When was "Real Presence" first denied?

Bible-belted · Sep 5, 2002

You guiys sure know how to make me laugh.

A few things.

1) I already have given you such a definition of Real Presence.

2) I am not Anabaptist. (Shows what some people know.)

3) You miss the point of quoting Andrewes. it is not so much to affirm his view (though it is a spiritual presence which I can easily affirm) as to debunk your own. So it does much more than you suppose. Indeed, you cannot affirm it in any way, evn to disprove what you erroneously identify as "my tradition", without disproving your own view. You are the one who seeks without proof of any kind to establish his view of Reral Presence as the only historical one. In that endeavor you have failed, and been disproven even.

4) If you really want to say that the Catechsm's definition of Real Presence is the one you want to use in asking the question "when was Real Presence First Denied", then the answer is: It was not denied from the beginning since it was not even thought of until Radbertus. As soon as Radbertus promulgated his ideas, it was denied by many. So when was it first denied? Almost as soon as it was conceived of. And by the Abbott of his own monastery to strt off with no less! There you have your answer.

5) Carson, we are well beyond the point of you being able to used beged definitions and reading into terms and what not in light of later developments. The line has already been drawn; no one will accept your eisegetical and circular approach. It is not enough to point to a phrase or a word as if to say: "there, see?". You have to prove that these people meant what you mean when you see those phrases. You can't do that of course.

You've been away, and are behind the discussion substantially. Among other things.

So we have an answer to the question. it was denied almnost as soon as it was promulgated by Radbertus.

Now can we move on? This latest series of posts was amusing, but having concluded the issue it is time to go back to sleep. Wake me when the RCs cease to be schismatic and rejoin Christ's true evangelical church.

trying2understand · Sep 5, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
[QB]You guiys sure know how to make me laugh.

A few things.

1) I already have given you such a definition of Real Presence.

Great! Could you please direct me to that post because I can't find it. Please, humor me.

Failing that, will someone, anyone, help me out and show me where Latreia gave me his understanding of Real Presence according to his beliefs.

Ron

[ September 05, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

GraceSaves · Sep 5, 2002

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Dont you think all this constant "God Bless you" and "May God Bless you too" from certain individuals on this board is phoney and taking God's name in vain. I like it when I know it is sincere but I sense sarcasm from certain pompous hypocrites who dont really mean it and they know it.

O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? Acts 13:10

I just want to say that if I ever said such a thing about you, you'd have me kicked off this board in a heartbeat.

Carson Weber · Sep 6, 2002

Hi Latreia,

You're an enigma. We don't know your Christian tradition. We don't know your definition of "Real Presence". We just can't seem to learn much about you in our dialogue. You're elusive. It's as if we're listening to a monologue. You tell us what you think (and even what we think - including what the Fathers think), but you won't answer our questions. And, it's impossible to dialogue with a monologue.

God bless,

Carson

[ September 06, 2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

Bible-belted · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Latreia,

You're an enigma. We don't know your Christian tradition. We don't know your definition of "Real Presence". We just can't seem to learn much about you in our dialogue. You're elusive. It's as if we're listening to a monologue. You tell us what you think (and even what we think - including what the Fathers think), but you won't answer our questions. And, it's impossible to dialogue with a monologue.

God bless,

Carson

Carson,

Knowing my tradition will not help you answer the question of htis thread.

Knowing MY definition of Real Presence will not answer the question of this thread.

Knowing much about me will not answer the question of this thread. This thread is not about me after all.

I do answer questions, I have even answered the question of the thread. So I have been dialoguing very nicely thank you.

I have not afforded you any opportunity to take the thread off on a tangent or use begged definitions though. I have done my best to ensure that key terms get defined BEFORE trying to answer the question of the thread, which is only proper methodology after all.

Given that a great deal of RC apologetic is the use of begged definitions of key terms and circularity, I can see why you react now as you do.

But the question has been answered, so I don't see why you should complain.

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
Knowing MY definition of Real Presence will not answer the question of this thread.

And yet when asked for "your" definition, you repeatedly claim to having already stated it.

So, have you already stated it or not?

Bible-belted · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by trying2understand:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
Knowing MY definition of Real Presence will not answer the question of this thread.

And yet when asked for "your" definition, you repeatedly claim to having already stated it.

So, have you already stated it or not?[/QUOTE]You ask that question as though I have been inconsistent. I affirm that I have indeed given my understanding of Real Presence, and that your knowing it is irrrelvant to answering the question fo the thread, which, I remind you, has been answered.

Why you are not more concerned with THAT than you are leads me to question whether you are earnest about the question that began this thread. Perhaps you are just another one of those controversailists (a sub-category of apologist) who stirs up trouble? Or maybe one fo the ones who likes to proseltise under the guise of "trying to understand"?

Could be...

Either way, the question has been answered. let's move on.

jasonW* · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by trying2understand:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
Knowing MY definition of Real Presence will not answer the question of this thread.

And yet when asked for "your" definition, you repeatedly claim to having already stated it.

So, have you already stated it or not?[/QUOTE]1. Can we PLEASE stop the madness. It really isn't that hard to go back and read his posts to see if he did or did not give his definition. Oh...looky here...I found it WAAAAAYYYY back on page 3. If you are too lazy, it is posted below.

2. That above statement by Latreia does not infer that he did not give his definition, only that his definition won't help in debunking what 'Real Presence' meant way back when it was first introduced. After all, his could be different than even that.

From page 3
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
But you have not proven that the Fathers taught transsubstantiation. You have proven they believed in a Real Presence. These two are not the same thing.

Perhaps you could advance the discussion, by explaining the difference between Real Presence and transubstantiation, as you understand it.[/QUOTE]In simple terms, thre Real Presence is a fact. Christ is truly present. That is Real Presence. Transsubstantiation by contrast is a way of explaining HOW Christ is really present.

Nowadays most RCs speak of real Presence as if it wre interchangeable with Transsubstantiation. That isn't true, as it was not at first (that is why folks like Mark Shea can actually trace the development of the doctrine in RCism).

Of course you would say that the RC development is the true one. That's your opinion. I don't share it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]There...that wasn't that difficult.

Sorry about steppin' in Latreia, but I just couldn't take him asking the same question anymore when the answer was well within his reach.

In Christ,
jason

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
You ask that question as though I have been inconsistent. I affirm that I have indeed given my understanding of Real Presence, and that your knowing it is irrrelvant to answering the question fo the thread, which, I remind you, has been answered.

Don't just affirm that you given your understanding...

...tell me where I can find it in this thread.

This really is getting to be silly.

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by jasonW*:
From page 3 Originally posted by Latreia:
In simple terms, thre Real Presence is a fact. Christ is truly present. That is Real Presence.

That's it?
For real?

Real Presence means truly present?

What does that mean?

Changing a word from "real" to "truly" says nothing.

Bible-belted · Sep 6, 2002

Tell you?!! Why that would take the fun out of it.

But again, this is irrelevant to the question of the thread (which has been answered)! Why do you so desperately want to know?

I'll give you a hint. I was not obvious about it (bet that's a newsflash!).

Chemnitz · Sep 6, 2002

In simple terms, thre Real Presence is a fact. Christ is truly present. That is Real Presence. Transsubstantiation by contrast is a way of explaining HOW Christ is really present.

I think the question is do you follow the Calvinist or Lutheran or the RCC definition of Real Presence, because they are very different.

Calvinist-Christ's body is only present in heaven so real presense is only spiritual, because when we commune on earth we are spiritually communing in heaven.

Lutheran-Christ body and blood are physically present in the sacrament along with the bread and wine.

RCC-Christ's body and blood are physically present in the sacrament with only the accidentals (or form) of bread and wine being present.

The question is relevant because it effects the base terms that are being used in the discussion and answering clearly will help prevent talking past each other.

I have been lurking for the most part and I would have to say your(Latreia) position is the calvinistic position.

[ September 06, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
Tell you?!! Why that would take the fun out of it.

But again, this is irrelevant to the question of the thread (which has been answered)! Why do you so desperately want to know?

I'll give you a hint. I was not obvious about it (bet that's a newsflash!).

Wow, Latreia, I starting to suspect that you have a sense of humor. But I'm not sure why you have made such a game of this. It matters not.

If Chemitz is correct, that you hold to a spiritual presence only, that would not be consistent with the quotes which I provided at the start of this thread. "Flesh and Blood" don't imply spiritual presence only.

I'm guessing that you can't reconcile your belief with the writings of the ECF, so you thought you'd be a spoiler instead. As I said, it matters not.

I admit to being a little curious as to the lack of participation by other Baptist's however. I thought I'd at least get "I go by the Bible" type responses.

It's much like the thread on Baptism by pouring. It would appear that Baptist distictives don't line up too well with the historical evidence of the early Church, so it's ignored.

Ron

Bible-belted · Sep 6, 2002

"Wow, Latreia, I starting to suspect that you have a sense of humor. But I'm not sure why you have made such a game of this. It matters not."

I do have a sense of humour. I'm talking to you!

"If Chemitz is correct, that you hold to a spiritual presence only, that would not be consistent with the quotes which I provided at the start of this thread. "Flesh and Blood" don't imply spiritual presence only."

For one thing, I'm not telling whether Chemnitz is correct. My beliefs are, as I keep saying, irrelevant to the question of the thread.

Second, you are wrong about realistic spech not being compatible with spiritual presene only. Read some philosophy and you'll get the picture. Augustine, for one, was a philosophical realist. But he said explicitly that John 6 is not to be taken literally, among other things. But if you inderstand the philosophical background from which he writes (paltonic realism) there is no conflict.

"I'm guessing that you can't reconcile your belief with the writings of the ECF, so you thought you'd be a spoiler instead. As I said, it matters not."

Ah, see this is what I thought. You were not really honest in asking the question. You just wanted to try to undermine the beliefs of others.

But let me point a few things out to you. 1) I don't claim that my belief is the only hstoric belief. That would be your denomonations claim. 2) You can't harmonise your belief with the ECFs yourself, they having said many things that contradict your view, without doing the very definition bewgging and cicular reasoning I have been chiding you for. 3) The question is NOT whether I can harmonise my belifs with the ECFs. Your question is "When was Real presence first denied?" This is what I mean when I say you were not sincere in asking the question. You asked it in order to make another point altogether.

"I admit to being a little curious as to the lack of participation by other Baptist's however. I thought I'd at least get "I go by the Bible" type responses."

Well, that would be easier for you woudn't it? but then you'd be no more enlightened than when yo began, either about Baptists or the Real Presence. Good thing for you God placed me in your path.

"It's much like the thread on Baptism by pouring. It would appear that Baptist distictives don't line up too well with the historical evidence of the early Church, so it's ignored.

"

That is not so. There you were refuted as well. Baptist istinctive actually line up very well with history for the most part.

It is, in my experience, RCs who are ignorant of how poorly attested their beliefs are in history. They have been told that their belief is histroical, and so they read history with a proof-texting mentality. It's sad, really. but then that is why RC scholars are more forthright about the deficiencies of RCism than are RC apologists.

[ September 06, 2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Latreia ]

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
Second, you are wrong about realistic spech not being compatible with spiritual presene only. Read some philosophy and you'll get the picture. Augustine, for one, was a philosophical realist. But he said explicitly that John 6 is not to be taken literally, among other things. But if you inderstand the philosophical background from which he writes (paltonic realism) there is no conflict.

Perhaps you could explain in simple terms how realistic speech (flesh/blood) is compatible with a spiritual sense only position.

Also here are a few of Augustines words. Perhaps you could reconcile them with your assertions concerning his beliefs.

"Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring." {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

"Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body." {Explanations of the Psalms, 234, 2; on p.31}

"What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Explanations of the Psalms, 272; on p.32}"

"The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side." {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

"Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist." {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM

Bible-belted · Sep 6, 2002

"Perhaps you could explain in simple terms how realistic speech (flesh/blood) is compatible with a spiritual sense only position."

The simplest way I can think of (I don't know how familiar you are with philosophical terms) is to think of ideals. Think of an equilateral triangle. The conception you have of an equilateral triangle will be a true, perfect, ideal equilateral triangle. All sides and angles will be exactly equal. By contrast, any that we might draw will never be exactly (when checked to the nth degree) that perfect.

Now when you think of the Eucahrist, and hear the bread described as the Body of Christm, trhink in those terms. When someone says "this is the body of Christ" they are saying this is THE (the true, the ultimate, the perfect etc.) Body of Christ. The bread becomes the ideal. Now that doesn't require a physical presence.

As fro your quotes of Augustine, none of them deny what I have said. The only reason you thin they do is because of that begged definition problem you have. Nasty little bug!

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
"Perhaps you could explain in simple terms how realistic speech (flesh/blood) is compatible with a spiritual sense only position."

The simplest way I can think of (I don't know how familiar you are with philosophical terms) is to think of ideals. Think of an equilateral triangle. The conception you have of an equilateral triangle will be a true, perfect, ideal equilateral triangle. All sides and angles will be exactly equal. By contrast, any that we might draw will never be exactly (when checked to the nth degree) that perfect.

Now when you think of the Eucahrist, and hear the bread described as the Body of Christm, trhink in those terms. When someone says "this is the body of Christ" they are saying this is THE (the true, the ultimate, the perfect etc.) Body of Christ. The bread becomes the ideal. Now that doesn't require a physical presence.

As fro your quotes of Augustine, none of them deny what I have said. The only reason you thin they do is because of that begged definition problem you have. Nasty little bug!

Why don't you just use the word? Symbolic.

You have your own little circular arguement going.

Something is symbolic.

The thing it is symbolic of becomes identified with the symbolism.

Take away the symbolism and the something is still identified.

I know, you tried the same arguement in the Baptism by pouring thread.

trying2understand · Sep 6, 2002

Originally posted by Latreia:
Now when you think of the Eucahrist, and hear the bread described as the Body of Christm, trhink in those terms. When someone says "this is the body of Christ" they are saying this is THE (the true, the ultimate, the perfect etc.) Body of Christ. The bread becomes the ideal. Now that doesn't require a physical presence.

You are aware that it can be argued that a real anything is superior to an unrealized thought.

With your example, the bread is superior to your ideal.

[ September 06, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

Carson Weber · Sep 6, 2002

Hi Latreia,

You wrote, "It is, in my experience, RCs who are ignorant of how poorly attested their beliefs are in history. They have been told that their belief is histroical, and so they read history with a proof-texting mentality. It's sad, really. but then that is why RC scholars are more forthright about the deficiencies of RCism than are RC apologists."

Well, isn't it good that I'm not "RCs", "who", "they", "apologists", etc?

The renown Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, writes in his Early Christian Doctrines (Harper San Francisco 1991) that at the outset, Eucharistic teaching is in general unquestioningly realist.

Below lie some outline notes (which paraphrase and summarize Kelly's portion of his Sacraments chapter) that I gleaned from his text this past Spring semester, which I read immediately for my Historical Foundations graduate course.

The identity of the consecrated elements were interpreted in 2 different ways: (1) the figurative or symbolical view and (2) actual change and conversion. The symbolical view did not imply that the bread and wine were regarded as mere pointers to absent realities; they were signs of realities somehow actually present & apprehended by faith alone.

Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nyssa represented the realistic theory. After Gregory, the language of conversion became regular in the East. In the 5th c., conversionist views were taken for granted by the Alexandrians and Antiochenes alike (Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodore of mopsuestia). In the West, the conception of the Eucharist as symbol continued in vogue; with Ambrose, the idea of conversion was being introduced. Augustine's view is difficult to assess; he accepted the current realism though his language takes psiritualism to its end.

The Eucharist was regarded without question as the Christian sacrifice. Anyone who partook by faith was held to be united and assimilated to Christ. The Eucharist was the chief instrument of the Christian's divinization; through it, Christ's mystical body was built up and sustained. Chrysostom reconciles the one sacrifice of Christ with Christ offered in many places; we do a memorial of the same sacrifice, which is one and the same. Augustine sees a real, though sacramental, offering of Christ's body and blood; He is both the priest and the oblation, and it involves the offering of His bodily members.

The truth is, Latreia, that the historical belief is far from what you espouse. Like the Blessed Trinity, the Eucharist, the canon of Scriptures, and the Divinity of Christ took time to develop in doctrine - albeit the rule of faith preserved the dogma by the guidance of the one Spirit.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

Carson Weber · Sep 6, 2002

Let's examine that great Capadocian Father, St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man's nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man's physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread,--just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.' Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist(for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing." (The Great Catechism 37, post A.D. 383)

You know what's also interesting?

Take, for instance, the New Testament. If I were to pick up the New Testament and read it for myself without any Christian instruction outside of the Christian tradition, I would never, not once take the elements of the Lord's Supper to be the actual Body and Blood of Christ. It's simply ludicrous at the first hearing.

And so, with the great vast majority of new Protestant sects popping up here and there today, we see no belief in the Real Presence, as I believe it to be - which makes perfect sense - to a sensible individual.

However, there's this one little problem. Every single Eastern Greek, Antiocene, Syrian, Ukrainian, Byzantine, Albanian, Melkite, Coptic, Romanian, Ruthenian, Ethiopian, and Armenian Orthodox church in addition to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church believe in the substantial presence of the resurrected Christ after the consecration of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Simply said, this is proof enough that our faith is that of the apostles - for it's insane for such widespread orthodoxy to exist in so many places in such great number with such great consistency.. on the premise of a really wacky interpretation of Scripture. Or, is it wacky at all?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Carson Weber

[ September 06, 2002, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

When was "Real Presence" first denied?

New Member

New Member

New Member

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">