Posted on 11/14/2003 1:07:04 PM PST by Gamecock
Again - "always" meaning since the beginning, the Church "always" taught all of Christ was present in each species.
Again, I'm claiming and discussing that the Church always taught that all of Christ is present in each species. You appear to want to shift my discussion into the practice of communion in one kind.
I have already told you I don't care. I merely want you to prove "always" really means "within 300-400 years".
I would expect "always" to include Scripture or, in the least, the first generation Church Fathers.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article you reference notes a number of occasions of Communion under one kind:
Having now read through this, I must wonder why you referenced me to it. It utterly demolishes both of your claims. Perhaps you neglected to read the whole article yourself?
Yes I read the entire article. I also noted the usual apologetic style imprecise "proofs". The most significant "proof" I learned however concerned the time frame of "always". Your "always" is still missing 300-400 years.
Men like Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, and Theodore are honored for their orthodox contributions, while their heresies are passed over and ignored."
This is the whole story. Sift and choose from the writings which satisfy you and ignore the rest. I shouldn't be surprised though. This is the same technique you use with Scripture.
I did not know, however, of the Presbyterian view. I'm still not sure I understand it. ~~ dangus
Cool, a Lutheran -- Salutations, Lexinom!! Grace and Peace to you.
We Calvinists are many -- but as for myself, I should like to see more Orthodox Lutherans on these threads; it is pleasant to see our Reformed Lutheran brethren (technically speaking -- only Lutherans, Calvinists, and those "Old School" Waldensian Baptists who entered into Covenant with the Lutherans in 1532 may rightfully claim the name "Reformed" -- the Arminian Protestants came upon the scene much later).
As far as the "Presbyterian" view of the Eucharist (really, the "Calvinist" view in general), the usual short-hand used to describe the Calvinist-Presbyterian is "Spiritual Presence". That is...
Hope that helps.
Best, OP
Catholics don't believe that either. I've yet to meet a Protestant who will actually grant what we believe rather than attempting to state it themselves.
Simply put, the Real Presence of Christ dictates that he be present, "Body, blood, soul, and divinity" in every particle of both the Host and the Chalice. Since He is perfectly present in each species, there is no sacrifice "again" at each Mass, since Christ is not slaughtered anew at the Mass. The Mass, by means of (a) the double consecration, (b) the fraction of the Host, (c) the consumption of the Host and Precious Blood, presents in a sacramental and unbloody manner the one sacrifice accomplished on calvary. It is a means of showing the same thing once accomplished at a point later in time. It is NOT a means of redoing the sacrifice of Calvary. The propitiation of the Father occurs because we bring the one Sacrifice of Calvary before Him again to "remind" Him of His pledges to us by the offering His Son made.
We do not believe that Jesus transubstantiated the Bread and Wine of the First Communion into His corporeal Body and Blood. To put it bluntly, we believe that the actual "Body prepared for Him" in the Womb of Mary went to the Cross -- it did not partially end up in the bowels of the Disciples. (and if you think that "grotesque", ask yourself -- what does "transubstantiation" mean?)
Transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ, but the accidents (outward appearance) remain the same. Essentially, what He did to the water at Cana, but without the change in outward apearance. The presence of Christ is possible in a non-localized manner because the substance of a thing can be multiplied in its particular manifestations by way of a miracle, as Christ did with the feeding of the 5000 by way of five loaves and two fishes. Christ did not suddenly create thousands of fishes to feed the multitude. Instead, he extended the manifestation of their accidents and substance so that everyone could have some of what was available.
The physical presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species only lasts as long as the species remain. So when we consume it, His presence within us is only a little while until the Eucharist is broken down in our stomach. At the end of this physical phenomena, what is left is the res sacramentum - the grace of God receive in the sacrament by which the Holy Trinity dwells within us.
Lastly, His body did not end up "partially" within the disciples. All of His body (and blood, soul, and divinity) ended up in each of the disciples, since Christ's physical presence was multiplied in the Last Supper, but not His substantial being. Again, I draw your attention to the multiplication of five loaves and two fishes. Christ did not create more loaves and fishes, but instead multiplied their physical presence so that everyone could have his fill of the substance of what little was available. Essentially, He unbound the phsyical limits of the substance of the fishes and loaves so that they could exist in many places at once and nourish all.
My BS meter is going off the scale here now. ~~ Hermann the Cherusker
"Loaves and Fishes"? Don't you get it Hermann?
I confess that I had been for a long time searching for a descriptive which to correctly explain the difference between the Roman Adoration of Mary and the Protestant Adoration of Mary. Given my great respect for you, I am almost disappointed that you have supplied my long-sought-descriptive -- but supplied it you have.
This is one of the reasons why Calvinists reject the False Dogma of Transubstantiation: "The presence of Christ is possible in a non-localized manner because the substance of a thing can be multiplied in its particular manifestations" -- You Romanists have made the Womb of Mary equivalent to the Flesh of a Catfish. Easily multiplied in a non-localized manner.
Calvinists revere Mary so highly, we find this diminution of Her Unique Contribution to the Humanity of Christ to be horrifying -- for all their Rosaries, the Romanists consider the unique flesh of Mary to be "just another Loaf, just another Fish" -- as easily multiplied as any other matter, as if it were not unique at all.
NO! I say again, NO!!
Here's the Scoop:
The Womb of Mary formed a finite number of bodily cells comprising the Human Body of Jesus Christ. In this, we Protestants revere both Mary and the Humanity of Jesus.
In proposing that "the presence of Christ is possible in a non-localized manner because the substance of a thing can be multiplied in its particular manifestations by way of a miracle, as Christ did with the feeding of the 5000 by way of five loaves and two fishes" you have denied the unique-ness of the Flesh of Mary.
One Cell was fertilized (by the Spirit) in Mary. He became Two Cells. He became Four Cells. He became Eight Cells. And so on. And the particular Body of Flesh uniquely begotten of Mary dwells now at the Right Hand of the Father -- thus illustrating the paucity of the "transubstantiantionist" Romanist claim to the flesh of barley and catfish.
The Body is not multiplied. The physical manifestation of the one Body is multiplied.
But if the Human Body of Christ sits now at the Right hand of God -- then His Body IS NOT dispersed among 20 Million Masses (the Body of Mary formed a limited number of blood cells for the baby Jesus. Transubstantiation pretends that this is not so).
Again, ALL OF CHRIST is present in each particle. Two Hosts don't make two Christ's, but one Christ completely and substantially present in two places. The same Body born of Mary is present in each and every particle of each and every Host or Chalice. The PRESENCE is multiplied, not the physical dimensions, substantial size, or number of elementary particles (cells, molecules, or atoms).
You are arguing against a strawman. Wherever you picked up the beliefs that you are denouncing, you can be assured they are not the beliefs of the Catholic Church. If you want to know completely what we believe, read here in St. Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407600.htm
If you insist on claiming we believe something different from what I enunciate above, there is little reason to discuss things with you. I don't try to tell you what you believe. You should do Catholics the same courtesy. Listen to our beliefs as we state them and enunciate only your own.
We Calvinists are many -- but as for myself, I should like to see more Orthodox Lutherans on these threads; it is pleasant to see our Reformed Lutheran brethren (technically speaking -- only Lutherans, Calvinists, and those "Old School" Waldensian Baptists who entered into Covenant with the Lutherans in 1532 may rightfully claim the name "Reformed" -- the Arminian Protestants came upon the scene much later).
I'm part of a very small group of Lutherans, then, that would agree with your position on the Lord's supper :-). Sorry to disappoint you. I wasn't entirely certain what the Presbyterian branch of the Calvinist family believed but suspected it to be as you've described it, the Calvin/Bucer view. The Baptists, by contrast, tend toward the Zwinglian camp; this parallels their view of baptism and sees both sacraments (generally speaking) as a volitional act initiated by man.
We do believe that Jesus Christ is immediately present in spirit at every valid, licit, and properly-conducted Lord's Supper, offering the Bread and Wine of participation in the communion of His Body (His Church) and His Blood (His Atonement) through the offices of his under-shepherd, the officiating Presbyter.
The only thing to add would be that believers are lifted up to heaven and feed on Christ through a mysterious act of the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers in the congregation get no blessing, ought not to partake, and doing so bring down a curse on themselves and even the entire congregation. This is what I was taught by Dr. Riddlebarger, an orthodox URC minister. This is one reason a distiction between the two within the congregation is so criticial.
It's certainly not a disappointment -- Lutheran theology is formally consubstantiationist (and, I am told by my R.E.-educated brother, Reformed Epsicopalian is also), but I suppose that within consubstantiationist theology there are some who tend closer to Roman transubstantiation and some who tend closer to Calvinist "spiritual presence".
but I wasn't entirely certain what the Presbyterian branch of the Calvinist family believed but suspected it to be as you've described it, the Calvin/Bucer view. The Baptists, by contrast, tend toward the Zwinglian camp; this parallels their view of baptism and sees both sacraments (generally speaking) as a volitional act initiated by man.
That's true, and it reminds me of a another "we DO believe" point which I had intended to make, but neglected to do so: we Presbyterians do believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are properly termed "Sacraments", that is, that they (properly conducted) are special and particular conduits of sanctifying Grace; whereas Zwinglians are more likely to consider them "Ordinances".
The only thing to add would be that believers are lifted up to heaven and feed on Christ through a mysterious act of the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers in the congregation get no blessing, ought not to partake, and doing so bring down a curse on themselves and even the entire congregation. This is what I was taught by Dr. Riddlebarger, an orthodox URC minister. This is one reason a distiction between the two within the congregation is so criticial.
That's a good point also -- not only is Christ "here" with Us in spirit, We are "there" with Him in spirit. And I agree that this point attends to the importance of "fencing the table" as the OPC describes our method of preparing the congregation for the Supper.
You were educated by *the* Kim Riddlebarger? That's pretty cool. I like his stuff on amillennialism a lot (and also David Engelsma's, in particular), although my own amillennialism differs from the Lutheran variety (Lutheran amillennialism generally takes either the "idealist" or the "historicist" approach to Revelation, seeing its outworking throughout the centuries of Church history; whereas I am primarily a "partial preterist", favoring a Neronic date for the authorship and believing that the majority of the Revelation up through chapter 19 or so was fulfilled "shortly" thereafter, in the Jewish Wars of AD66-70).
Sadly, the very matter of eschatology is what has driven us from Presbyterian circles and into the Reformed camp (we're not Lutherans, just to make that clear). I studied for two semesters under Doug Wilson and saw increasingly a licenteousness that seemed to exceed scriptural boundaries. Having said that, many brothers and sisters who are nearest and dearest to us are Orthodox Presbyterians and we are in fundamental agreement with Machen on most doctrinal points. It is my prayerful hope to someday study under Dr. Beeke, who seems to combine biblical piety and praxis with a balance rarely found.
I'm aware of the controversy which has swirled around Doug Wilson (and Steve Schlissel and Steve Wilkins, with whom I am familiar, as well as John Barach with whom I am not familiar) regarding their "Auburn theology" and "New Perspective on Paul", etc... I haven't entirely made up my mind as to my opinion of those matters (their statements on Faith and Works which I have read are not at all similar to the way I would present the discussion; but I'm not sure that they are utterly incommensurate and irreconcilible with traditional Reformed belief). May I inquire as to the eschatological difficulties you encountered with Wilson? Just curious....
I did recently happen to read a strong critique of the "Auburn theology" folks by John W. Robbins, whom I esteem highly. I'm mulling on the points he made, and largely agree with several of them.
[Sigh....] There are a lot of reasons I had issues with him, based on my observations of the things that went on there and how people lived. Personally, Wilson is a pleasant and jovial gentleman with a moderate sense of humor and a deep admiration for Generals Jackson and Lee. It's his doctrine that has problems, and eschatology was just one part of that. He's trained in pedagogy, not theology. He is an excellent teacher. However, though he pastors a large group in Moscow, ID, he is not an ordained minister -and it shows. By and large that group, at the time I was there, had strayed far from the Scriptures and was more interested in winning debates than in loving their neighbor as theirselves. To be fair, I am lumping the school, college, and church together and calling it the group, though they're not entirely congruent.
Few, if any, had an interest in holy living, counting the cost, "taking up the cross", et. al. - things Christ's people must all struggle with daily. Any display of emotion, esp. from men, was sharply frowned upon. Of greater interest were the earthly matters of getting married and having lots of children to grow the Kingdom of God on earth. Nothing wrong with that in itself; it's the motivation and long-term outlook I questioned, and that's probably where eschatology fit into the mix.
After leaving that movement, my time was better spent studying traditional, orthodox Reformed theologians and writers than in following some modern fringe group. So I have no familiarity with the "Auburn theology", and probably won't until I encounter someone armed with it. You could liken them, and Gary North, Gary Demar, and others in this strain, to a malignant tumor intent on spreading (their voracious, world-loving postmillennialism, quite distinct from that of the Puritans). They "look" like normal cells in the body: they wear the label "Reformed" and subscribe to the Westminster Standards. But they are intent on growing by numbers by syncretization and some tampering with the role and relevance of the Law, which true Reformed believers regard as a strict "schoolmaster". Someday I hope to put the pieces together and thereby articulate the these things more effectively, but right now I'm busy learning about the creation-evolution conflict.
Engelsma, whom you mentioned earlier, has done an effective job pulling apart the radical reconstructionist position from Scripture in his work Christ's Spiritual Kingdom. Credenda Agenda, with their characteristic Christlike sarcasm, gave the work a scathing review - a good indication he's onto something.
I wouldn't go so far as to call North and the Tyler Group a "metastasizing tumor" (especially given that, ever since North flubbed so badly on his quasi-dispensationalistic Y2K paranoia, it's a "tumor" which has gone into a bit of an embarassed remission); I like a great deal of what North and the gang have to say, aside from their "voracious, world-loving postmillennialism" as you call it (with some good reason).
On that subject -- well, I'll just say that I entirely agree with Engelsma's critiques of the worldly carnality of the modern strain of postmillennialism; and this despite the fact that my own Amillennialism is, in my general agreement with the Tyler Group's interpretations of Matthew 24 and Revelation, much more hermeneutically preteristic than Engelsma's.
If I might ask, how did you come to an Amill-preterist position?
Well, I first pawed my way through "Late Great Planet Earth" some fifteen years ago; and when I first "converted" to Calvinism some twelve to fourteen years ago (I was already a Christian, but not yet Reformed in theology at the time), I did so without studying much Reformed eschatology.
So, although by then a convinced Calvinist, I was still a dispensationalistic, Hal-Lindsey Premillennialist (sorta like John MacArthur) when I first started posting on Free Republic some four or five years ago. It was largely through the instruction of my FReeper Reformed Baptist friend "the_doc" that I came to Amillennialism -- I remember my "epiphany" came when I was reading II Peter 3:3-10 and realizing, "Waidaminnit... there's no pre-trib rapture, no 7 year tribulation, no Armageddon, no 1,000-year earthly Millennium here -- the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up". From that point on, and bolstered by some posts that "the_doc" made concerning Revelation 20 and his recommendation of Meredith Kline's studies, I was a confirmed Amillennialist. Of course, I examined Post-Millennialism, although not with much attraction -- I had never been partial to PostMillennialism, and Engelsma's critiques of the PostMillennialist's usage of Old Testament passages concerning "the new heaven and the new earth" confirmed my impression that the Tyler Group PostMillennials were playing "dirty poker" with their hermeneutics... improperly pressing passages which speak metaphorically of Heaven, eternity, and the New Jerusalem, into the service of their vision of an earthly 1,000-year Golden Age prior to the Second Advent.
However, while I agreed with Engelsma's criticisms of the PostMillennialists' false application of "New Heaven and New Earth" passages in the Old Testament to their supposed worldly Golden Age, I disagreed with his own typological, futurist interpretation of Matthew 24 and the other Synoptic Gospel "mini-apocalypses"... it was clear to me that the Mini-Apocalypses were not primarily typological and future but rather literal and already-fulfilled in the AD66-AD70 Jewish Wars. As the result of much, much study of Revelation, I'm equally convinced that the majority of Revelation was likewise fulfilled therein. Where the preterist PostMillennial's had fallen into error, it seemed to me, was not in their preteristic interpretation of the Apocalypses (which I adjudge to be a largely correct interpretation), but in their attempt to hitch their scripturally-unjustified Postmillenialism onto a scripturally-bonafide Preterism.
Ergo, I am convinced that both the Amillennialism of Revelation 20 and II Peter 3 (a "millennial" church age of indeterminate length, characterized by both struggles and victories, followed by a final Loosing of Satan and then the Second Advent) is True, and that the Preteristic interpretation of the Synoptic Mini-Apocalypses and Revelation chapters 1-19 is True. In sum, I think that the vast majority of New Testament Prophecy has been fulfilled in the AD66-AD70 Destruction of Jerusalem (preterism); and that we are now in the Church Age of the Revelation 20 "millennium" -- in which success is not primarily characterized by worldly, carnal victories -- awaiting only the Final Loosing of Satan, the Second Advent, the Final Judgment and the New Jerusalem (amillennialism).
On the contrary, national Israel repeatedly fell under Divine chastisement and showed themselves subject to the same weaknesses and temptations that plague the Body today. This includes every one of us who takes the name "Christian". The great Jonathan Edwards with his penetrating insight even ascribed the ratio 1/10 in relation to the level sanctification achieved by the holiest saints. Sola gratia: We're no better than the OT Israelits; it's Divine grace alone that sustains God's people today, and restrains all people (on this point I disagree with Engelsma and his tradition).
One seldom hears a sermon on Lamentations in the groups we've discussed. Though I'm not entirely sure why, it may very well have to do with the incongruency of a chastized Israel with a triumphant church on Earth.
If you could bookmark it, and wait for me a little while (I post very little at present, as I am waiting on my new computer and the restoration of my DSL), I should like to respond."
Has this happened yet? I am interested and would like to read and perhaps join in the discussion. Please ping me to the thread. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.