When was "Real Presence" first denied?

[Bible-belted]

Trying,

You asked me to explain it to you and I did. I didn't ask or expect you to believe it.

Like it or not the ideas of philosophical realism are very much what is in view in the first couple of centuries.

As for your comment about something real being superior to a thought, well, its pretty simple. I porvided you with the philosophical context that the ECFs wrote in. You can disagree with that context, but you can't red the ECFs as if they didn't write in it. Not and be taken seriously.

As fior the word symbolic, since the ECFs used the word, I don't fear it at all. But you need to understand that the ECFs didn;t carry the same baggage you do using the word.

Learn to read the ECFs in their own context. Until you do you're just begging questions and definitions. IOW proof texting, not proving.

Carson,

I know Kelly. I've read him. And you'll note that I have been arguing that the ECFs were by and large realists. Realism is not transsubstantiation however or even physical presence. Realism is Middle Platonism. And it is this Middle PLatonism which is dominant as an influence on the writers fo the first 2 centuries AD.

The Cappadocians were heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, as was Augustine.

Anyway, nothing you are presenting represents a challenge to anything I've said here.

And, since I've answered the question of the thread, as well as the key question of Trying (though he'd rather disagree withthe Father's philosophical conterxt, than read them in light of it), you can continue this discussion as a monologue if you like.

 

[trying2understand]

Latreia,

I think I've got it!

Real Presence = True Presence

True Presence = Ideal

Jesus = flesh and Divine


Therefore:

The Ideal Presence of Jesus = flesh and Divine.

Thanks for hanging in there. I knew that I would be able to understand if I just asked enough questions.

From the Catechism of the Catholic church:

"In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."

Hey, what do you know, it was right in front of me all along.

Ron

 

[Bible-belted]

Ron,

Naw. You don't get it. You're just trying to find any way you can to read your beliefs back into the ECFs. You are, in fact, no doing with Realism exactly what you were doing withthe ECFs.

Your mistake. Your choice.

 

[Chemnitz]

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.

If you are not going to be forth coming on your beliefs and the definition you are operating from then there is no point for any of us to continue this dialogue, because all we will accomplish is talking past each other and only causing frustration.

Goodbye

[ September 07, 2002, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

If you are not going to be forth coming on your beliefs and the definition you are operating from then there is no point for any of us to continue this dialogue, because all we will acomplish is talking past each other and only causing frustration.

Goodbye</font>[/QUOTE]Chemnitz,

As I have explained seemingly ad nauseum, MY beliefs are irrlevant to answering the qiuestion. If I asked the qiestion of the thread, certainly they would be. But since it is Trying who asked the question, it is trying's definition that is relevant to answering the question. The question is NOT "when was Latreia's understanding of Real Presence first denied". Knowing my beliefs cannot help answer the question therefore, and my giving my beliefs will actually only derail the point ofte thread, which is to answer the question.

This is not a thread to debate my belief, but to answer Trying's question. And, like it or not, my belief is not relevant to that end.

 

[trying2understand]

Latrei,

I think that your arguements do support that the ECF believed in Real Presence as defined by the Catholic Church.

I sure that you will agree that Jesus is the Word made flesh.

I am also sure that you will agree that no "ideal" of Jesus will equal or exceed Jesus.

You say that the ECF held a philosophy that the bread in Communion is the "ideal".

Therefore, the bread in Communion must be flesh, because the only "ideal" here is Jesus, the Word made flesh.

We have further evidence that the ECF agree with the above because they used words which say that the bread "is the Flesh" and the wine "is the Blood" of our Lord.

If my understanding is incorrect, please, specifically tell me where my logic fails. To simply say I am wrong is not saying anything.

Ron

[ September 07, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Carson Weber]

I wanted to add the Patriarch of Jerusalem's (St. Cyril) comments from 350 A.D. -

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

 

[Bible-belted]

Oh, ok...

"I think that your arguements do support that the ECF believed in Real Presence as defined by the Catholic Church."

Not at all. You're still not reading the ECFs in context. Indeed you're not even trying. All you are tryig to do is vaily seek to justify your opinion (not shared by cholars) that ECFs believed in Transsubstantiation. Sure they held to Real Presence, but they never held to Transsubstantiation. Real Presence, and the Neo-platonic realism in which they defined it, formed the foundationfor the development that eventually resulted in transsubstantiation. But they themselves did not hold to transsubstantiation. And since transsubstantiation as an explanation of the measn of the Real Presence is part and parcel of the RC definition of Real Presence then it is impossible to say that the RC definition of Real Presence was held by the Fathers.

At best yo can say that the Neo-Platonic realism resulted in staements which were later tkane and expanded on to come up with rtranssubstantiation. IOW you can claim that the ECFs held to an "acorn" (recognise the metaphor I'm working on here?) that later became the oak of the later medieval theology of the Eucharist and Real Presence.

Now the only problems are: 1) The RCC, if memory serves, doesn't admit that there was ever just an acorn, only the full blown tree. 2) the development is nota necessary development 3) it is not a given that it is even a valid development.

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand the philosophical milieu of the ECFs to a point where you can see the problem. I am sorry that I seem to be unable to explain that milieu such that you see the facts as they are, instead of how you wish them to be.

As for your anaysis, you are not arguing along neo-platonic lines. You are simply trying to apply Neoplatonism to your own thinking. But that is just another way of reading your ideas back into things. What you should be doing is following their reasoning, and understanding it on its own terms.

The following staements from the Fathers cannot (IMO) be seen to be in harmony with the Presence you speak of, but is perfectly in accord with the neo-platonic thinking. I encourage you to study the question in depth.

"'He that eateth me,' He says, 'he also shall live because of me;' for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says." - Basil (Letter 8:4)

"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)

"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling." - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

(BTW, why does no one want talk about the answer to the question anymore?? Can it be that you NEVER really wanteed to disucss it in thefirst place? That you only used it as a pretext to undermine others' beliefs?? Perish the thought.)

Out.

 

[trying2understand]

Latreia,

As I said, several times previously in this thread:

A belief in a spiritual presence (or ideal as you like to substitute) that is not in conflict with a belief in a Real (flesh and blood) Presence does not argue against a Real Presence as Catholics mean it.

And again, if you read further writings by the same authors you quote above, it is obviousl that they believed in a Real (flesh and blood) Presence also.

Originally posted by Latreia:
(BTW, why does no one want talk about the answer to the question anymore?? Can it be that you NEVER really wanteed to disucss it in thefirst place? That you only used it as a pretext to undermine others' beliefs?? Perish the thought.)

What answer?

 

[Bible-belted]

Trying,

I did see the quote from the CC where you highlighted the bit about other forms of presence not being denied. That doesn't amke he CC consistent. Your syllogism doesn't work. The CC can afffirm all that the Fathers would affirm, but it doesn't work in reverse. The Fathers don't affirm all that the CC does.

And again, I have NEVER denied that they held a belief in Real Presence. It is YOU who insists that symbolism denies Real Presence (as defined by the RCC now); the ECFs though did not have that problem. That you don't see that should be a sign to you that you don't understand them.

What answer??? I am not doing that again. Read.

Now please, let's move on. New topic, new thread. Thsi one is exhausted as far as I am concerned.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
And again, I have NEVER denied that they held a belief in Real Presence. It is YOU who insists that symbolism denies Real Presence (as defined by the RCC now); the ECFs though did not have that problem. That you don't see that should be a sign to you that you don't understand them.

"It is YOU who insists that symbolism denies Real Presence"

I do not say this at all. I have said very clearly, a belief in a "spiritual presence" or any other presence, that is not in conflict with a physical presence, does not deny a belief in physical presence.

You do believe that there can be multiple non-conflicting meaningings in the same Scriptures do you not?

IMO the problem is that you have not stated your case clearly. I doubt that anyone that has been following this has a very good understanding of that of which you speak.

Ron

 

[Bible-belted]

Trying you said:

"A belief in a spiritual presence (or ideal as you like to substitute) that is not in conflict with a belief in a Real (flesh and blood) Presence does not argue against a Real Presence as Catholics mean it.

And again, if you read further writings by the same authors you quote above, it is obviousl that they believed in a Real (flesh and blood) Presence also."

That second paragraph CLEARLY presents a contrast between Real Presence and the symbolism advocated in the quotes I provided earlier from ECFs. You are saying that they believd in Real Presence in addition to the symbolic view.

I don't deny that they held to Real Presence I affirm it in fact. I simply deny that they held to Real Presence as YOU understand it. Your understanding of Real presence is not the same as theirs. It's that simple. And I have demonstrated it.

Again, the syllogism does not work. You want to say the following:

The RCC affirms a definition fo Real Presence that includes all kinds of "presence".

The Fathers held to a kind off presnece, therefore they agree with the RCC doctrine.

That is false reasoning. You affirm all that they they affirm but they affirm only SOME of what you affirm for they deny transsubstantiation. They would affirm part of your doctrine, but not the whole of it. Thus they cannot be said to affirm your doctrine.

An analogy:

You say that you believe that ice cream is delicious. You prefer vanilla, but you do nmot exclude any other flacour from being delicious.

Another person says that they believe chocolate ice cream is delicious. But only chocolate.

Your belief is consistent with his, since you bothe affirm that chocolarte is delicious. However His belief does not cohere with yours since you affirm that vanilla is delicious, and he doesn't.

So ytour belief about icecream can acomodate his, but his cannot accomodate yours.

Now, if you don't understand that, too bad. I am DONE. And hungry. Where's the scoop...?

 

[trying2understand]

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),

Latreia,

For all of your protestations, you have not actually explained what Justin Martyr meant by his words.

Can you please explain how these words fit in your understanding of the philosophy you have advanced?

Originally posted by Latreia:
I am DONE.

You keep saying this, but you just can't resist can you?

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi t2u,

When the Patriarch of Jerusalem (St. Cyril) in 350 A.D. says

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7).

and

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).

We're really misreading St. Cyril. You see, he really does believe that the bread is bread because it is sensible to the taste and that the wine is wine because the taste says so.

You see, Cyril is really using double-talk because he's a Neo-Platonic Realist. We're still reading our doctrine into the Fathers - stop reading your doctrine into the Fathers!

I've had enough.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

 

[trying2understand]

Be careful there, Carson. Someone is bound to fail to see the sarcasm and come back some day and quote your words as literal and credit them to a "Catholic apologist" "speaking for the Church".

Ron