Evidence for the Real Presence

[cmotherofpirl]

Not quite the same.
There is a difference between giving your life you a cause and murderering others for a cause.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 16 2005, 06:58 AM'] Have you looked in the reference section?
Its all there. [/quote]
from the reference section:

--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp"]Real Presence[/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM"]St. Augustine's Belief in the Real Presence[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm"]St. Augustine on the Eucharist[/url]
--[url="http://cuf.org/nonmemb/augustine.pdf"]Did Saint Augustine Believe in the Real Presence?[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm"]Eucharist in the Fathers[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm"]Symbolical and Allegorical Language in the Fathers on the Eucharist [/url]
--[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm"]Transubstantiation[/url]
--[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm"]On the Real Presence[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103frs.asp"]The Real Presence[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=338"]The Work of Redemption in the Eucharistic Mystery[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=587"]The Eucharistic Presence in the Early Church[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num34.htm"]Reply to Evangelical Critics of the Eucharist and the Fathers [/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm"]Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Origen, and St. Clement of Alexandria on the Eucharist [/url]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ459.HTM"]History of the Doctrine of the Eucharist: Nine Protestant Scholarly Sources [/url]
--[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_06_13_socrates58_archive.html#108724345101504024"]John Calvin & St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Comparative Eucharistic Theology[/url]
--[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_06_13_socrates58_archive.html#108762860006468546"]Calvin's Eucharistic Theology Compared to St. Cyril of Jerusalem's & the Fathers Generally-Speaking [/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp"]Sacrifice of the Mass[/url]
--[url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/faithofourfathers.html"]The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass[/url]

for the ECF's on almost all our catholic doctrines, go [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=16424"][b]here[/b][/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Mar 31 2005, 10:36 AM']Hmmm...not convinced by these Ignatian quotes, which for me would hold the greatest weight as they are (a) written closest in time to the NT era (less than a decade) and (b) written by a disciple and appointee of one of the apostles (John). Let's unpack things:-[/quote]
i think i can help first off, here again are the quotes in question:[list]"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
[/list]ok, you say this about the first one:

[quote]Ad Rom 7:3  -  the '"bread of God" could simply be referring to the Incarnation with a bit of anti-Docetism thrown in for good measure; no mention made of communion bread. Similarly, "his blood" is not referred to as wine used at the communion table but rather "love incorruptible". Thus an equally valid reading of this verse is "Bread of God" = Incarnation and "love (not wine)" = Christ's blood[/quote]
look at this again. he says "[i][b]for drink[/b][/i], i desire....." which means that he is making a distinction between the food he desires and the drink he desires. therefore, the bread of God (which he names before the drink he desires) is not simply the incarnation. it is [i][b]food[/b][/i] for Ignatius, and this food is Jesus' very flesh ("I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ...."). as for the blood of Christ, calling it "love incorruptible" does not necessitate a rejection of the Real Presence. Jesus' blood in the Eucharist is indeed "love incorruptible" and no one would deny that. the key here is to note that he is not just speaking idly about the blood that Jesus shed in love for us. he is talking about something he desires [i][b]to drink[/b][/i]. the body is his food and the blood his drink. and, as a drink that is "incorruptible" it is much more than mere wine. remember, he has no taste for corruptible food. so, i see in his testimony here a belief in the Real Presence

regarding the second quote, you say:

[quote]Ad Smyrn 6:2-7:1 - this works as evidence for the Real Presence if the word "eucharist" has its modern meaning ie: communion. But you would have to demonstrate that it was so used by Ignatius and that it did not have its usual original meaning of "thanksgiving"; and I find no
evidence of this meaning in the NT or any other contemporary Christian writings[/quote]
while the greek word [i]eucharista[/i] (from which we derive our word "eucharist") does technically mean "thanksgiving", it appears in the literature of the time to refer to only one thing: Jesus' Real Presence in bread and wine. Justin Martyr is a contemporary of Ignatius, and look how he uses the word:[list]"We call this food [i]Eucharist[/i], and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made 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 is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
[/list]there is no doubt what Justin means by the word, and i think we can rightly assume that Ignatius is using the word in a similar fashion. actually, the words of Ignatius don't even make sense, unless by the word "eucharist" he means that Holy Communion we receive.

i hope that helps.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Matt Black]

Thanks! Just one slight quibble - Justin is writing more than 40 years after Ignatius - that scarcely makes him a contemporary...

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Pistos]

[quote]Not quite the same.
There is a difference between giving your life you a cause and murderering others for a cause.[/quote] What I meant to point out was that people are willing to die for many things which are not necessarily righteous. I brought up 9/11 to point out that, for example, the terrorists who piloted the planes kamikaze style into the buildings obviously were willing to die for what they believed, but I think most people won't be able to argue that what they died for was righteous.

Suicide bombers are another example.

I know what you mean about being willing to die, and I do believe the blood of the martyrs that have gone before us hold some weight, but I don't think they can be used for argument. Perhaps, instead, for encouragement for those who already believe.

[Matt Black]

Indeed, people can be zealous and still mistaken. Waco, anyone?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[jasJis]

Matt,
Did you check out any of the links that phatcatholic provided?

You will not find ANY proof that will overwelm your will to disbelieve. It's a free-will thing.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 4 2005, 11:16 AM'] Indeed, people can be zealous and still mistaken. Waco, anyone?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
The people at Waco did not freely walk into a lions den singing praises of Christ.

[IamCatholic]

If you think about the Apostles, but this doesn't necessarily mean all the martyrs, I think that would be a pretty good argument because if the Apostles really "made up" parts of the Gospels, as many rationalists claim, than they would definitely not have been martyred. If you go any further than the Apostles, I think the argument gets weaker because they could have faith in something that is not necessarily true, but the Apostles would be the actual "culprits" in fabricating a religion, so I think they would definitely not have died, but they were all martyrs (except St. John, who I think is considered a martyr because didn't he drink wine or something with poison in it, knowing he was going to die but he didnt'?). I think there is a special blessing for wines on his memorial day.

Edited April 5, 2005 by IamCatholic

[Matt Black]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 4 2005, 05:06 PM'] Matt,
Did you check out any of the links that phatcatholic provided?

You will not find ANY proof that will overwelm your will to disbelieve.  It's a free-will thing. [/quote]
I have no will to disbelieve. I have a will to believe and to practice what I know to be true - and I am searching for that knowledge and truth. Please assist me in my search; that's why I post these questions.

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited April 5, 2005 by Matt Black