For the Scripture Only folk

[babylonsfalling]

What Scripture tells us in the plain sense of the text that the bread & and wine are only symbolic of Christ’s flesh and blood?

 

[Kay_Cee]

What Scripture tells us in the plain sense of the text that the bread & and wine are only symbolic of Christ’s flesh and blood?

Well, that’s a good question.

Going by my own past experience, I predict you will get at least one of the following in response:

1. An ad hominen attack on either you or the Church
2. An attempt to shift the burden of proof onto you, even though you are asking others for proof of their position (BTW, don’t fall for that)
3. The quotation of a scripture verse that says absolutely nothing about bread and wine and therefore does not fulfill your requirement for a text that speaks about that plainly
4. A claim that you just don’t understand *sola scriptura, *even though your thread title should make it clear to everyone that you are asking “scripture only folk”
5. An attempt to change the subject

It’ll be interesting to see how this thread plays out.

 

[Redratfish]

What Scripture tells us in the plain sense of the text that the bread & and wine are only symbolic of Christ’s flesh and blood?

Im guessing you’ll get the “Do this in MEMORY of me” quoted

 

[Rogare]

I’ll bite.

John 6:

Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” (v. 32-34)

Jesus IS the Bread that came down from Heaven. Tell me, did Jesus bring flesh with Him to Earth? No, he was born into flesh. So Jesus’ flesh and blood did not come down from Heaven, His Person (second member of the Trinity) came down from Heaven. The Word did not exist as flesh, He became flesh (John 1:14). The flesh did not come down from heaven.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (v.35)

Right away Jesus defines His own terms: eating = coming to Him, drinking = believing in Him. If we keep this definition of terms in mind, the rest of the conversation is understood properly. He is speaking of eating and drinking spiritually, not carnally (which is why he later says the flesh is of no avail).

In fact, this is supported by Augustine:

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (Tractate 26; link)

All this that the Lord spoke concerning His flesh and blood;—and in the grace of that distribution He promised us eternal life, and that He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them; and that they understood not who believed not; and that they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense (Tractate 27; link

So this is no novel interpretation by Protestants, but one originated by Augustine.

But if we take this literally (as Catholic apologists are sure to stress), then nobody should ever hunger or thirst again. Tell me, do you find yourself hungering and thirsting between one Mass to the next? Surely this violates the literal promise of Christ.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. (v. 47)

Here again, believing on Christ gains one eternal life. This would be the same as coming to Christ according to v. 35 and Augustine.

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. (v. 48-51)

So if we once again take this literally, here is another promise that those who partake of the Eucharist will never die. Now is this as literal as the rest of your understanding of the Eucharistic discourse in John 6? I hope not, as I can point you to the graves of many dead Catholics. Well, what if we back of the literalness just a little bit and say Jesus was speaking of eternal life in Heaven. Well, how many Catholics have partaken of the Eucharist week after week, maybe even daily, but perhaps died in mortal sin. Once again, if you take this literally, and at face value, you run into problems. There are both physically and spiritually dead Catholics from all ages who have partaken of the Eucharist and didn’t receive the promises of Christ.

Furthermore, Christ says that he will literally give the bread, not a priest. He is the bread of life. He did not say Earthly bread would become Him.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (v 52-58)

If you refer above to Jesus’ own definition of eating his flesh and drinking his blood that I pointed out in v. 35, there is no difficulty here. For the literalists, does Jesus literally abide within you and you literally abide in Him? Or is this to be understood Spiritually like the rest of the discourse? Once again, how many Catholics have failed to live forever (physically or spiritually) that have partaken of the Eucharist?

 

[Rogare]

[Cont.]

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. (v. 60-71)

Notice Peter’s response: you have the WORDS of eternal life, not the literal flesh and blood of eternal life. Jesus wanted the disciples to think in Spiritual terms (which Peter did) not in fleshly/carnal terms.

I’ll let Augustine back me up on this one as well:

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” What means “are spirit and life”? They are to be understood spiritually. Have you understood spiritually? “They are spirit and life.” Have you understood carnally? So also “are they spirit and life,” but are not so to you (Tractate 27).

In sum, we have v. 35 in which Jesus defines what eating His flesh and drinking His blood are:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

Augustine understood this in the same way.

There are also other Spiritual parallels:

For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. (v. 40)

Parallel:

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (v. 54)

As well as:

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. (v. 47)

Parallel:

This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever. (v. 48)

Hopefully I’ve shown that the bread and wine can’t literally be the flesh and blood of Jesus, but should be understood in a spiritual manner.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Because I dislike quotes out of context, here is paragraph 5 from tractate 27:

1. What is it, then, that He adds? “It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing.” Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him?” Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means “the flesh profits nothing”? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that “the flesh profits nothing,” in the same manner as it is said that “knowledge puffs up.” Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means “Knowledge puffs up”? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, “but charity edifies.” 1 Corinthians 8:1 Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, “the flesh profits nothing,” only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing,” as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

and here from tractate 26:

1. But where will this be? There better, there more truly, there more fully. For here we can more easily hunger than be satisfied, especially if we have good hope: for “Blessed,” says He, “are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness,” that is here; “for they shall be filled,” that is there. Therefore when He had said, “No man comes unto me except the Father that sent me draw him,” what did He subjoin? “And I will raise him up in the last day.” I render unto him what he loves, what he hopes for: he will see what, not as yet by seeing, he has believed; he shall eat that which he hungers after; he shall be filled with that which he thirsts after. Where? In the resurrection of the dead; for “I will raise him up on the last day.”

1. “I am,” says He, “the bread of life.” And what was the source of their pride? “Your fathers,” says He, “did eat manha in the wilderness, and are dead.” What is it whereof you are proud? “They ate manna, and are dead.” Why they ate and are dead? Because they believed that which they saw; what they saw not, they did not understand. Therefore were they “your” fathers, because you are like them. For so far, my brethren, as relates to this visible corporeal death, do not we too die who eat the bread that comes down from heaven? They died just as we shall die, so far, as I said, as relates to the visible and carnal death of this body. But so far as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle says, “Eats and drinks judgment to himself.” 1 Corinthians 11:29 For it was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar. Though your sins are daily, at least let them not be deadly. Before ye approach the altar, consider well what you are to say: “Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors.” Matthew 6:12 You forgive, it shall be forgiven you: approach in peace, it is bread, not poison. But see whether you forgive, for if you do not forgive, you lie, and lie to Him whom you can not deceive. You can lie to God, but you can not deceive God. He knows what you do. He sees you within, examines you within, inspects within, judges within, and within He either condemns or crowns. But the fathers of these Jews were evil fathers of evil sons, unbelieving fathers of unbelieving sons, murmuring fathers of murmurers. For in no other thing is that people said to have offended the Lord more than in murmuring against God. And for that reason, the Lord, willing to show those men to be the children of such murmurers, thus begins His address to them: “Why murmur ye among yourselves,” ye murmurers, children of murmurers? Your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; not because manna was an evil thing, but because they ate it in an evil manner.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

More from Augustine:

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this 'And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

Please do not ignore the rest of his works for the one or two sentences that, in isolation, appear to support your view. Should I apply that principle to scientific endeavors I could never arrive at a correct conclusion. A thing must be taken and understood in its entirety.

Hence the Catholic understanding of the Levitical prohibition against drinking blood, since blood is where the life resides, and Christ’s assertion that we MUST drink his blood to have his life within us. It is the thing (the Bible) in its entirety that must inform us of our life in Christ, not individual verses (despite the incredibly strong statements by Christ in John 6 regarding the Eucharist)

 

[elvisman]

[Cont.]

Notice Peter’s response: you have the WORDS of eternal life, not the literal flesh and blood of eternal life. Jesus wanted the disciples to think in Spiritual terms (which Peter did) not in fleshly/carnal terms.

I’ll let Augustine back me up on this one as well:
In sum, we have v. 35 in which Jesus defines what eating His flesh and drinking His blood are:

Augustine understood this in the same way.

There are also other Spiritual parallels:

For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. (v. 40)

Parallel:

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (v. 54)

As well as:

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. (v. 47)

Parallel:

This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever. (v. 48)

Hopefully I’ve shown that the bread and wine can’t literally be the flesh and blood of Jesus, but should be understood in a spiritual manner.

Yikes! Where to begin?

First of all, Jesus said, “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world” – where did he say, “This is the FLESH which comes down from heaven.” He didn’t say that.

**Your also have a flawed understanding of the Augustinian quotes you provided. I completely agree with Augustine but I believe you misunderstand what he said. In the quotes you provided, we read where Augustine was preaching about the spiritual effects of the Eucharist. He is NOT saying that this is the entire meaning of what Jesus said in John 6. Augustine ALSO said the following about the Real Presence:
“You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid. 272).

Like it or not, Augustine believed in the Real Presence as a Bishop of the Catholic Church. Protestants are fond of pointing to John 6:63 as “proof” that Jesus was speaking symbolically. This is yet another blunder and failure to understand the Scriptures. Jesus said:
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

He said this because the people did not understand what he was telling them. THIS is why they grumbled against him and walked away. To use this verse to try to prove that Jesus was speaking symbolically, you would have to accept the idea that Jesus’ flesh profits us nothing. NOTHING could be further from the truth as HIS flesh and blood on the cross profits us EVERYTHING.

In verse 65, Jesus says of those who were complaining:
“For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
If he was only speaking metaphorically, in verse 61, does Jesus explain what he REALLY meant? NO.
He turns to them and says, “Does this shock you?” Pretty harsh language for a guy who was only speaking symbolically . . .

The idea that Jesus was speaking symbolically IS a Protestant invention. When Jesus speaks of those who believe not hungering or thirsting – he is 100% correct. You HAVE to believe – SPIRITUALLY – to understand the Eucharist.

**Lastly – you say that Jesus himself would give us this bread – not a priest. This is one of the most incredible statements you have made. Are you saying that God cannot give something to his people THROUGH a human being? What about the Commandments? Were they NOT given to the Hebrews THROUGH Moses? The entire Law was given to the Jews THROUGH a man but it was FROM God. **

Jesus gave his Church full and supreme authority to act on his behalf on earth (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:15, John 20:21-23). God works his will THROUGH men and always has since the beginning of the world. Even His Son became a man so as to work his will.

 

[Rogare]

Because I dislike quotes out of context, here is paragraph 5 from tractate 27:

and here from tractate 26:

There is still nothing concerning transubstantiation in these passages.

 

[regression]

There is still nothing concerning transubstantiation in these passages.

I didn’t know we were talking about transubstantiation. Do you now believe Augustine believed in the real presence?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

A thing must be taken and understood in its entirety

Bravo.

The “flesh” that is of no avail in John 6 is not the flesh of Jesus, for it was His bodily death and resurrection that conquered sin for us!

 

[Rogare]

We can certainly sling Augustine quotes all day if you wish:

He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood. link

In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood. link

but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage. link

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. (Augustine - On Christian Doctrine, Book III)

 

[Rogare]

I didn’t know we were talking about transubstantiation. Do you now believe Augustine believed in the real presence?

I do believe in the real presence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that current Catholic understanding of the real presence require the doctrine of transubstantiation? I wasn’t attempting to shift the topics, but as far as my understanding, you can’t have the real presence w/out transubstantiation in Catholic doctrine. I don’t believe that Augustine had the same view of the real presence as Trent did, however.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

We can certainly sling Augustine quotes all day if you wish:

That’s not the point, the point is to take all of what he teaches in context. Verse vs. verse, quote vs. quote gets us nowhere.

 

[Rogare]

That’s not the point, the point is to take all of what he teaches in context. Verse vs. verse, quote vs. quote gets us nowhere.

I agree, friend; Fides and I just demonstrated that. Perhaps I was a bit too childish in attempting to rebut his inundation of Augustine quotes with the same tactic.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I agree, friend; Fides and I just demonstrated that. Perhaps I was a bit too childish in attempting to rebut his inundation of Augustine quotes with the same tactic.

Nah, its good. I was a bit over-exuberant in my response.

My understanding is that Augustine never touched on HOW Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, that he simply accepted it. It was the apparent use of Augustine, out of context, to support a protestant presumption of a symbolic eucharist, which is directly contrary to Augustine’s strongly held beliefs. I find it slightly funny that your quotes support the real presence when you first supported (or seemed to support) the protestant view.

 

[regression]

I do believe in the real presence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that current Catholic understanding of the real presence require the doctrine of transubstantiation? I wasn’t attempting to shift the topics, but as far as my understanding, you can’t have the real presence w/out transubstantiation in Catholic doctrine. I don’t believe that Augustine had the same view of the real presence as Trent did, however.

Yes, Catholics believe in both the real presence and transubstantiation. What do you believe the Council of Trent said about the real presence that is at odds with Augustine’s believe?

 

[elvisman]

I do believe in the real presence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that current Catholic understanding of the real presence require the doctrine of transubstantiation? I wasn’t attempting to shift the topics, but as far as my understanding, you can’t have the real presence w/out transubstantiation in Catholic doctrine. I don’t believe that Augustine had the same view of the real presence as Trent did, however.

**Your point is moot, in that, even if Augustine didn’t believe ni transubstantiation (which I believe he did), he is not an infallible source.

Also - would you care to address my rebutal in Post 8 of the points you made in Post 4 regarding what Jesus REALLY meant in John 6?