The Real Presence Debate Thread

[Thekla]

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.

this is not my intention. Instead, to use Euclidean and non-euclidean geometry as an example, the axiomatic statements determine the range of (plausible) proofs within the system.

Likewise, an understanding of the "bias" (or understanding) of the terminology used by each author, its location within a cultural context and its "shifted" meaning/use in the smaller belief system (in this case, Christianity) is necessary for an "appropriate/accurate" reading of any text.

 

[simonthezealot]

this is not my intention. Instead, to use Euclidean and non-euclidean geometry as an example, the axiomatic statements determine the range of (plausible) proofs within the system.

Likewise, an understanding of the "bias" (or understanding) of the terminology used by each author, its location within a cultural context and its "shifted" meaning/use in the smaller belief system (in this case, Christianity) is necessary for an "appropriate/accurate" reading of any text.

My intelligence quotient is under 132 and dropping by the hour would you translate this for me, please?

 

[Thekla]

My intelligence quotient is under 132 and dropping by the hour would you translate this for me, please?

then you're already smarter than me !

Basically, in order to understand what the author is "saying", you must first have a grasp of:
1. the terms -a. as they were understood in the original language at that time - b.which similar terms with different meanings were not used.
ex. there are roughly 20 (that I counted) terms for remember/memorial in greek, each with a different meaning.

2. the "cultural ground" - how did the culture understand that term as opposed to my culture.

3. how was that term understood not only in the greater cultural context at that time, but in its specific (shifted from the broader culture) new use in the Christian community.

4. with whom is that term used ? Within the Christian communities, some "information" was not shared with the catechumens; was the author adressing catechumens only, baptised only, or the "mixed community" of catechumens and baptised ?

 

[Trento]

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 (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)


You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish....how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

...now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Protestant scholars Darwell Stone, JND Kelly, on the ante-Nicene Fathers, and how unanimous the Catholic Church was for 1,500 years on the Holy Eucharist. The historical testimony is simply overwhelming.

Darwell Stone's Conclusion of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

"...THROUGHOUT the writers of the period the identification of the ELEMENTS WITH THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST appears to be the ruling idea."​

"The belief that the Eucharist IS A SACRIFICE is found EVERYWHERE. This belief is coupled with strong repudiations of carnal sacrifices; and is saved from being Judaic by the recognition of the ELEMENTS AS CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD, of the union of the action of the Church on earth with that of Christ in heaven, and of the spiritual character of that whole priestly life and service and action of the community as the body of Christ which is a distinguishing mark of the Christian system." (A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume 1, page 54, emphasis added)​

JND Kelly's Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

"....the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist....It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper....Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord's real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5].....The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)​

 

[Trento]

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

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)

 

[Trento]

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)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.


When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

 

[simonthezealot]

ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)

Sounds spiritual not sacrificial!

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)

You think he was speaking of the communion supper?

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish....how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

Again Your point

...now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Show context on this elsewise it tells us nothing!


As for the other stuff it's clear while you may be able to produce writings from the Fathers that seem to support transubstantiation, this was not ever clarified in the Church until the 4th Lat. Council of 1215.

While the father’s views aren’t the principles of truth for us evangelics, they are important standards or principles of truth for the Catholic/orthodox. It should be beneficial therefore for all to see that some significant amount of fathers did not believe in transubstantiation/sacrificial nature.

 

[simonthezealot]

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)

So you can read this in PROPER CONTEXT and still think it defends sacrificial/transubstantiation/real presence???

HERE IT IS...
The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. Milk being thus provided in parturition, is supplied to the infant; and the breasts, which till then looked straight towards the husband, now bend down towards the child, being taught to furnish the substance elaborated by nature in a way easily received for salutary nourishment. For the breasts are not like fountains full of milk, flowing in ready prepared; but, by effecting a change in the nutriment, form the milk in themselves, and discharge it. And the nutriment suitable and wholesome for the new-formed and new-born babe is elaborated by God, the nourisher and the Father of all that are generated and regenerated,—as manna, the celestial food of 220angels, flowed down from heaven on the ancient Hebrews. Even now, in fact, nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same name as that food—manna. Further, pregnant women, on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother—pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. "Eat ye my flesh," He says, "and drink my blood."11221122 John vi. 53, 54. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

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

 

[simonthezealot]

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)

Having studied Origen I'll assume you know this has no reflection on the eucharist it is more likely Origen as is his M.O. was referring to other SCRIPTURE specifically hebrews 10:19-20.
Check it out!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews 10:19-20;&version=49;