If the "Real Presence" isn't real, then why were the Church Fathers so adament about its importance?

[Albion]

The Liturgy of St James preceded the New Testament Scriptures, and the eucharist is central to the liturgy. I don't see how some can claim the understanding of the real presence 'developed' over the 1st century.

Please give us your response to the following claim appearing in the Wikipedia article along with a footnoted reference.

The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed, but most authorities propose a fourth-century date for the known form, because the anaphora seems to have been developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the Basilean anaphoric family united with the anaphora described in The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.[1]

 

[Root of Jesse]

Historically, the Catholic Church has condemned and burned people for not accepting the quite detailed definition of Transubstantiation contained in the Tridentine Catechism:

"The Catholic Church firmly believes and professes that in this Sacrament the words of consecration accomplish three wondrous and admirable effects.

The first is that the true body of Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament.

The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.

The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine."

None of which describes how it happens, only THAT it happens, and a Catholic must believe it.

 

[tz620q]

Good day, All

This was addressed very directly by a pope of the Roman Church, seeing I am not a member of the Roman Church it is quite interesting with in their history.

Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Latin text: Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).

Commenting on this passage from Gelasius, the Jesuit scholar Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. wrote: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. See Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.
Bill

Bill, I wrote the following in a thread a couple of years ago; but the discussion had moved on and we didn't have time to discuss it. What do you think?


Oct 2, 2017
I read through the Kilmartin book above and could not find this exact quote. If the quote is there it is taken out of context as Kilmartin provided a much more thorough explanation of Gelasius and Theodoret in his book "The Eucharist in the West".
The Eucharist in the West
The gist of Professor Kilmartin's thesis is that Gelasius and Theodoret's position is rooted in arguing against Nestorius' theology of the Eucharist that is monophysite and says that the change in elements of the Eucharist parallels the change in Christ's nature at the Ascension from a human nature to purely a divine nature. Here is a sample of that book with a quote from Theodoret's Eranistes-
"The monophysite establishes a strict parallel between the eucharistic sanctification and the resurrection-ascension of Jesus:
"Just as the symbols are one thing before the invocation of the priest, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing, so the body of the Lord is changed after the ascension into a divine substance."
This implies that He no longer possesses a human substance. Both Theodoret and Gelasius are arguing against this separation of the Incarnation of Christ and using the Eucharist as a parallel to this argument. They are arguing against the Nestorian position that during his life on earth Christ's divinity was subverted by his humanity and after the Ascension, this humanity was changed totally into divinity. Try reading pages 41 and 42 of the linked book above to get a better sense of what they were doing.

 

[Albion]

None of which describes how it happens, only THAT it happens, and a Catholic must believe it.

Since this little sticking point comes up often, we do well to try to see what each side is saying. While your point is well taken, Root of Jesse, it still is the case that other churches which believe in the Real Presence do not attempt any explanation of how God is present, just that he is.

The Roman Catholic doctrine comes with an explanation of the mechanics of the change-- the substance vs accidents inversion of Aristotle (that I presume we need not go into here). So that is what some people mean when they say that the HOW is part of it. Not even the Eastern Orthodox relatives of the RCC go into that kind of explanation.

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill, I wrote the following in a thread a couple of years ago; but the discussion had moved on and we didn't have time to discuss it. What do you think?


Oct 2, 2017
I read through the Kilmartin book above and could not find this exact quote. If the quote is there it is taken out of context as Kilmartin provided a much more thorough explanation of Gelasius and Theodoret in his book "The Eucharist in the West".
The Eucharist in the West
The gist of Professor Kilmartin's thesis is that Gelasius and Theodoret's position is rooted in arguing against Nestorius' theology of the Eucharist that is monophysite and says that the change in elements of the Eucharist parallels the change in Christ's nature at the Ascension from a human nature to purely a divine nature. Here is a sample of that book with a quote from Theodoret's Eranistes-
"The monophysite establishes a strict parallel between the eucharistic sanctification and the resurrection-ascension of Jesus:
"Just as the symbols are one thing before the invocation of the priest, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing, so the body of the Lord is changed after the ascension into a divine substance."
This implies that He no longer possesses a human substance. Both Theodoret and Gelasius are arguing against this separation of the Incarnation of Christ and using the Eucharist as a parallel to this argument. They are arguing against the Nestorian position that during his life on earth Christ's divinity was subverted by his humanity and after the Ascension, this humanity was changed totally into divinity. Try reading pages 41 and 42 of the linked book above to get a better sense of what they were doing.

Good Day, TZ

Long time... I will give the pages a read.

Thanks!

Bill

 

[concretecamper]

While your point is well taken, Root of Jesse, it still is the case that other churches which believe in the Real Presence do not attempt any explanation of how God is present, just that he is.

Since it IS His Flesh, the doctrine of transubstantiation describes exactly what Jesus said. It IS His flesh. Since we see, taste, smell, feel bread, trans. makes sense to me.

The Roman Catholic doctrine comes with an explanation of the mechanics of the change-- the substance vs accidents inversion of Aristotle

100% wrong. The mechanics are not defined.

So that is what some people mean when they say that the HOW is part of it. Not even the Eastern Orthodox relatives of the RCC go into that kind of explanation.

since your presupposition is wrong, your so is irrelevant.

 

[Albion]

Since it IS His Flesh, the doctrine of transubstantiation describes exactly what Jesus said. It IS His flesh. Since we see, taste, smell, feel bread, trans. makes sense to me.

I am sure it does. However, there are other varieties of the doctrine of the Real Presence that make as much sense or more.

And because this thread is about what the early church taught, Transubstantiation did not become a doctrine in your church until the 13th century, so it isn't a very strong contender for being what the Church Fathers believed anyway.

 

[concretecamper]

Transubstantiation did not become a doctrine in your church until the 13th century,

there you go again, getting hung up on when the word trans. was used (coined).

so it isn't a very strong contender for being what the Church Fathers believed anyway

again, your presupposition is flawed, so your "so" therefore is wrong.

 

[Albion]

there you go again, getting hung up on when the word trans. was used (coined).

I certainly am not. But if you are confused or in doubt about any aspect of this issue, identify it and lets see where we can go with a calm give and take about the matter.

 

[concretecamper]

I certainly am not.

certainly seems like you are.

But if you are confused or in doubt about any aspect of this issue, identify it and lets see where we can go with a calm give and take about the matter.

I'm good with the fact that the Early Church Fathers certainly did believe in the "IS".

All I'm doing is pointing out faulty logic for the audiance.

 

[Albion]

I'm good with the fact that the Early Church Fathers certainly did believe in the "IS".

All I'm doing is pointing out faulty logic for the audiance.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is what the Church Fathers believed, not Transubstantiation. Real Presence means that the communion elements are, in some sense, the body and blood of Christ, not merely bread and wine symbolizing his essence.

But Transubstantiation did not come along until the Middle Ages and did not become an official doctrine until the 13th century. It was seen as a new idea even in its own time. And this is not just a matter of the wording.

You believe in miracles, I am confident, and it is a miracle how bread and wine can be the very essence of Christ that we ingest. It can be a spiritual reality, though, which is what most of our Christian doctrines deal in--sin, forgiveness, salvation, justification, grace, faith, etc.

But Transubstantiation is the creation of the age when alchemy was believed to be genuine and Holy Communion came to be seen as being like the magician turning lead into gold by the speaking of special words. The bread and wine at Communion were to be seen as the literal, carnal, same physical body that Christ had at the Last Supper...except that we are also to believe that nothing would indicate it to our senses! The taste, feel, look, and so on are supposedly still what they were before the consecration. That really impressed Medieval man! People began claiming that they saw the host (wafer) turn into a literal baby when the priest held it aloft. Others said that they saw drops of blood coming from the host. And so on. All of this was supposed to verify the truth of Transubstantiation.

None of that is suggested by Christs words spoken at the Last Supper, however, nor did the Early Church Fathers think it was.

 

[concretecamper]

The doctrine of the Real Presence is what the Church Fathers believed, not Transubstantiation.

The Early Church Father certainly did believe in what Transubstantiation describes. This is undeniable.

Real Presence means that the communion elements are, in some sense, the body and blood of Christ, not merely bread and wine

There you go " in some sense" is not consistent with His "Is".

But Transubstantiation is the creation of the age when alchemy was believed to be genuine and Holy Communion came to be seen as being like the magician turning lead into gold by the speaking of special words.
.

Haha...I guess osmosis didnt occur until the word was coined. You are again hung up on when the word was "coined"

None of that is suggested by Christs words spoken at the Last Supper, however, nor did the Early Church Fathers think it was.

IMO The Catholic view of the Eucharist is the only view consist with His words and the Early Church.

What is funny to me is that instead of being intellectually honest and saying "it is a miracle, and it is possible that the Eucharistic miracle that occurs at Mass can be exactly what transubstantiation describes", you go to great length and employ faulty logic to argue against something miraculous.

IMO it would be more honest just to say "transubstantiation is certainly possible, I just dont want to be told what to believe"

 

[ml5363]

I am just perplexed on why it needs to be literal flesh and blood when He has been in Heaven 2000 plus years...

Why it can't just be a remembrance to him on what He did for us on the cross

 

[Albion]

I am just perplexed on why it needs to be literal flesh and blood when He has been in Heaven 2000 plus years...

Why it can't just be a remembrance to him on what He did for us on the cross

In principle, it could be. The controversy springs from the fact that Christ spoke of remembrance at the Last Supper, but he also spoke of the meal as being something that is much more intimate and specific to him personally. Why would he have taken the bread (and afterwards the wine) and said to the Apostles that it was his very body and blood (although not necessarily his literal body and blood) if he meant only that they would remember him or his crucifixion every time in the future when they gathered to share the meal (as he instructed them to do)?

In addition, bread and wine have something to do with Passover, of course, but nothing in particular to do with crucifixions, so if it were only about remembering his sacrifice on the cross, why would this be the way to do it?

 

[ml5363]

In principle, it could be. The controversy springs from the fact that Christ spoke of remembrance at the Last Supper, but he also spoke of the meal as being something that is much more intimate and specific to him personally. Why would he have taken the bread (and afterwards the wine) and said to the Apostles that it was his very body and blood if he meant only that they would remember him or his crucifixion every time in the future when they gathered to share the meal (as he instructed them to do)?

Is it possible the intimate and personal was because he knew shortly that his time on the cross was to come..even though he had trying preparing the disciples they we're still in the dark about it

 

[Albion]

Why "This is my body," then?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

None of which describes how it happens, only THAT it happens, and a Catholic must believe it.

ONLY if they choose to.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why "This is my body," then?

He explained that to the faithful disciples who stayed with Him.

The other disciples(who had left) didn't like it, because they did not understand (like most people today on the forum , and in the world),
and did not ask for understanding. They knew they could not eat flesh nor drink blood, and did not wait for what Jesus told the faithful disciples: My Words ARE SPIRIT, and LIFE.
See? Simple, Truth, in line with all His Word, without contradiction and without sinning (transgressing TORAH).

 

[ml5363]

Why "This is my body," then?

A symbol, he does describe himself as the bread of life and there is also mention of fruit of the vine

I just can't see literal flesh and blood, when we can talk to Him as often as we want and can partake of His word as well..

To me is a remembrance if what was to come

Thanks for the civil chat..

 

[concretecamper]

I just can't see literal flesh and blood,

neither could all those disciples who left Him that day. It is only through the eyes of faith in Him that we believe.