The Real Presence Debate Thread

[Thekla]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iv.xiv.html?

Origen
Origen didn't believe in transubstantiation. He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself
doesn't profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ:
"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat
which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material,
goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith,
becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread
but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the
typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth
shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh,
who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (On Matthew, 11:14)

Origen is also not considered a Saint; (much) of his teaching was condemned as heresy.

 

[Thekla]

I find substantial doctrinal differences between Transubstantiation and believing in real presence, "Real presense" can be defined in so many ways as proven via many ecw's. In a very very vague sense even I believe in a form of real presense in that sense that being a born again Christian..Christ IS in me!

I'm sorry, I should have clarified; real presence in reference to the Eucharist. There is no teaching of transubstantiation in the EO, so on that I cannot comment.

The measure in the EO (since the Apostolic era) for belief has been whether or not it matched what has been believed from the beginning (which includes the verbal and written Traditions).

Per Clement of Alexandria; doceticism is a form (IIRC) of gnosticism; hence the rejection of some of his teachings. The passage you cited has a bit of a "docetic flavor".

 

[Hap]

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jesus made a pretty clear statement here. YOU do not HEAR me because you are NOT given to me by the Father.

In other words my sheep hear my voice!

So the disciples that left were not in the sprit but of the flesh which profits nothing. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Jn 3:6

 

[Hap]

Clement of Alexandria
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John,
brought this out by symbols, when He said:
'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by
metaphor 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." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.vi.html

Thanks for the link

 

[simonthezealot]

Origen is also not considered a Saint; (much) of his teaching was condemned as heresy.

Per Clement of Alexandria; doceticism is a form (IIRC) of gnosticism; hence the rejection of some of his teachings. The passage you cited has a bit of a "docetic flavor".

No offense, but this leaves the appearance of only accepting what fits into a specific theology, picking and choosing writings to help define a theology... Can I assume the EO then wouldn't use these guys to substantiate any other points of doctrine? or NOT?

 

[simonthezealot]

Gelasius
The Roman bishop Gelasius rejected transubstantiation:
says expressly, in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:
"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xix.html

Irenaeus
Irenaeus denied transubstantiation. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example:
"For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc...le and tangible as they were before#highlight
Theodoret
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.iv.html

Theophilus of Antioch
The second century church father Theophilus apparently disagreed with the Roman Catholic view of the eucharist. He denies that Christians eat human flesh. He makes no exemption for the flesh of Christ. Would a Roman Catholic make such a comment without any clarification? Instead of explaining that Christians eat only Christ's flesh, not anybody else's, Theophilus denies that they eat any human flesh. If he was trying to correct a misunderstanding about *whose* flesh was being eaten, you would think he would focus on that subject. Instead, he just denies that human flesh is being eaten at all:
"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_07_book5.htm


Eusebius
In addition to rejecting the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, Eusebius also seems to have rejected the concept of a physical presence. He writes:
"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_07_book5.htm


Eusebius
In addition to rejecting the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, Eusebius also seems to have rejected the concept of a physical presence. He writes:
"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

Eusebius repeatedly uses words like "memorial", "figure", and "symbol" when describing the eucharistic elements:
"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)


Just after the first passage I cited above, after referring to the eucharist and its figurative nature, Eusebius writes:
"This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says: 'And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

When Eusebius says that Melchizedek offered "figures" of Calvary, does he mean that Melchizedek offered something that was both figurative *and* a transubstantiation? No, what Eusebius is saying is that Melchizedek offered something that was only figurative.

 

[Thekla]

No offense, but this leaves the appearance of only accepting what fits into a specific theology, picking and choosing writings to help define a theology... Can I assume the EO then wouldn't use these guys to substantiate any other points of doctrine? or NOT?

by that standard(yours), then, the gnostics and arians were equally correct ; they supported their views using scripture.

EDIT: rather than reply to each citation provided, in general those you have recently added do not conclusively support your position. For example, the quote from Eusebios ONLY supports your position IF you believe that receiving the Eucharist and believing in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist IS cannabalism. This would place your position in line with the Roman State of the early centuries of Christianity (which is what Eusebios was disputing).

 

[simonthezealot]

by that standard(yours), then, the gnostics and arians were equally correct ; they supported their views using scripture.

EDIT: rather than reply to each citation provided, in general those you have recently added do not conclusively support your position. For example, the quote from Eusebios ONLY supports your position IF you believe that receiving the Eucharist and believing in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist IS cannabalism. This would place your position in line with the Roman State of the early centuries of Christianity (which is what Eusebios was disputing).

Isn't your church built upon the writings of the ECF's?

 

[simonthezealot]

rather than reply to each citation provided, in general those you have recently added do not conclusively support your position. For example, the quote from Eusebios ONLY supports your position IF you believe that receiving the Eucharist and believing in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist IS cannabalism. This would place your position in line with the Roman State of the early centuries of Christianity (which is what Eusebios was disputing).

I'm not spouting a specific position, rather pointing out that the sacrificial element of the eucharist as posed by the catholic and orthodox church isn't necessarily the one the ECF's believed in...IT certainly wasn't a UNANIMOUS CONSENT... As my post point out!

Regarding responding to each citation, you don't do it because you can't...These hold a different view than yours!

 

[Thekla]

Isn't your church built upon the writings of the ECF's?

it is "built on" Christ. Every teaching is "measured" against the belief and practice as handed over from the Apostles; the writings of the Saints (and the Ecumenical Councils) were largely reiterations of what was already held by the Church (as given by Christ and the Apostles) in response to heretical teachings.

 

[Thekla]

I'm not spouting a specific position, rather pointing out that the sacrificial element of the eucharist as posed by the catholic and orthodox church isn't necessarily the one the ECF's believed in...IT certainly wasn't a UNANIMOUS CONSENT... As my post point out!

Regarding responding to each citation, you don't do it because you can't...These hold a different view than yours!

your citations (many) are authored by historical contemporaries of the Saints. Not (though I have not checked each one) Saints. Further, there is some question of your understanding of terminology (which would require an analysis of some terms in their original language, and the ekklesial understanding of these terms:ex., mystery, darkly)

 

[simonthezealot]

it is "built on" Christ. Every teaching is "measured" against the belief and practice as handed over from the Apostles; the writings of the Saints (and the Ecumenical Councils) were largely reiterations of what was already held by the Church (as given by Christ and the Apostles) in response to heretical teachings.

Me thinks a study on Athanasius is in order!

 

[Thekla]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xix.html

Irenaeus
Irenaeus denied transubstantiation. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example:
"For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)

for example, if the earthly reality is the appearance of bread and wine, what is the heavenly reality ?

Further, this statement is grounded in the reference to Eucharist; in order to properly understand the statement, one must understand what the Eucharist is understood to be...

 

[Thekla]

Eusebius repeatedly uses words like "memorial", "figure", and "symbol" when describing the eucharistic elements:
"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)


Just after the first passage I cited above, after referring to the eucharist and its figurative nature, Eusebius writes:
"This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says: 'And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

When Eusebius says that Melchizedek offered "figures" of Calvary, does he mean that Melchizedek offered something that was both figurative *and* a transubstantiation? No, what Eusebius is saying is that Melchizedek offered something that was only figurative.

which of the aprox. 20 words for remember/memorial did he use ?

what is the Greek understanding of the word symbol, and is its use in this text (and memorial) grounded in a mimetic or methectic category ?

 

[simonthezealot]

for example, if the earthly reality is the appearance of bread and wine, what is the heavenly reality ?

Further, this statement is grounded in the reference to Eucharist; in order to properly understand the statement, one must understand what the Eucharist is understood to be...

which of the aprox. 20 words for remember/memorial did he use ?

what is the Greek understanding of the word symbol, and is its use in this text (and memorial) grounded in a mimetic or methectic category ?

T,
Read it for what it is, this isn't hyroglyphics(sic) It says what it says...Your attacking these side issues and creating controvery where there is none.