Contra Catholic Eucharistic Arguments

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm still sympathetic to the catholic arguments concerning the eucharist.
that's my biggest issue that draws me to the catholic and/or orthodox churches.
but, there's compelling arguments contra. i've never seen a good rebuttle to this sort of stuff.

augustine on the signs of the body and blood

[url="http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb3c05-10.html"]http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb3c05-10.html[/url]
[quote]"13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. [...]

But at the present time, [...] we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many [...]; [b]such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord[/b]. /// And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. [b]He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage.[/b] And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.[/quote]

apparenly only the person who thinks the sign is more than a sign is in bondage.
he must not be referring to "only understanding the eucharist as only a sign" ie wrongly limiting the arguments to those who only see the sign and not the substance too, as some catholics might argue he'd be referring. i say this, cause he said what he did in the last bolded sentence-- means that that person just mentioned isn't who is being referred to in bondage.

it seems pretty clear. or at least, haven't seen compelling arguments contra this stuff.

[quote]Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents.

Augustine rightly warns that "to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage" (On Christian Doctrine 3,9). Augustine is here referring to the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. Thus, to confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine a mark of weakness and bondage.[/quote]

Edited August 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Question: The early church fathers believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, as the following quotations confirm.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (Justin Martyr, First Apology).

That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Answer: Some church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual. Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215. Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.

It is misleading to speak about “real presence” as if the term is equivalent to “transubstantiation.” Christians, who consider the bread and wine as strictly symbolical, also believe in the real presence of the Lord among them. Jesus said: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Surely Christ is present in the congregation of His people, as He promises, especially during the celebration of the Supper. His presence is real even though it is spiritual and not carnal.

The Roman Catholic doctrine is defined in the second canon of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

In other words, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and in the process the bread and wine cease to exist, except in appearance. The ‘substance’ of the bread and wine do not remain.

Catholic websites list quotations from the Fathers which supposedly prove the Catholic doctrine. When read superficially and out of context they seem to give clear evidence in favour of transubstantiation. In fact, they do not! I suggest we take as second look at the three quotations above (which are representative of many similar quotations), while keeping in mind Augustine’s advice “to guard us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal.” Augustine refers to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist to illustrate this important principle:

“…our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many (Old Testament rites), and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3).

It is wrong to interpret literal speech figuratively; it is equally wrong to interpret metaphorical speech literally. So, let’s see, did the early Fathers believe in transubstantiation, namely the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ?

Ignatius

Ignatius argued against the Gnostic Docetists. They denied the true physical existence of our Lord; thus they also denied his death and resurrection. Ignatius wrote:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.

The problem with the Gnostics concerned the person of Christ and not the nature of the Eucharist. The heretics did not participate in the Eucharist because they did not believe in what the Eucharist represents, namely the true, physical flesh of Jesus, who actually and really suffered on the cross, and who was really resurrected from the dead.

We do not have to take the phrase "the Eucharist is the flesh" in a literalistic manner. As in everyday speech, as well as in the Bible, it could simply mean that the Eucharist represents the flesh of Christ. To illustrate, take a similar argument by Tertullian. He is also using the Eucharist to combat Docetism:

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 (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Tertullian is even more emphatic than Ignatius. He says that Jesus made the bread his own body. But unlike Ignatius, Tertullian goes on to clarify what he meant. Rather than saying that the bread ceases to exist, he calls it the “the figure” of the body of Christ and maintains a clear distinction between the figure and what it represents, namely the “veritable body” of our Lord.

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (A.D. 151) writes:

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was make incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66).

“The change of which our body and flesh are nourished” is not a reference to transubstantiation. According to Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).

Justin Martyn calls the Eucharistic bread and wine "the flesh and the blood" of Jesus. Justin believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. However Justin also believed that the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine. He speaks of their partaking "of the bread and wine" over which thanksgiving was pronounced. Elsewhere Justin calls the consecrated elements “bread” and “the cup.” They are the flesh and blood of Christ insofar that they are given in remembrance of his incarnation and blood.

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 (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).

Clearly, while Justin believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he also believed that the elements remained bread and wine given in remembrance of Christ. Therefore Justin Martyr's view on the Eucharist is dissimilar from the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, and as such he is anathemized by the Roman Church.

Augustine

Catholic authors often misuse Augustine’s figurative writings to support the doctrine of transubstantiation. The following example is a case in point:

That bread, which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That's how he explained the sacrament of the Lord's Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Augustine believed that in a sense the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. “The bread…is the body of Christ…that cup…is the blood of Christ.” In what sense is he speaking? Is the substance of the bread changed into the body of Christ? Or is bread the body of Christ in a symbolic sense? We can readily discover the answer to this all important question.

First, looking at the context, it is clear that Augustine is using figurative language. Just as he asserts that the bread is the body of Christ, he is equally emphatic that Christians are one loaf, one body. Clearly, he means that the one Eucharistic loaf represents the unity among believers. Similarly, “by means of these things” - the bread and the cup - the Lord presents his people with his body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are the figure or sign of Christ, as Augustine asserts explicitly elsewhere in his writings:

*

The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant).
*

He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3).
*

[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).

The Eucharist is the figure of the body and blood of Jesus. Since the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, it is acceptable to call them His body and His blood. The bread resembles the body; therefore it is called the body even though it is not the reality it represents. That is perfectly normal in figurative language.

Augustine believed that the bread and cup were signs, which he defines in this manner: “a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). Therefore, when we see the bread, something else comes to mind, namely, the body of Christ. The mistake of the modern Catholic Church is to confuse the sign with the reality it represents.

Augustine rightly warns that "to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage" (On Christian Doctrine 3,9). Augustine is here referring to the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. Thus, to confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine a mark of weakness and bondage.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a179.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a179.htm[/url]

[quote]Question: If God can become man, would it be so impossible that he could make himself present in bread and wine. His Church has believed it since the time of Christ. Why did somebody come along centuries later and try to tell people that He only meant it symbolically, and on what authority did they change what the Church has always believed?

Answer: From the Catholic point of view, it is incorrect to say that Christ is “present in bread and wine.” That’s more like the Lutheran concept of consubstantiation (the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist) rather that the Catholic transubstantiation (the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ).

It is simply not true that the church “always believed” the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Please study the following quotations; they prove that some Church Fathers considered the Eucharist as the figure, sign, symbol and likeness of the body and blood of Christ.

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. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Bread and wine are offered, being the figure of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They who participate in this visible bread eat, spiritually, the flesh of the Lord. (Macarius, Homily xxvii.)

For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. (Theodoret, Diologue I, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. (Theodoret, Dialogue II, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

For the Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body. (Augustine, Against Adimant.)

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III.)

He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood. (Augustine, on Psalm 3.)

We have received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of the new covenant. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica.)

To You we offer this bread, the likeness of the Body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of His holy Body because the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and broke and gave to His disciples, saying, “Take and eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you, unto the remission of sins.” (Anaphora, quoted in Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, II, p 132.)

Offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.)

Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries. (Pope Gelasius, de Duabus Naturis).

Thus some influential Church Fathers considered the bread and wine as sacred symbols of the body and blood of Jesus. Others did not. The view of other Fathers (Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, etc) were similar to, and later developed into, the doctrine of transubstantiation. There wasn’t a unanimous understanding among the Fathers on the nature of the eucharistic elements.

It is tragic that the Supper which Christ instituted as a memorial for His people became the occasion for bitter controversy, persecution and schisms. The focus is all wrong. Our concern should not be the bread and wine as such, but what they signify, namely Christ, whose body was crucified for us and whose blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

this one, definitely, is a weaker argument. another reason i might go to the catholic and orthodox argument side
but still worth mentioning, cause if the above stuff is true, this could very well be true too.
as scott hahn once said, either the eucharist is one of the greatest gifts God has given us, or it's one of the greatest deceptions ever. (while acknowleding hahn went the gifts route, it's still summed up of the issue well)

[url="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a22.htm"]http://www.justforcatholics.org/a22.htm[/url]
[quote]Question: The Catholic Church teaches that during consecration at the Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. You disputed this. How do you explain countless Eucharistic miracles that have occurred (for example, see the book 'Eucharistic Miracles' by Joan Carroll Cruz)?

Answer: There are numerous reports of miracles in which the bread was changed into human flesh and the wine changed into blood. It is claimed that these miracles were verified by observation and even laboratory tests.

Now, the Catholic Church teaches that only the SUBSTANCE is changed while the bread and wine remain in APPEARANCE:

If any one...denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - THE SPECIES (APPEARANCE) ONLY OF THE BREAD AND WINE REMAINING - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema (Council of Trent)

Notice that the appearance of bread and wine remains. Thus, if the 'species' (appearance) of the bread is changed into flesh and the 'species' of the wine is changed into blood, as witnessed by the people who confirm the miracle, then it is NOT transubstantiation. Not according to the official Catholic definition. The appearance ought to remain of bread and wine. Rather than proving the Catholic doctrine, the Eucharistic miracles actually contradict transubstantiation! Sometimes Satan is caught in his own devices.

Throughout history, people have appealed to miracles as evidence for every sort of doctrine (not only in the Catholic church but also in other religions). Unless we want to be deceived, we should build our faith on a surer foundation. The truth about the nature of Eucharistic bread and wine must be established from the study of the Word of God, the Bible.

In the history of salvation, God had authenticated His prophets and apostles, and especially His Son by genuine signs, wonders and miracles. Their message - the Word of God - is now written down in the Bible and all that is required of us is to know and believe it. The same Bible warns us that the only signs and wonders left are lying and deceptive. Please read the following passage carefully:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12).

The climax of this deception occurs when 'the lawless one will be revealed' but the same principle applies throughout the church era. The mystery of iniquity was already at work in the apostolic church, and continues to our day until the glorious return of our Lord. What happens to those who would not believe the truth? God judges their unbelief by confirming them in their error, even by allowing them to be deceived by signs and lying wonders. This is most serious!

Believe the truth spoken by Christ and his apostles, whose words are infallibly recorded in the Holy Scriptures, and do not be impressed even if a million miracles had to happen every day.

Believe God's Word lest you be deceived by 'signs and lying wonders.' The bread and the wine, which Christ called 'my body' and 'my blood' remain bread and wine (‘you eat this bread’ and ‘the fruit of the vine’ 1 Corinthians 11:26; Mark 14:24). We eat and drink in remembrance of Him for He is now corporally in Heaven, and we await His coming again. On that day we shall see him face to face and then we would not celebrate the Eucharist anymore because we shall be with Him. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26).[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=5267327"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=5267327[/url]

interesting debate about it already done


i thought someone in that debate did a nice job summarizing:
[quote]One can summarize what Augustine said in that full paragraph (ch 9 ) as follows:

1. if you pay homage to a sign w/o knowing what it symbolizes then you are in bondage to the sign (ie the unspiritual Jews)
2. if you pay homage to a sign and know what it symbolizes then you actually pay homage to what the sign symbolizes and you are not in bondage to the sign (ie the OT prophets)
3. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as one of the few rites that replaced the many
4. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood) is to interpret them wrongly and to be misled by error.
5. If you know the bread is a sign, but don't understand what it symbolizes you are not in bondage
6. It is better to be in the bodage of #1 than the error of #4[/quote]

it seems much of that debate got tied up in other arguments pro and con the literal sense-- but the catholics didn't necessarily address the first post about bondage, super soundly in and of itself- it mostly ignores it and says "well, i don't know what to say about that (or they say things that don't make sense about it), but here's some arguments for the literal meaning"
basically--- if all can be argued one way or the other, it'd seem maybe defer to the language of 'bondage' given it seems so clear, ie figurative.
i admit, often i want to defer to literal, cause of the other arguents catholics give while igonring the 'bondage' type stuff. given miracles, and the solid belief, highly liklely majority belief and at least probably solid majority, in the literal belief

Edited August 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Chapter 16:
QUOTE
"If a sentence seems to enjoin a crime or vice, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," Christ says, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice: it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."

[url="http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb3c11-16.html"]http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augocd/ocdb3c11-16.html[/url]

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


i always never liked the christians, or at least their arguments and style etc, who said it's all satanic, the miracles, and beliefs etc. -- always thought they were sorta loony.
i don't want to become that.
though, i do find myself thinking it sometimes- and sometime sthinking i don't know what else to think.
it's like if it's true, that's the only way i'd ever say i don't believe the catholics,by saying it's satanic.

im comfortable right now, just sitting on the fence. and trusting in God and Jesus to eventually guide me along to where i need to be.
i've had strong releases from my overbearing academic look at this stuff- as opposed to a more simple gosple of God-- by just stepping back and trusting.
never, not even now, been into the whole 'saved' thing as prots describe it, especially at a moment in time--- but that release is the biggest thing i've ever had emotionally to all that stereotypical christian 'saved' stuff.
so yes, i can see the 'bondage' thing, per firgurative, from a noncatholic argument side.

Edited August 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries. (Pope Gelasius, de Duabus Naturis).[/quote]

i wonder in what capacity this pope said this.
we can't jsut assume it was personal, or that it was merely an ordinary magisterium statement, subject to change. it might've been intetionally taught to the church, meeting the 'de fide' requirement.
plus if we did assume subject to change, that shows that at least the idea that the ordinary magisterium even hasn't changed, is wrong. (im using the term ordinary magisterium, in teh loser sense as benedict has done, where it can be subject to change by defnition even while not harming infallible teachings). some people insist, the hard core ones, that even this informal beast of teaching, hasn't ever changed.
at any rate, it shows the 'bunny out of a hat' magic trick that the catholic church does, is in fact possible- leading to cynicism over what are true teachings, at least, even if infallibility still were true.

Edited August 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[tinytherese]

[LouisvilleFan]

Re: Augustine in 1st post, I'd have to read the entire chapter, if not the whole book, from which that quote is taken to make an opinion on it. The Church Fathers are not always straightforward or simple in their language like we usually are today. Refer to the misunderstanding over Pope Benedict's statement at Regensburg a couple years ago to see how taking a statement out of context leads you to a completely wrong conclusion.

There are a lot of little rebuttals that could be made from the other arguments... much of it comes down to vocabulary and the meanings of words. We need to keep in mind that we are reading translations of the original works, which only complicates our reading of someone like St. Augustine. English is often deficient at communicating meanings from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

Here's one good one to address:

"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogue II, Eranistes and Orthodoxus.)

Here Theodoret is saying that the substance changes. By nature, yes, the elements of bread and wine remain; but he says "in their former substance," so he is saying their substance changes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is true. great point. such as that "if a vice... " etc, by augustine. i think i've heard the argument that that referred to the idea that "we're not to literally eat literal flesh, raw meat".
from that, catholics would argue- 'talking about "a vice.. it's a figure etc, only means that the eucharist is both figure and reality the flesh-- we don't disagree with the 'figure' statement in that sense'.
that seems like an at least plausible, decent point. but on the other hand, a great way to retrospectively read into history and rationalize things. eg, draw the 'figure v. substance' distinction to 'broom the dust' of history 'under the carpet', so to speak.
plus, while the 'we in fact do believe it's a figure in a sense' is a decent point-- i'm still drawn to the "bondage" quote though, it's hard to get around.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, ya know. i guess ya could argue, that what i said in the last post, would be appliable to the 'bondage' quote.
it's still a curious argument, though, the last post, for the reasons i said in the last post., and would be equally curious as applied ot the 'bondage' quote

but while that could be possible-- again, because of hte last bolded sentence in the first post ie 'he who only see the sign' would indicate that seeing the sign is what's important, and perhaps all that's suppose to be believed, and so no bondage and as a position is right.
then again, you could argue he's saying that the person who only sees the sign, isn't in bondage for thinking it's raw meat etc, but that doesn't mean he's right for seeing the sign only. this argument isn't as straightforward, though.

interesting how powerful that last bolded sentence is to these arguments. ie, whether it's raw meat, or whether it's not even flesh with the accidents or appearances of bread and wine.

Edited August 4, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[philothea]

It's a little hard to read all these snippets, but from what I can tell, someone is cherry-picking quotes from early Christian writings, to support the idea that there was occasionally some controversy about the nature of the Eucharist?

But... I don't know how proving there was discussion of a topic shows that the ultimate decision reached (that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood) is wrong. Of course it was discussed. Everything is.

And anyway, I think it's pretty easy to pick bits of text, translate them into another language, and have them say exactly the opposite of what the author intended.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='philothea' post='1940575' date='Aug 4 2009, 04:44 PM']It's a little hard to read all these snippets, but from what I can tell, someone is cherry-picking quotes from early Christian writings, to support the idea that there was occasionally some controversy about the nature of the Eucharist?

But... I don't know how proving there was discussion of a topic shows that the ultimate decision reached (that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood) is wrong. Of course it was discussed. Everything is.

And anyway, I think it's pretty easy to pick bits of text, translate them into another language, and have them say exactly the opposite of what the author intended.[/quote]

also a good point, what ya might be getting at.
ie, even if the catholic understanding is correct, it's not unlikely and in fact would be expected to find *at least some* people who understood wrongly the eucharist. eg, that priest who didn't believe literally. it's like, there's people who beelive the sun revolves around the earth-- gather some quotes from them, and make it seem like that's an acceptiable and/or somewhat formidable argument that exists nowadays? yeah, right.
but, then again, there's that pope who seemed to believe in figurative, and augustine, who at least arguably did. as well as some other formidable compelling figures.

i don't want to fall into something akin to the 'sun and earth' analogy-- i wonder if there's a way to get a feel for how common it was, other than to use 'gut think' like a catholic would, or as the noncatholic guy who does the sites i linked above, would do, to justify the conclusions they draw that should really only be drawn as close to empirically as possible.

Edited August 4, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

and also, per the second to last post-- 'it's not raw flesh, so we agree in that sense', this argument.. isn't very strong, cause he says "sweet and profitable memory" "crucifiedd" etc, means he's talking more like a protestant, it sounds like.

[Katholikos]

One either accepts the Authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world or one is his own authority.