M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I like your response much better than mine… I get a lil hardened on the edges at times, thanks…
- Status
N
Nicholas_II
Guest
This is a mistake on your part. Of coarse the Eucharist is figurative. But everything else we believe holds true also. And everything else Augustine holds true on the eucharist does not contradict this. Every sacrament is a sign! But every sacrament is also effective!
You have taken too much of an either or approach to your theology. As evidenced by this misinterpretation.
best regards
Nicholas
A
Atreyu
Guest
I wanted to include the Orthodox along with the Catholics in the post you referred to. I also understand that the Anglicans look to the ECF’s a fair amount. But do other Protestants? Calvin himself may have, but do the contemporary Calvinists look to the ECF’s? I don’t see it.
A
Atreyu
Guest
Martin I’m talking about reading the ECF’s and trying to understand what they were writing about. This is as opposed to reading the ECF’s and trying to read my contemporary doctrine into their writings. I’m sure I actually do this, but if I were to come across a particular writing from an ECF that I found contradicted the faith as I understand it, I will try to understand why this is. So far all you’ve done in this thread, is to completely ignore all of the quotes from the ECF’s that support Catholic doctrine (the Catholic doctrine that contradicts your own doctrine). When you quoted Augustine to attempt to show he contradicted Catholic doctrine on the Real Presence, I tried to show how this was actually harmonious with Catholic teaching. Do you see the difference?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I suppose you could survey all Protestant denominations to determine this, and you would get a rainbow of responses, from “Bible alone!!!” to “always consider their opinions”. Your assertion was that:
which I think you are backing off of.
A
Atreyu
Guest
Well it was an exaggeration…
However it remains that most Protestant Churches don’t care too much about what the ECF’s thought. Protestants usually charge Catholics with not being true to what they see as “Scriptural truth”. Yet this so-called truth changes from age to age, location to location and denomination to denomination (even within the denomination sometimes). Catholics on the other hand, try to maintain a standard of truth throughout the ages by looking at the writings of the early church fathers - as well as all of the fathers of the church that have come previously - and trying to stay as true as possible to this standard. I think that is partly what we mean by Sacred Tradition.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I don’t think anyone looks at a particular ECF as the final authority on anything: each is a part of the history for the Protestant and a component that is considered in looking at Tradition for the Catholic.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
My friend, You are wrong Augustine did not see it as transubstantiation, and I can quote other early fathers who thought similarly. For you to say he did is dishonest read the post again!
A
Atreyu
Guest
Look, I actually interacted with your argument, and tried to show how his writing was consistent with Catholic teaching. Your response? Silence. That is until a few days later, when you tell me to “read it again”. How about you actually read my post for once, and try to respond to that, if you can?
A
Atreyu
Guest
Here’s a bit more from chapter 8 of Augustine’s Exposition on Psalm 99:
“O magnify the Lord our God” (ver. 5). Magnify Him truly, magnify Him well. Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who hath wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, “who justifieth the ungodly.” . . . “And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy.” What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek upopodion, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commandeth us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, “The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool.” Doth he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture saith openly, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God”? Yet here it saith, “fall down before His footstool:” and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it saith, “The earth is My footstool.” I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm biddeth me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? and the Scripture telleth me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.
Could this passage be written by someone who has Calvin’s understanding of the Real Presence? It seems to me that Augustine is here talking of Eucharistic Adoration. How could he possibly speak of Adoring the Eucharist, if the Eucharist is not literally our Lord?
“O magnify the Lord our God” (ver. 5). Magnify Him truly, magnify Him well. Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who hath wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, “who justifieth the ungodly.” . . . “And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy.” What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek upopodion, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commandeth us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, “The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool.” Doth he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture saith openly, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God”? Yet here it saith, “fall down before His footstool:” and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it saith, “The earth is My footstool.” I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm biddeth me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? and the Scripture telleth me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.
Could this passage be written by someone who has Calvin’s understanding of the Real Presence? It seems to me that Augustine is here talking of Eucharistic Adoration. How could he possibly speak of Adoring the Eucharist, if the Eucharist is not literally our Lord?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I see the following problems:
- RSV has “worship AT His footstool” - not 'worship His footstool. Bad premise.
- The Real Presence has nothing to do with this passage.
- Therefore Eucharistic Adoration has nothing to do with this passage.
- Calvin believed in the Real Presence of Christ but defined it differently.
- You can worship God and then partake of the Eucharist. This is a far cry from worshipping the Eucharist, so I don’t see a connection.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Well you can disagree with how he goes about his reasoning but the vital thing here is what did Augustine believe about the Eucharist.
It looks to me that the this passage is completely about Real Presence. As it says in bolded quote: “He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation.” Seems clear.
Since the writer continues to describe how that the eucharist being Christ, having taken flesh from Mary, who’s flesh is of the earth, and the earth is God’s footstool which must be worshiped it seems clear (if strange lol) that the Eucharist is to be worshipped in writer’s opinion.
Now again, I can totally see how one will think this particular use of the verse in question is odd. However, it is not Augustine’s reason that is in question but his belief.
This is true. Calvin had his own interpretation of Real Presence.
Augustine makes the connection (in this particular section) that one can must worship the Eucharist as it is the “foot stool of God”. You may disagree with the reasoning, and you may disagree with the doctrine itself but this particular section does indicate (rather strongly) that Augustine accepted real presence.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I’ll concede your point concerning Augustine’s statement on the nature of the Eucharist in this passage - I missed this on the first reading.
I still don’t see Eucharistic Adoration in this passage, as I think the basic premise is faulty. Nor do you eat the host during Eucharistic Adoration, as far as I know. But it could be read into the passage and nothing excludes that.
I think Augustine was stretching things with the footstool image in this passage a bit too far, but that is beside the point.
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
Well, to be fair Eucharistic Adoration by itself didn’t develop until centuries after Augustine. However, I think a good litmus test for belief in the Real Presence is this: If one worshiped the Eucharist, would it be idolatry? If you think it is idolatry, you do not believe Christ is truly there on the altar.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
In worshipping the Eucharist, are you worshipping the accidents or the substance? The flesh of the Son of God is human flesh, as God has no flesh, which is why He became Man in the incarnation, to take on flesh, so you must be worshipping His human flesh. This gets into the doctrine of the incarnation in a way I haven’t worked through yet. Is worshipping His human flesh idolatrous?
A
Atreyu
Guest
No. If you think it is, then this is perilously close to Nestorianism.
By the way, when I was talking about “Eucharistic Adoration” above, I meant simply the practice of adoring the Eucharist at mass, before receiving it. This is required for Catholics today, and it seems it was required in Augustine’s time as well.
Where you say “the premise is false”, are you talking about Augustine’s premise, or a premise of mine? I can agree that Augustine’s premise (about worshipping God’s footstool) was wrong, but as has already been pointed out, what is important to note is how Augustine felt about the Real Presence. He advocated a necessity in adoring the Eucharist, which a Calvinist would find idolatrous.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
atreyu;/:
This statement is no more of a comment of the literal Eucharist belief of the RCC than when our Lord talks of it in the bible, Augistine used this phrase symbolically… Just as Christ did.I’ll concede your point concerning Augustine’s statement on the nature of the Eucharist in this passage - I missed this on the first reading.
I still don’t see Eucharistic Adoration in this passage, as I think the basic premise is faulty. Nor do you eat the host during Eucharistic Adoration, as far as I know. But it could be read into the passage and nothing excludes that.
I think Augustine was stretching things with the footstool image in this passage a bit too far, but that is beside the point.
A
Atreyu
Guest
Well, possibly. But note that Augustine says to worship this flesh; the flesh Jesus got from Mary. How could that statement fit in with a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Worship the one and only Lord Jesus our creator whom came in the flesh. Whom was born of Mary in the flesh.
Worship this flesh=worship our Lord and Saviour, whom gave himself in the flesh… He did it once for all Paid in full…
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I looked through some Calvin earlier tonight, trying to find out if he ever mention’s Augustine’s discussion on this Psalm. I found a number of quotes in Calvin pointing to Augustine weighing towards a symbolic Eucharist. In his Commentary on the Psalms, Calvin rejects Augustine’s argument concerning the footstool - but agrees that the footstool is the object of worship in the psalm, oddly enough. Calvin argues that the footstool is the Old Testament temple, now done away with, and that we are now to worship God directly through Christ. So he rejects an Eucharistic interpretation of the Psalm. Neither does he mention Augustine’s Eucharistic application of the psalm.
- Status