Defending communion/real presence

[N/A Gone]

I had a friend read the chapter in the book "Born Fundamentalist, born again Catholic" about communion/real presence. He offered an interesting critique of the view.

--------------------

[quote]"For a full millennium of Christianity, there were no exceptions to this belief of the early Church in the Real Presence. It was the universal teaching of the entire Church."-From the Book [/quote]

(Now he starts)

Whoah! A little bit of overstatement don't ya think?

“It is quite evident that this prophecy [Isaiah 33:13-19] also alludes to the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood.” – Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (around 155 AD)

“So then, having affirmed that with desire he had desired to eat the Passover, his own Passover – it would not have been right for God to desire anything not his own – the bread which he took, and divided among his disciples, he made into his body, saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body.” – Tertullian, Against Marcion (around 200 AD)

“For since Christ says, ‘I am the true vine,’ the blood of Christ is not water at all but wine. Nor can it be held that His blood, by which we are redeemed and vivified, is in the chalice when it contains no wine; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." – Augustine quoting Cyprian, On Christian Doctrine (around 430 AD)

As we argue our case, it usually much safer to never use the world "always" or "unanimously", as it is almost always the case that we are overstating our case. The simple truth is that there is evidence of those holding to an "evangelical" understanding of communion in the early church (regardless of whether those individuals would qualify as evangelical). The quotes above (btw, I hate using proof texts as they are not usually helpful) all range from the second to fifth century. I do have three thoughts on the issue:

1) We must be careful that when we look at someone's writings that we look at them from a wholistic perspective. Often early writers may use symbolic language without explaining it, whereas in other places they may more fully explain their position. That is why prooftexting can be dangerous. On another note, trying to convince Protestants about transubstantiation with arguments of tradition/history will very rarely be fruitful because we don't hold church tradition in hte same regard. We must also be convinced that Scripture clearly teaches something. If every prior Christian or pope throughout history believed in transubstantiation but I am convinced Scripture teaches otherwise, I cannot in good conscience accept the "official" teaching (although I may want to examine my hermeneutics!).

2) I am unconvinced of your exegesis regarding the communion passages. In order to communicate symbolism, Jesus did not need to fully explain what he meant. "This is my blood" and "This is my body" is sufficient to mean "this symbolizes". And actually, to fully explain it would cause it to lose much of the impacting force of the metaphor. Think about it. In John 15, Jesus says, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vineyard keeper." He then goes on to explain, all while maintaining the metaphorical language. He never clarifies His position by saying, "What I mean by this is that I only symbolize a vine." To do so would make his teaching less forceful and dramatic to his listeners. I assume you would affirm that Jesus is not literally a door or a vine or a path. In each case, he performs a type of function of each.

3) Not all evangelicals affirm a "merely" symbolic/memorial view. Many would affirm a spiritual presence of Christ (I would lean this way myself). Instead, what you do find is that evangelicals only want to explain the presence of Christ as far as Scripture explicitly teaches. We all (uh-oh, I used "all"!) affirm that at the very least, it is a memorial. Many, perhaps most, of evangelicals would affirm some sort of spiritual presence of Christ. What we do not see Scripture explicitely teach or imply is that this presence is physically taking place in the elements themselves.
-----------------------------


ok, the interesting part to me is the church father quotes against real presence. He also makes some interesting exegetical posts..

how would you respond?

(I typed up the chapter, if anyone wants/needs a copy)

[thessalonian]

Well there is a problem with what he says. The problem is that Augustine, Tertullian, and others used symbolic language. They also used literal language. The Church fathers saw the symbol as becoming what it symbolized.In apologetics it is important that we get off the either or wagon. It is not un-Catholic to have a symbolic view of the Eucharist as long as one does not reject the literal. Also we must not mistake the literal for physical. The Eucharist is not physical Christ as in meat and bones. It is sacramental.

What does he due with the passage in John 6:

"my flesh is TRUE FOOD, my blood is TRUE DRINK".

The eucharist is a memorial. But that does not limit it to just a memorial in the case of God. They don't want to think big. Think outside the box. Think anti-dichotomy. Hope that helps. The word for rememberence in greek is anemesis. It does not just mean rememberence but has a much deeper meaning. When the Jews remembered the passover according to the Catechism they actually saw their celebration as making it present.

Edited August 4, 2006 by thessalonian

[Noel's angel]

Number 2 of his argument stuck out for me, so I'll write a quick wee reply to that:

When Jesus said 'I am the Vine' or 'I am the door' no one questioned Him, asking Him if He was literally a vine or a door. However, it is clear that many of Jesus' follwers were confused when He told them that He was the Bread of Life. Jesus always explained teachings to His disciples. He taught in parables but told His apostles the real meaning in private. But in this case all He did was repeat His teaching a number of times. He said again that His flesh was real food and his blood real drink, using the word 'alethes' which means 'really' or 'truely'.
Of course Jesus didn't mean He was a vine or a door-everyone understood that. When His teaching did cause doubt and confusion, He didn't say 'oh I was just speaking metaphorically', He reinforced His teaching, making sure everyone knew what He meant.
There are other occasions when His teaching cause confusion and we see Jesus correcting these wrong interpretations (John3:5,11; Matt16:11-12). If He wasn't speaking literally, He would have made sure the disciples knew this.

I would have written something better, but I'm in a bit of a rush and that's all I could think of off the top of my head.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I hope to address the Church Father quotes. I have looked them all up myself in context at NewAdvent.org.

First, St. Augustine quoting St. Cyprian:
[quote]Observe" he says, "that we are instructed, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered m remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture.
[i]On Christian Doctrine, Book 4, Chapter 21[/i][/quote]
Tertullian - who broke away from the Church and should not be considered a Catholic theologian:
Here, St. Cyprian is making a case for the use of wine mixed with water as opposed to 100% water at Mass. I do not think this is dealing with the Real Presence.
[quote]When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart!
[i]Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 40[/i][/quote]
St. Justin Martyr:
I believe here that Tertullian is responding to Marcion's belief that Christ did not have an actual body. He is saying Christ could not have said "this is my body" unless he actually had a body.
[quote]Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.
[i]Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70[/i][/quote]
I'm not sure that this denies the Real Presence.

Not to mention that I am sure you can find writings from these Fathers that explicitly affirm the Eucharist...

Edited August 4, 2006 by thedude

[LouisvilleFan]

What about Eucharistic miracles? Does he have an explanation for them?

Ironically, one of the major reasons I became convinced is the 1,000 year witness of the Eastern Orthodox to the changing of the Communion elements into Christ's Body and Blood. If this belief didn't date back to the earliest centuries of Christianity, the Orthodox would have done away with it.