SPLIT:The Real Presence


No, all you did was quoted what Augustine said, but it is obvious you have no idea what he meant.

And thanks for bringing up J.N.D. Kelly.

Sure he is a reputable patristics scholar and he agrees with me in reference to Augustine.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1)."

  1. Yes, Catholic did mean the universal church and is not equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church, thanks for making that point. 2) Yes, the Catholic((universal) Church is the true church and not a heretical congregation. Thanks for pointing that out. 3) Yes, the church is a visible entity and even though the earliest fathers didn’t speak of an invisible church that is clearly Biblical. Furthermore, even your church affirms it when it speaks of people being saved who are not a part of the visible church. Finally, you should have quoted the next sentence where he Kelly says the following:

Yet speculation about the Church as a pre-existent, spiritual reality was already at work, and traces of it appears in 2 Clement and Hermas. The former, perhaps taking his cue from **St. Paul (Eph. I, 3-5), represents the Church as having been created before sun and moon and as being the mother of Christians. (J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine”, immediately after the last sentence Bishopite quoted ).

So what do we have here. First of all, I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand. But once it again it shows the Catholic apologetic play book. Quickly divert to another topic when the walls are closing in on you. Second, the invisible church has precedent not only in the ECFs, but also in the Scriptures. I could actually argue more convincingly for it from the Scriptures. Also Rome has a concept of it even though her apologists often try to deny it. Finally, it shows one can have a book and not understand the issues it presents or misrepresent them.

Yes, I have his book.

You mentioned St. Athanasius. Here is what he believed about the Eucharist.

“You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,
[RIGHT]-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D[/RIGHT]

Since you have the book maybe you should read it on page 440-442 and Kelly would help you with your problem of interpreting Athanasius, Agustine, and others. Allow me to explain. Every time a father says some thing like “the bread is the body of Christ” or “we feed on the body and blood of Christ”, Catholics shout transubstantiation. However, the only thing the fathers are doing is using sacramental and biblical language. Jesus himself says this is my body. You have to read a bit deeper on these issues to understand what the individuals mean when they used these types of phrases which is why asked the other two questions in a separate post. After making this point on the aforementioned pages Kelly says the following about Athanasius:

Athaanaius, too*, while not eimploying such terms as ‘symbol’ or ‘antitype’, clearly distinguishes the visible bread and wine from the spiritual nourishment they convey.( pg. 441; that I know you read since you have the book )

So don’t just have the book or even just read the book, but you must understand the meaning of the words in the book.


Not an answer to the question.

*][/LIST]Enough to know he was Catholic and in agreement with the Catholic Church.

Let me guess, you are going to give us the “real” view of Augustine?

Another non-answer. I’m not surprised.



Excellent quote from Athanasius - I’ll add this to my growing file of quotes from the Fathers on the Eucharist. Whatever else he may have said regarding the “symbolic” aspects of the Eucharist, it is obvious that he ALSO believed in the literal presence of Christ in the consecrated elements.

I find it somewhat sad to see non-Catholics dashing themselves upon the rocks by quoting the Fathers out of context…they see one line or two that gives them a glimmer of hope that perhaps the early Church was not Catholic after all and they completely go to pieces. Of course, as I explained previously, the Fathers were comfortable in a “both symbolic and literal” approach. The “either-or” approach of the Protestant apologist attempts to force a false conclusion from mere snippets of text while overlooking the greater corpus of the writer’s work.

For the ignorant among us, could you define the term, “confect”. We ought not leave any possibility for misunderstanding among those who have been taught strange and novel doctrines by their faith communities.

Thanks in advance.



Don’t forget this notable quotable nugget from JNDK:

J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 447, provides this statement on the heels of Augustine’s Ennar 98:
[LIST]One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.[/LIST]


Oh, what the heck…why stop with Kelly? Here are eight Protestant scholars speaking about Augustine…this is clipped directly from Dave Armstrong’s website:

  1. Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, v.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:
    *]The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.[/LIST]2) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:
    *]By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the ‘Catholic’ view were already at hand by 253.[/LIST]3) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:
    *]The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .
    In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim… [Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.[/LIST]Note: Schaff had just for two pages (pp.498-500) shown how St. Augustine spoke of symbolism in the Eucharist as well, but he honestly admits that the great Father accepted the Real Presence “at the same time.” This is precisely what I would argue. Catholics have a reasonable explanation for the “symbolic” utterances, which are synthesizable with the Real Presence, but Protestants, who maintain that Augustine was a Calvinist or Zwingian in his Eucharistic views must ignore the numerous references to an explicit Real Presence in Augustine, and of course this is objectionable scholarship.
    *]Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion ‘verissimum sacrificium’ of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (‘immolat’) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. City of God, 10,20][/LIST]4) J.D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:
    *]The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.[/LIST]5) F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:
    *]That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .
    It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . . From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ./LIST


Berengar is the first Christian of any prominence at all that we know of who denied the Real Presence. In the subsequent period we have the Cathari and Albigensian heresies who did the same, and John Wycliffe, whose view was similar to Calvin’s. Hardly notable exceptions to the extraordinary unanimity of all the other great Christians up to 1517!

But - I note in passing - anti-Catholics like Dave Hunt will go to the amazing extent of embracing the Albigensians as Christian brothers, in order to find a Christian “church” which runs counter to the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church in this period. These heretics were Manichaean-type dualists who believed that flesh and material creation were evil and that “Christ was an angel with a phantom body who, consequently, did not suffer or rise again.” They rejected the sacraments, hell, the resurrection of the body, and condemned marriage. (Ibid., p.31) Yet Dave Hunt is ready to accept them as Christian brothers before he will offer the right hand of fellowship and the title of “Christian” to a Catholic like myself! A prime example of irrational anti-Catholicism if ever there was one!
6) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:
*]By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .
The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .
. . . the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which did not become the subject of controversy until the ninth century. The definitive and precise formulation of the crucial doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist had to await that controversy and others that followed even later. This does not mean at all, however, that the church did not yet have a doctrine of the Eucharist; it does mean that the statements of its doctrine must not be sought in polemical and dogmatic treatises devoted to sacramental theology. It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .
Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .
The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .
Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . . the doctrine of the person of Christ had to be clarified before there could be concepts that could bear the weight of eucharistic teaching . . . Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . ‘At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.’ [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them./LIST

  1. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1978, 447, provides this statement on the heels of Augustine’s Ennar 98:
    *]One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.[/LIST]

  2. Carl Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:
    *]Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.[/LIST]9) Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1975, 173:
    *]Finally, John Chrysostom and Augustine explore the social connotation of participation in the Eucharist: the body of Christ is not only what lies on the altar, it is also the body of the faithful.[/LIST]
    Perhaps our resident Augustine expert can explain to us what ALL of these authors meant in addition to expounding upon J.N.D. Kelly?



In addition to Dave Armstrong’s site, I found several more websites that had extensive articles addressing the Protestant folly over Augustine’s alleged “symbolic only” view of the Eucharist.

There is more than ample ammunition available online if you need it.

But really…once the “both-and” concept is understood, the discussion is OVER.


This demonstrates the point I made above beautiful. Anytime a real presence is spoken of Catholic think transsubstantiation. They not only misrepresent the fathers, but they are not mis-representing the scholars who interpret them. I will demonstrate this once Kelly and Augustine are read in context. And it is amazing this quote comes from one who chides Protestants for taking someone out of context.



I’m curious…which of the Fathers said the following:

You know what? I’m not entirely comfortable with the purely symbolic meaning of the Eucharist as it has been handed down directly from the Apostles and understood without dispute always and everywhere. No, I believe Jesus was speaking literally in John 6 and in the Last Supper passages. I’m going to teach this new idea until the whole Church accepts it.

Can you guess who was the first to go against the grain of the entire Church and teach that the Eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of Christ?

Can you quote from his letter and date the quote?


Off topic posts split into new thread.


Ladies and gentlemen this is the point I have been making all along. You cannot trust Catholic apologist to represent the fathers or history correctly. They often chide Protestants for taking fathers out of context, but it is them who are doing just that thing. They try to intimidate Protestants with their talk about the fathers, but most of them don’t have a clue as to what the fathers believe. All they are doing is cutting-n-pasting or parroting what they read or heard from someone else who is doing the same thing. Even after warning Randy that Augustine did not believe in a physical presence and Kelly testifies to that he tries to quote Kelly as being on his side. If he would have taken the time to understand the two questions I asked him he would not have fallen into this silly mistake.
Now above he quotes Kelly saying Augustine 1) * “… identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood…”* and 2) ”… he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.”

  1. Identifying the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ proves nothing. That is only biblical and sacramental language. Which is why I asked Randy if he understood Augustine’s view on sacramental language. Kelly makes this point on the very next page from whence Randy’s quote came:

[Augustine]’For if sacraments did not bear a certain resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments. In most cases this resemblance results in their receiving the names of those things. So, just as the sacrament of Christ’s body is after a certain fashion Christ’s body, and the sacrament of His blood is after a certain fashion His blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith.’ [Kelly]The argument here, however, presupposes Augustine’s distinction between a sacrament as a sign and the reality, or res, of the sacrament to which reference has been made above. Considered as physical, phenomenal objects, the bread and wine are properly signs of Christ’s body and blood; if conventionally they are designated His body and blood, it must be admitted that they are not such straight-forwardly but ‘after a fashion’(J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine” pg448).

So this is why I ask Randy if he understood Augustine’s position on sacramental language. Augustine had no problem calling the sign(i.e. bread, wine ) by the thing signified(i.e. Christ’s body and blood). The Scriptures themselves do the same thing when they call the cup the blood.

  1. No we go on to the second point, that is Augustine believed in realism. This was my second question to Randy that he could never answer. I asked him if it was possible to have a real presence without there being a physical presence. Once again, Randy could not answer this simple question. The reason I asked it is because Augustine believed in a real presence that was not a physical one. Therefore, Kelly statement about Augustine believing in “realism” is perfectly legitimate and it doesn’t mean he believes the bread was changed into Christ body or we eat the physical body of Christ. Once again if Randy or his source would have kept reading Kelly they would have notice what he says on the next page.

But he Augustine] goes further than his predecessors in formulating a doctrine which, while realist through and through, is also frankly spiritualizing. In the first place, he makes it clear that the body consumed in the eucharist is not strictly indentical with Christ’s historical body, and represents Him as saying, ‘You must understand what I have said in a spiritual sense. You are not going to eat this body which you see or drink that blood which those who will crucify me are going to shed’. … This is a spiritual gift, and the eating and drinking are spiritual processes. … Sometimes he[Augustine] carries this spiritualizing tendency to its limit, as when he says, ‘Why make ready your teeth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten’; or again, ‘To believe in Him is to eat living bread. He Who believes eats, and is invisibly filled, because he is reborn invisibly.’ His real point, however, is that Christ’s body and blood are not consumed physically and materially; what is consumed in this way is the bread and wine. The body and blood are veritably received by the communicant, but are received sacramentally or, as one might express it, in figura. (J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine” pg448)

Reading Augustine in context it is clear what he means when he says things such as those quoted by Randy. One thing is clear, that is Augustine is not a proponent of transubstantiation.


Another example of Randy and his internet sources making the same mistake I tried to warn him against is found here in his quote of Philip Schaff:

Yes, Augustine believes in a real presence, but once again for Augustine a real presence does not equal a physical presence or transubstantiation. Schaff, just like Kelly knows this. The quote provided by Randy and his source leaves so out important information so as to distort Schaff’s point. Here is part of what they leave out that shows Schaff means the same thing as Kelly when he says Augustine believed in a real presence.

It is remarkable that Augustine, in other respects so decidedly catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation. He was the first to make a clear distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace, which are equally essential to the conception of the sacrament. He maintains the figurative character of the words of institution, and of the discourse of Jesus, on the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the sixth chapter of John; with Tertullian, he calls the bread and wine “figurae” “or “signa corporis et sanguinis Christi” (but certainly not mere figures), and insists on a distinction between "that which is visibly received in the sacrament, and that which is spiritually eaten and drunk,” or between a carnal, visible manducation of the sacrament, and a spiritual eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood. … He says of Judas, that he only ate the bread of the Lord, while the other apostles “ate the Lord who was the bread.” In another place: The sacramentum “is given to some unto life, to others unto destruction;” but the res sacramenti, i.e., “the thing itself of which it is the sacramentum, is given to every one who is partaker of it, unto life.” “He who does not abide in Christ, undoubtedly neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood, though he eats and drinks the sacramentum (i.e., the outward sign) of so great a thing to his condemnation.” Augustine at all events lays chief stress on the spiritual participation. “Why preparest thou the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” … He also expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, which had already come into use in support of the materializing view, and has since been further developed by Lutheran divines in support of the theory of consubstantiation. “The body with which Christ rose,” says he, "He took to heaven, which must be in a place … We must guard against such a conception of His divinity as destroys the reality of His flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth." “I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven, as it was upon earth when he ascended to heaven.” Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: “They have drunk the blood of Christ, and have shed their own blood for Christ.” ( Philip Schaff, “History of the Christian Churc”, v.3, A.D. 311-600)

Randy and his source have totally ripped a scholar and Augustine out of context. How can we trust any of their quotes when it is so obvious they mis-represent many?


You see, I knew you would make all these mistakes, because they are made all the time by Catholic apologists. Anywhere they see “real” they think physical or transubstantiation. This is why I asked you about the distinction between “real” and “physical”. The fathers knew of such thing and if you did you wouldn’t keep making this same mistake.


Several posts ago, I reserved the right to clarify my thoughts concerning “sacramental” versus “physical” presence. I recently came across something by Patrick Madrid in Envoy magazine that addresses this quite nicely.

“…that Christ is “sacramentally” present in the Holy Eucharist conforms to the specific language used by the Church over the centuries. The confusion arises here with the use of the word “physically.”
*The Council of Trent, in its precise theological teachings, avoided the use of the term “physically present.” (You won’t find the word “physical” used in any of the canons or decrees of Trent’s teachings on the Eucharist, though you will find “sacramental” used frequently.) Similarly, the Catechism also avoids using the term “physically present” to explain this dogma, relying instead on the classic terms “really,” “substantially,” and “sacramentally” present. The Catechism is relying on the theological vocabulary worked out by earlier councils and magisterial teachings — none of which employ the term “physical” to express Christ’s real presence in the Sacrament. *

*The terms “sacramentally and really present” do include the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, though not the outward form and appearance of them (what the theologians call the “accidents” of His Body and Blood). These “physical” accidents, as we might call them, which we perceive with our senses, are those of the bread and wine, which were transubstantiated into the true and actual substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. *

*Whether Christ’s real presence in the Sacrament is “physical” depends on how we choose to define “physical,” since the Magisterium hasn’t defined this term for us as a way of speaking about the matter. Some orthodox Catholic writers have used the word in this regard, and if we use it in the popular sense of “material” or “corporeal,” then the Church does in fact affirm such a “physical” presence. On the other hand, if we define the term in such a way that we would argue against a “physical” presence, then we must make clear that in doing so we don’t mean to imply that the presence is merely “spiritual,” “symbolic,” or “psychological.” *

*Below are some representative citations to illustrate my point and Father Wilson’s use of terminology. *

**The Council of Trent: **
“On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

“In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Savior Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, . . . etc.” (Session 13, 1).

“CANON I. If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”

“CANON VIII. If any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.”



St. Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas also avoided using the term “physically present” in his discussions of Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. He uses the terms “sacramental” and “substantial” to explain the doctrine. In his treatise on the Eucharist in the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas said:

“I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ’s body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ’s body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is “what a thing is” (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye” (Part 3, q. 76).

The Catechism on the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

“In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send His Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by His power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all” (par. 1353).

“The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as ‘the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.’ In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” This presence is called ‘real’ — by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present” (par 1374).

“Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” (par. 1390).

“It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to His Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take His departure from His own in His visible form, He wanted to give us His sacramental presence . . .” (par. 1380).


what makes you think we would believe you for such statement. :smiley:



Previously I posted:

  1. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:
    *]By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the ‘Catholic’ view were already at hand by 253.[/LIST]
    Help me out here…Augustine lived when?


From an article by Dave Armstrong in Envoy Magazine:

"J.N.D. Kelly, a highly-respected Protestant scholar of early Church doctrine and development, writing about Church Fathers’ views in the fourth and fifth centuries, concurs: **“It must not be supposed, of course, that this ‘symbolical’ language implied that the bread and wine were regarded as mere pointers to, or tokens of, absent realities. Rather were they accepted as signs of realities which were somehow actually present though apprehended by faith alone” **(Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, 1978; San Francisco: Harper Collins). About St. Augustine in particular, Kelly concludes: “There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that he accepted the current realism . . . One could multiply texts . . . which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he shared the realism held by almost all his contemporaries and predecessors.”


I’m not sure exactly what Augustine understood, but it was sure a heck of a lot more than crackers and grape juice.



You certainly have the right to believe what you will, however the patristic quotes given are just a sample of the many and are straight forward statements like it or not…real means actual.
I am really typing, physically typing right now. Jesus said in John 6, My flesh is “real” flesh, my blood “real” drink. Perhaps you are going to tell Randy and me what the definition of “IS” is?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.