Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
I don't know, I'd have to go and look. It is in Thomas, so I would assume it is in Augustine, since we both know where Thomas theology comes from.
"The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed." (ST, Pt I, Q 26, Art 5, Ad 3)
It seems to me to flow logically from Providence and the interconnection of things in their government. As Jesus noted in St. Matthew 11, if the miracles he did in Palestine had been done in Lebanon, the Syro-Phoenecians would have converted. Logically, we might ask, what then of the Jews in Palestine, who would then see no miracles, and I think the answer obvious. God chooses to do certain things and have certain things occur because He wills the forseen outcome therefrom. On the other hand, if He chose other things, another outcome would become apparent.
Example, God chose a St. Monica to produce a St. Augustine to enlighten the world. On the other hand, God could have chosen some other Catholic mother with some other wayward son to enlighten her son instead, and not chosen St. Augustine. And that other son very likely would not have been a theological genius like St. Augustine, and great errors might have then abounded much more in the world absent his teaching, and many more might perish eternally for lack of truth.
certainly not his later works wherein he renounced many of his former errors concerning grace and free will
While St. Augustine made many corrections, it seems to me that in his mind, his system was already complete at the commencement of his Episcopate when he wrote the "Diverse Questions to Simplician", to which he late in life referred the Semipelagians to, such as the monks of Adrumetum. Any later work was a clarification of his thoughts, not a correction of errors.
I'm a huge VanTillian in many areas, but "Corny" is not entirely off the mark. I recently read a funny review from John W. Robbins**
In reference to Van Til's penchant for ambiguity in expression, Robbins related a toast given (not by him) in Van Til's honor at some Reformed holiday dinner:
I'll try to scare up the actual citation if I can find it. ;-)
best, OP
MM - this needs the context of the whole passage. "Two natures" - the humanity and divinity of Christ. "Not plain bread" - rather St. John repeats himself twice: "the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood ... bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ".
Again, this is what transubstantiation is - the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, to which is permanently united by hypostatic union the divinity of God. Thus St. John: "... since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood ..."
Contrariwise, the union of the divine Word to plain bread would imply a monstrous hypostatic union of deified bread, rather than a deified humanity under the accidents of bread. St. John Damascene again:
The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, "This is My body," not, this is a figure of My body: and "My blood," not, a figure of My blood.
The question is really very simple, and there are just five options:
A) The bread and wine remain bread and wine, but Christ gives spiritual grace through their reception.
B) The bread and wine remain bread and wine, but the divinity of Christ is hypostatically attached to these so that a spiritual communion is affected by the reception.
C) The bread and wine are changed in substance to the body and blood of Christ, to which is attached the divinity by hypostatic union via His human soul.
D) The bread and wine are changed in substance to the body and blood of Christ, but the divinity of the Word is no longer attached to them via His human soul, just body and blood are present, and nothing else.
E) The bread and wine are not changed in substance, but are mingled with the body and blood of Christ which become truly present by invocation, to which is attached the divinity by hypostatic union via His human soul.
I can't think of any other options (other than further mixtures of the above). (A) is the reformed doctrine. (B) is something monstrous, a deified inanimate object. (C) is transubstantiation as Catholics understand it. (D) implies the slaughter of Christ and a new death for Him. (E) is consubstantiation.
Please let me know which one seems right to you.
That's an incredible assumption. "We both know where Thomas comes from", but it's hardly a direct descent. Why don't you see if you can find such an idea in Augustine? I'm willing to be corrected (you know I have accepted correction in the past), but I know Augustine fairly well and I doubt you will find any such thing.
Neh, I am fairly certain thereof.
It seems to me to flow logically from Providence and the interconnection of things in their government. As Jesus noted in St. Matthew 11, if the miracles he did in Palestine had been done in Lebanon, the Syro-Phoenecians would have converted. Logically, we might ask, what then of the Jews in Palestine, who would then see no miracles, and I think the answer obvious.
It seems to you? It seems to you?? Hermann, this is neither Augustine nor Aquinas at work... it's just Hermann.
There is absolutely nothing in either Augustine nor Aquinas which suggests any such constraint upon God's Omnipotence, supposing if God had seen fit to perform Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon that He would have then been somehow constrained from performing the Miracles the Miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida. Without meaning offense -- you just made that up!! Such an idea is neither Augustinian, nor Thomasine, and is indeed offensive to the doctrine of Omnipotence.
Augustine is adamant and explicit that God's Choice to NOT perform the Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon was a matter of His pure prerogative, not limited by any imagined divine "Miracle Bank" from which only a certain number of mighty works might be drawn; and even in the Aquinas citation which you have pressed into service (irrespective of the fact that it does not even say anything like "the Jews in Palestine, who would then see no miracles") you have left off the remainder of the citation:
From this we clearly understand that God could "add something to the present creation"; that is, He could perform Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon and also perform equivalent Miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida, if He -- of His own pure prerogative -- had so chosen.
And this also attends to your second example, that "God could have chosen some other Catholic mother with some other wayward son to enlighten her son instead, and not chosen St. Augustine", who would not have been so great a theologian as Augustine. This is entirely true; but it is equally true that God could have chosen to enlighten both, Augustine himself and your other anonymous "wayward son" -- of His own pure prerogative.
For as Aquinas says, Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation.
Look at the idea which you have posted. really look at it.
They are not "elect" because God has not created a world in which they are saved, although He could have done so, but perhaps only at the expense of the salvation of others.
In itself, this idea is a direct assault upon the Aseity and Omnipotence of God Himself. It is to bind All-Powerful God with the chains of necessitarian trade-offs -- as the Greek "gods" were bound by the Loom of the Fates, binding the Creator under the creature.
It is more heretical than any possible error which can conceivably be alleged against either Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism. It is to make of God, a mere god. A god suitable for paganism and mormonism -- but not the God of the Bible, nor of Protestantism, nor of Orthodoxy. If Roman Catholicism can contemplate such a "god" -- you can have it!!
Think it through. A little more carefully, this time.
best, OP
That's nice. The Catholic Church teaches it too. Its called various things like the indefectibility of the Church. But it needs a complement in the heirarchical authority of Bishops, and the recognition that the teaching of the heirarchy is infallible of itself, and not from the consent of the laity and priests.
I continue to await the Orthodox explanation, based on the theory that Ecumenical Councils require the consent of the Churches and faithful, as to how the Robber Council of Ephesus, accepted throughout the East, was false, but the Council of Chalcedon, rejected by half the east, was true.
The infallibility of Nicea proceeded from the Council itself and was settled then and there forever. It did not need to wait for Theodosius to outlaw Arianism and make the Churches at peace. There was never a moment when one could legitimately doubt that St. Athanasius was right, and the Arians wrong because the issue was not yet accepted as settled by all.
Which seems right to me?
A, of course!! (The bread and wine remain bread and wine, but Christ gives spiritual grace through their reception ~~ A is the reformed doctrine.)
Although I would add that Jesus Christ, the Bishop of Souls, is Really Present at a properly-conducted Reformed Supper, giving Grace through the receipt of the symbolic and participatory Bread and Wine which He offers -- just as He was Really Present at the First Supper, giving Grace through the receipt of the symbolic and participatory Bread and Wine which He offered then.
Actually, your posting was primarily intended for Marmema (I suspect you anticipated my own answer -- grin). I'll shut up now and let her answer.
This is dogmatic formulation of Trent, forbidding the interpretation of Scripture against the agreement of the Fathers.
Do all early writers, and early communities, agree?
No. We look for broadest consensus.
As far as the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ they certainly do agree. I posted you a list of some Father's who teach this. Do you need the very quotes to be convinced?
St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyr, and St. John Damascene.
I await the discovery of a Father by you who teaches the bread and wine are not "changed", "transformed", "made over", etc. into the body and blood of Christ, but continue to exist after their consecration as bread and wine in substance.
These Christians also wrote the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), to correct a popular idea that Jesus was a mere human and not God from all eternity.
Actually, it was not a popular idea. It became popular by persecution of the Catholics by Arian Roman Emperors.
Some questions, like this one, seemed unclearly addressed in Scripture and open to the interpretation of the individual Christian.
That simply is not true. The Catholic faith was well known to all, and the famous word homoousion had been in use for well over 50 years prior to Nicea, at least since Pope St. Dionysius had written St. Dionysius of Alexandria with the results of the Roman Synod of AD 272 on the Adoptionist heresy. Tertullian, who appears to have coined the word Trinity, seems to have also coined homoousion, using the Latin equivalent "unius substantiae" to denote the common essence of the Father and the Word. As to it not being clearly addressed in Scripture, its right there in St. John 1.1 "In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God."
Believers met in council to decide such questions, prayerfully seeking the Spirit’s guidance.
BISHOPS met in council! Not mere believers like you and I. BISHOPS, successors of the Apostles with authority to rule the Church of God. (Acts 20.28)
This would all be a lot simpler if instead of defining your faith by attacking that of Catholics through denouncing various idiocies and calling them our doctrine of transubstantiation, you explained clearly what you believe and leave it to Catholics to say whether or not your clearly explained beliefs are similar to ours, and whether or not we would use the term transubstantiation to make the same explanation.
Can you do that?
"Adopted Dutchmen"? "Adopted Dutchmen"?? Them's fightin' words, me bonnie lad, let me strap on me kilt and bagpipes and lay hold of me two-fisted claymore and I'll cleave ye end from end just as soon...
um....
Just as soon as... um... I find grounds for disagreement!!
Stand and deliver, now, and...
um....
Like I was saying...
uh...
Hey, can anybody help me out here, and figure out something on which the Dutch Reformed and the Scottish Presbyterians disagree? We're supposed to be squabbling protestants, "25,000 denominations" and all, but I'm at a loss....
No, but a Council of Bishops do, can, and have.
The end of his confession reads:
I, DOSITHEUS, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, declare and confess this to be the faith of the Eastern Church.
followed with more than five full pages of signatories.
As noted before, when the Anglican Non-Jurors sought union with Orthodoxy, this Confession was sent to them as something to be accepted without question on any point as the basis of unity. So it does not appear at any time in history as "just the opinion of Patriarch Whooziwhatzit".
For you to deny these facts simply makes you look ridiculous.
It doesn't concern me now, as I only participate in Supper with my own OP Church. Even at the time (years ago), I was not "concerned", just curious as to whether or not should partake in the EO Supper. I was advised that it would be improper, and I had no problem with that.
So Calvin quotes this in the Institutes? Can we get an actual citation, say from Fr. Migne's Patrologia Latina? I believe Calvin is quoting from Gelasius' "Tract on the two natures against Eutchyes & Nestorius". It is of course entirely possible that the Pope, in his private writings like that, might state things imprecisely or even falsely, as John XXII did with the Beatific Vision. He is just a man.
Here is the best I can come up with for the accurate quotation. It is not a very precise formulization for us today, but then it is from a tractate on the Incarnation, not the Eucharist and from 1500 years ago:
Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery [The Incarnation] began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; 'Wisdom has built a house for itself'(Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. 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'(1 Pt 1:4). 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.
The second part of the quotation you make is missing, the first part is stated quite differently. "Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist." The phrase "substance or nature" is quite ambiguous, since the accidents are part of the nature, but not of the substance. Of course, Pope Gelasius was writing well before all of this philosophical language was introduced to explain the mystery, and Latin is a very poor language regarding the differentiation of theological terms like nature, substance, and essence (phusis, hypostasis, and ousia in Greek), which all meant essentially the same thing in Latin then. Today, we could still use the word "nature" here, but not "substance". A great temptation for all, but we need to avoid reading back into history the clarifications and views of the present day.
Recall that Pope St. Gelasius said Mass every day with that same Roman Canon so abhored by the Reformers, including the words "Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects, to bless, † approve, † ratify, † make worthy and acceptable; that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord."
Extremely. After communing my children love to look for new people or those they did not see commune, and take them antidoron. It is an especially sweet gesture to see a very young child offer it to a complete stranger in silence, I think, during our communion time. We encourage it.
That's true, OP. You are even more wise than I had thought.
Perhaps one day you will understand that this is Orthodox Christianity. No one is alone, and salvation is a community event. Khomiakov is a major theologian in the church. Your church is western and expresses western beliefs. Below is a writing from a Greek Orthodox church site.
An Introduction to the Eastern Christian Mind
"The Eastern Christian perspective sees the individual in relation to others; he is never alone."
"Just as each Divine Person of the Trinity cannot be seen in isolation from the others, so each human person cannot be defined as an isolated individual."
"Everything stands in relationship to the other."
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.