A Baptist's Search For Historical Proof of St. Patrick Takes Her To Rome

CH Network ^ | Patty Patrick Bonds

[drstevej]

Patty,

Thanks for the further explanation. I respect your journey. My study of Scripture and tradition lead me to a different destination.

I do indeed know Him up close and personal.

Sincerely in Christ,
Steve

[Patty Bonds]

I felt the same way when I was at Northwest Community Church. I never dreamed I could be closer to my Lord Jesus than I was there. I was very happy there. I felt I had a handle on the truth of God. But . . .

If you arrived at a different place than I through scripture, is the Holy Spirit confused?

[drstevej]

***If you arrived at a different place than I through scripture, is the Holy Spirit confused?***

No. You believe I am confused, I believe you are confused.

[american colleen]

Welcome! This is weird... I just finished "Surprised by Truth 3" the other day and so of course read your entire conversion story. It is very beautiful and moving... to hear conversion stories, for me, is very humbling. Converts pay such a great price in the secular world - but the rewards, oh the rewards!

[Patty Bonds]

Hi Colleen,

Thanks for the welcome. You are so right, oh the rewards. The One I onced loved from afar, I now carry in every cell of my body.

[Patty Bonds]

Sounds like confusion. Who is the author of confusion?

[drstevej]

***The One I onced loved from afar, I now carry in every cell of my body.***

Is this orthodox RC teaching?

[drstevej]

***Who is the author of confusion?***

Vatican II ???

:~)

[american colleen]

Yes!

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Dominus vobiscum and welcome home.

[CARepubGal]

Well said Your Fishiness! :-)

[drstevej]

Do you have references on this? I am not doubting you, I have not run into this before and am intersted in reading official church pronouncements in this matter.

Is it a de fide doctrine?

[american colleen]

It's all in the Eucharist! He is in us, literally.

[drstevej]

***He is in us, literally.***

I understand that, it's the "every cell" aspect that I am questioning.

[Patrick Madrid]

"I understand that, it's the "every cell" aspect that I am questioning."

Actually, Steve, that's hyperbole. The doctrine of the Real Presence doesn't include that sort of detail. It's true that the Eucharist breaks down and assimilates into the body, as with natural food, which I think is what she meant, but strictly spealing, the Real Presence of Christ in a given host ceases when there no longer remains the physical characteristics of bread.

BTW, awhile back we ran a article on the general question of the Eucharist called "Is This God?" in Envoy Magazine. You might find it interesting. You can read it here:

Envoy Magazine: "Is This God?"

[drstevej]

***Actually, Steve, that's hyperbole. The doctrine of the Real Presence doesn't include that sort of detail.***

(to Patrick) That's what I thought.

We Protestants are pretty good at detecting figurative language in reference to the Lord Supper whether hyberbole and metaphor.

(to Patty) Did you intend hyperbole in your statement?

***the Real Presence of Christ in a given host ceases when there no longer remains the physical characteristics of bread.***

(to Patrick) This makes no sense. Transubstantiation teaches that the bread looses it's physical characteristics at consecration, does it not? Your explanation sounds almost Lutheran (consubstantiation).

Maybe your link will clarify.

[drstevej]

From the Envoy article...

***The ancient heresy of Docetism held that the sufferings of Christ were apparent rather than real; that His human body was an illusion of sorts, that what died on the cross wasn’t what it seemed. It is thought by many that St. John wrote his Gospel with a Gnostic/Docetic opponent in mind, thus accounting for his strong emphasis on Jesus’ “flesh” and “blood” (John 6). Similarly, many Protestants believe that the Eucharist is apparent, and not real; that “This is my body” doesn’t mean what it appears to mean. But the Eucharist is not merely apparent, it is an extension of the Incarnation of Christ, just like the Church (which St. Paul calls the “Body of Christ”). A denial of the Real Presence might, therefore, also be regarded as a denial of the Incarnation.***

This is pure poppycock. The implied connection between Protestantism and gnosticis/docetism is a cheap shot. There is no connection and Protestants reject both docetism and gnosticism as heresy.

Likewise Protestants clearly affirm the Incarnation. The phrase "might, therefore, also be regarded as a denial of the Incarnation" is bogus.

I surely hope your magazine is better than this shoddy polemics masquerading as scholarship. If not, please offer no more links. They are not worth my time. I'll read Gerry Matatics instead.

[Patrick Madrid]

"(to Patrick) This makes no sense. Transubstantiation teaches that the bread looses it's physical characteristics at consecration, does it not? Your explanation sounds almost Lutheran (consubstantiation)."

No. Actually the Catholic doctrine holds that the physical characteristics (i.e. the "accidents") of bread and wine remain after the Consecration, but the substance changes into (hence "transubstantiation") the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Resurrected, glorified Christ. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation holds that the substance of bread (along with the physical characteristics) remains alongside the newly present substance of Christ's presence.

If I may, let me recommend an excellent book that deals with the biblical and patristic issues surrounding the Eucharist. It also considers the various Reformation-era views of the Eucharist as they contrasted with the Catholic teaching. The book is The Hidden Manna, by Fr. James T. O'Connor. I personally found it very helpful.

[Patrick Madrid]

Easy there. He could have been clearer in his wording, I agree, but I know Dave (he's a former Evangelical who converted to the Catholic Church some years ago) and I know that he doesn't hold the view that Protestants deny the Incarnation. They clearly do not, as you pointed out. Rather, his comment should have been clarified to say that, assuming the doctrine of the Real Presence is true, as we Catholics believe, then a denial of the Real Presence along the lines he mentions in the article could entail an implicit denial of the Eucharist.

You're right that he could have been more precise, though, to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks for pointing that out. We can modify that to make it clearer and, hoefully, remove any needless and unintended offense.

BTW, I do hope this bump in the road won't deter you from checking out The Hidden Manna. It's nicely done, scholarly and calm, and not polemical. I truly think you'll find it useful.

[drstevej]

***No. Actually the Catholic doctrine holds that the physical characteristics (i.e. the "accidents") of bread and wine remain after the Consecration, but the substance changes into (hence "transubstantiation") the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Resurrected, glorified Christ. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation holds that the substance of bread (along with the physical characteristics) remains alongside the newly present substance of Christ's presence.***

You are right, my memory is refreshed. Thanks.

When are the accidents of the bread gone? In digestion a portion of the material is eliminated and a portion is absorbed into the body. When does the Real Presence depart? Is it all at once or gradual?