I hate to start down that road, especially since we all had it out here to the tune of about a thousand posts only a month or two ago. For one thing, and as my church's only more or less official statement of beliefs puts it, the nature of a sacrament is overthrown by Transubstantiation in that all sacraments (good Catholic theology now!) require physical elements.

Well, if I understand you correctly, there really is no problem here: the Body and Blood of Christ, which the bread and wine become are "physical".

I put that in quotes because I find the word a little deficient for our discussion, certainly the real presence is physical, but more than that it is Real and True.

The reference here is Augustine I think who implied that Sacraments needed physical elements or "matter" in order to be valid when he said that they were physical signs of the things received or words to that effect.

But Transubstantiation does not overthrow this since what Augustine does not do is insist that the "matter" be "terrestrial" through every stage of the sacramental act, only that they be real.

 

[Albion]

I think it is exactly what Josiah has done.

The OP was clearly pointed at those Protestants who deny the Real Presence and therefore not at those who do not, there was no mention at all of Transubstantiation.

I guess you'll have to conclude what you think is right. However, I don't agree that CJ initiated anything here along those lines. If anyone is to blame for that, it is moi because I earlier raised the question of whether we should reply to the OP assuming that it had Transubstantiation in mind or, if not, Real Presence which was specifically mentioned there, unlike Transubstantiation. But this was only to get a handle on an imprecisely-written OP. It was not as though there was some mischief afoot.

The OP, by the way, said that it was for Protestants "especially if you don't believe in the Real Presence...."

That leaves every Protestant in play!

Yes, there is an assumption that a belief in the RP is historical and orthodox.

Of course there was. But that leaves the Protestants being questioned with a "When did you stop beating your wife" kind of question to answer.

Nevertheless, I think we basically went at with objectivity. Most of us were willing to answer, whether we thought that the question meant X or Y. We just had to decide which in order to know how to proceed.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I agree, some Evangelical Protestants hold to a doctrine of the Eucharist that was NOT taught by your denomination's own "fathers." But then your dogma wasn't either. So, if they are wrong to teach a view the RCC's "fathers" didn't teach, well.....If there is an assumption here it is that the ECF's form a common heritage to all Christians, or that they at least should do so.

Well, that's a sticky one.

It is certainly true that the ECF's did not explicitly teach Transubstantiation

Ah, so if the premise of the opening post is correct, and it's wrong to teach something which the RCC's own "fathers" didn't teach, then the opening poster is pointing one finger at those "Evangelical Protestants" and 3 back at his own RCC. Because the REALITY is, they didn't teach the RCC's DOGMA of Transubstantiation.

Perhaps the opening poster MEANT to rebuke those "Evangelical Protestants" and their current doctrine of the Eucharist. Okay, then he EQUALLY rebuked the RCC and its current doctrine of the Eucharist.

Frankly, I don't accept the premise that we all must teach as the RCC's own fathers did - but then it's not my thread. I just ran with the premise, and noted how the opening poster is rebuking his own denomination with it. I'm not sure he realizes it, but I think everyone else does.



.

 

[Anoetos]

Ah, so if the premise of the opening post is correct, and it's wrong to teach something which the RCC's own "fathers" didn't teach, then the opening poster is pointing one finger at those "Evangelical Protestants" and 3 back at his own RCC. Because the REALITY is, they didn't teach the RCC's DOGMA of Transubstantiation.

Perhaps the opening poster MEANT to rebuke those "Evangelical Protestants" and their current doctrine of the Eucharist. Okay, then he EQUALLY rebuked the RCC and its current doctrine of the Eucharist.

Frankly, I don't accept the premise that we all must teach as the RCC's own fathers did - but then it's not my thread. I just accepted the premise, and noted how the opening poster is rebuking his own denomination with it.



.

I see no insistence that the author's church is the same as the "early church" and that it is the right one, only that there appears to be some unanimity among the ECF's about the Real Presence and then the question as to whether those who disagree with the RP consider them mistaken.

You may have more history with the author of the OP than I do. It may be that your history with him warrants the kind of mind reading and intention attribution you insist on here, but I just don't see it and your constant exceeding of the terms of the question makes you look like you're itching for a fight.

 

[Albion]

Well, if I understand you correctly, there really is no problem here: the Body and Blood of Christ, which the bread and wine become are "physical".

That's the usual answer, but we consider it to be preposterous.

I put that in quotes because I find the word a little deficient for our discussion, certainly the real presence is physical, but more than that it is Real and True.

Real and true it is. Physical it is not...absent any bread and wine.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I see where My error lay, after stepping back in lurking... I was equating (mostly because the OP is RC) the whole issue to Transubstatiation...

in the grander sense of RP, I have no problem with it whatsoever... I follow the "reverent agnostic" principle on the matter.

Christ was the word that spake it.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]He took the bread and break it;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]And what his words did make it[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That I believe and take it.[/FONT]

or thereabouts.

I don't need to know more.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

For the record and at the risk of alienating my fellow Catholics:

While I accept Transubstantiation, I consider it, along with a couple others to have been declared dogmas rather unfortunately. These things appear to be markers evidencing a trend toward definition and compartmentalization that has run through the history of the church, especially in the west.

What I find to be ironic is that at this great distance very few (myself included) question the right of the church, in council, to have defined the Trinity, but that is a different question.

1. You should read my thread, "Catholics - Cafeteria Catholics - Protestants Hiding in the Church." It's here in General Theology and also in the Congregation section, under Liberal Catholics.

2. As I noted, IF (big word there!) this theory of these western medieval Catholic "Scholastics" had been left as intended, as a theory, a possible way of understanding all this, I doubt you or I would even know about it. It would have faded away along with alchemy and Aristotle's theory of accidents which it embraced and used. Frankly, I'm never opposed to theories and pious opinions, heck I tend to be quite interested in them. But, for reasons I could never discover, it formally embraced it in 1215 (the exact status of that embrace seems entirely unclear), then (it seems for polemic reasons involving Luther) made it dogma in 1551. Too bad. I lement that, but it did what it did - in order to build one more wall against Lutherans, dogmatizing alchemy's foundational dream and Aristotle's odd theory. So, we are no longer discussing a theory but a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty used as the basis for anathematizing, excommunicating, proclaiming as heretics and (historically) dispatching to the afterlife ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. The RCC just couldn't leave well enough alone, IMHO. It IS largely the "problem" between Lutherans and Catholics (and to some extent, between Orthodox and Catholics). But, ah, other subjects for another day and thread. Let's not hijack this one.


This one is an attempt to condemn "Evangelical Protestants" (I wonder who they are, lol?) for not teaching what the RCC's own "fathers" taught (does the opening poster realize they DO teach in accord with THEIR church fathers?). Okay, well, running with that premise, then the rebuke is at least as valid for the RCC. Its dogma about the Eucharist isn't what the RCC's own fathers taught EITHER. He's pointing one finger at those "Evangelical Protestants" while pointing 3 back at himself. That's my point. And I think it's obvious. I honestly didn't respect any discussion of it, it's obviously the case.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Hey , Monica

I know that you will reply to my last post as you have time ( a lot of posts to you ) . Anyway , in addition to my last post , I wanted to point out that one of your own quotes shows that the "WHOLE Church" did not agree with real presence .

TIgnatius of Antioch

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

This shows that one faction did not agree . The author of the quote may be from the "victor's" side but it shows that the people intermingled with each other and they cannot be from any other religion of the time than a christian one making them a part of the Church .

 

[Albion]

Hey , Monica

I know that you will reply to my last post as you have time ( a lot of posts to you ) . Anyway , in addition to my last post , I wanted to point out that one of your own quotes shows that the "WHOLE Church" did not agree with real presence .

This shows that one faction did not agree . The author of the quote may be from the "victor's" side but it shows that the people intermingled with each other and they cannot be from any other religion of the time than a christian one making them a part of the Church .

You have a worthy point there, NW, but it all depends upon a variable we can't know fully from reading the quotation.

I mean, the whole body of followers of Christ apparently did not see the Eucharist in the way Monica does, BUT we don't know from this either 1) how many of them there were or 2) how Christian they were.

If, for example, someone were to say that modern Christianity is divided between the followers of the Pope and those who do not acknowledge him as the worldwide head of the Church, we'd have to agree that that makes sense. The Christian world is, yes, divided about equally on that.

But if one were to say that the Chrisitian world is divided between believers in the divine nature of Jesus and those thinking him to be only a wise human, that would be only technically true...and very misleading. There are some professed Christians who take the latter view, but not very many. And they are denounced by all the others for their belief, frequently being accused of not being "real" Christians.

By the start of the second century (the time in question) Christianity had developed many splits that only later were pulled together. There clearly were some that we'd find quite weird...and that may well be all that the quoted passage is referring to. To call one them a "faction" of the Christian Church would be an exaggeration. Calling them a dissident cult, or something like that, would convey a totally different picture, wouldn't it?

 

[sunlover1]

Holy Communion is about more than memorializing the death of Christ. It is about communion, unity with Christ, yes, but more importantly with our brothers and sisters who are kneeling at the altar. It is a physical proclamation that we are one in spirit with each other under the Lord. Yes, where two or three are gathered Christ is there. But this is the acknowledgement that Christ is within us, moreover, we are within Christ as One.

... discerning the Lord's Body.

You are correct, that is the Lutheran position.

I am just not so quick to jump to any conlcusions regarding what exactly - or how exactly - the actual presence of Christ all entails.

Good plan