John 6:63-64

[Atisor207]

It is denial.

I was just reading the other day how early Christians used to have Eucharistic assemblies.

The evidence is so overwhelming that someone would have to be so much in denial to even refute it.

And to say that Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence is beyond nuts.

Well said. Don’t mind the ones who insult you. What you said made too much sense.

The liturgical form was commonly “the bishop, surrounded by presbyters (elders) facing the assembly, the Supper Table, on which the deacons placed the gifts (bread and wine) which were being offered, preaching, prayer, the anaphora (prayer before Communion) and the distribution of the Holy Gifts.”

A Jewish historian from the 1st century wrote that about the early Christians of his day. That is exactly what the Catholics do at mass today. These early Christian assemblies dating back to the first century have not changed and are still intact only in the Catholic Mass. The liturgy is also the same exact one.

I highly recommend you read Philo.

 

[anixx]

I think everybody needs to calm down a bit, for discussions have gotten really feisty.
Now, the real presence, as is John 6, is attested by history, also, and history doesn’t concern everyone.

 

[ezeekl]

Oh, I don’t doubt that Augustine believed differently than you and I on many matters. All I’m saying is that even Augustine took John 6 figuratively.

Look, the Catholic Church proclaimed Augustine to be a Doctor of the Church. That title is given to only a select few, a total of 35, in the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church. Do you really think that the Catholic Church will name someone as a Doctor of the Church if that person took John 6 figuratively? Do you really think that would happen??? That, my friend, has as much chance as the proverbial snowball in hell.

Now I can see why you and your denomination (and other denominations as well) want to take John 6 figuratively. It is because you deny church authority. You deny church authority to forgive sins in the name of God , you deny the church’s authority to define doctrine, you deny the church’s authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. You do this while casting a blind eye to an ongoing Church history of 2,000 years that in every century of its existence proclaims exactly what you deny. Now, I ask you, by what authority do you do that and don’t tell me the scriptures because that is so bogus that it is laughable. You, as well as I and everyone else on these boards, know that your “authority” is really your own personal opinion and nothing more. In an effrort to allow you to see your error about Austustine and John 6, here are some more quotes from Augustine on the subject of the real presence:

“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it” (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

You must have not read what I posted before in its entirety so I am once more reposting one quote:

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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.(ibid)

Notice the part I emboldened and underlined. Nobody in their right mind, after reading that can honestly say that Augustine took John 6 figuratively unless they were lying to themselves.

 

[dronald]

Look, the Catholic Church proclaimed Augustine to be a Doctor of the Church. That title is given to only a select few, a total of 35, in the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church. Do you really think that the Catholic Church will name someone as a Doctor of the Church if that person took John 6 figuratively? Do you really think that would happen??? That, my friend, has as much chance as the proverbial snowball in hell.

So if Augustine says plainly, “this is to be taken figuratively” you think he was just kidding?

Now I can see why you and your denomination (and other denominations as well) want to take John 6 figuratively. It is because you deny church authority. You deny church authority to forgive sins in the name of God , you deny the church’s authority to define doctrine, you deny the church’s authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the risen Lord. You do this while casting a blind eye to an ongoing Church history of 2,000 years that in every century of its existence proclaims exactly what you deny. Now, I ask you, by what authority do you do that and don’t tell me the scriptures because that is so bogus that it is laughable. You, as well as I and everyone else on these boards, know that your “authority” is really your own personal opinion and nothing more. In an effrort to allow you to see your error about Austustine and John 6, here are some more quotes from Augustine on the subject of the real presence:

I’m glad you could get that out of your system. None of the following quotations that you have are on John 6.

“For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it” (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

Ecclesiastes is not John 6.

You must have not read what I posted before in its entirety so I am once more reposting one quote:

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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]).

I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ.†2 That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.

So you believe that the Eucharist is actually us?

"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.(ibid)

Are you really just copying and pasting from catholic.com? Can I please get a better source.

Notice the part I emboldened and underlined. Nobody in their right mind, after reading that can honestly say that Augustine took John 6 figuratively unless they were lying to themselves.

Augustine must have been out of his mind then:

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. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Augustine - On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16.
Reply With Quote

 

[anixx]

So if Augustine says plainly, “this is to be taken figuratively” you think he was just kidding?

I’m glad you could get that out of your system. None of the following quotations that you have are on John 6.

Ecclesiastes is not John 6.

I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ.†2 That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.

So you believe that the Eucharist is actually us?

Are you really just copying and pasting from catholic.com? Can I please get a better source.

Augustine must have been out of his mind then:

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. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John*6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Augustine - On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16.
Reply With Quote

Are you implying that we weren’t saved?

 

[dronald]

Are you implying that we weren’t saved?

Again, I’m not sure where you’re getting these ideas from.

No, I’ve said nothing of the sort.

 

[anixx]

Again, I’m not sure where you’re getting these ideas from.

No, I’ve said nothing of the sort.

If the flesh is to no avail, then the flesh the Word took on was to no avail. His sufferings were to no avail, and his death was to no avail, since in all of this the flesh was involved. Neither was his resurrection. If the flesh is to no avail, why did God created it in the first place? The price of redemption was exactly the flesh, body and blood, that payed the price. I hardly would say that the flesh is to no avail. Then what did Jesus mean!? Hmm! :coffeeread:

 

[dronald]

If the flesh is to no avail, then the flesh the Word took on was to no avail. His sufferings were to no avail, and his death was to no avail, since in all of this the flesh was involved. Neither was his resurrection. If the flesh is to no avail, why did God created it in the first place? The price of redemption was exactly the flesh, body and blood, that payed the price. I hardly would say that the flesh is to no avail. Then what did Jesus mean!? Hmm! :coffeeread:

Again; I said nothing of that sort.

 

[anixx]

Again; I said nothing of that sort.

Then either you or St Augustine is in error. I doubt of the latter. Could you actually be misinterpreting Augustine!? Most likely. If Augustine knew and believed that the bread and wine are, on the altar, the body and blood of Christ, then certainly he didn’t took John 6 figuratively. Augustine is one of the brilliant minds of the west. Do you actually think that by pulling one sentence from him you got the bigger picture!?
When he means figuratively, he means that he didn’t actually pull a limb from himself and gave it to be eaten. And wouldn’t you say that the sufferings, the tortures of Christ, are, also, enjoying a crime or vice. Are we suppose to take that figuratively, too?

EDIT: Or when he announces his death on the Cross, for example. Is that figuratively?

 

[dronald]

Then either you or St Augustine is in error. I doubt of the latter. Could you actually be misinterpreting Augustine!? Most likely. If Augustine knew and believed that the bread and wine are, on the altar, the body and blood of Christ, then certainly he didn’t took John 6 figuratively. Augustine is one of the brilliant minds of the west. Do you actually think that by pulling one sentence from him you got the bigger picture!?
When he means figuratively, he means that he didn’t actually pull a limb from himself and gave it to be eaten. And wouldn’t you say that the sufferings, the tortures of Christ, are, also, enjoying a crime or vice. Are we suppose to take that figuratively, too?

EDIT: Or when he announces his death on the Cross, for example. Is that figuratively?

I’m saying that although he saw communion differently than myself due to other passages in the Bible; he took John figuratively.

So your contention is by “figuratively” Augustine means that it wasn’t time to eat Jesus right away? Evidence please.

 

[anixx]

I’m saying that although he saw communion differently than myself due to other passages in the Bible; he took John figuratively.

So your contention is by “figuratively” Augustine means that it wasn’t time to eat Jesus right away? Evidence please.

You do like to cherry-pick. Unless you see the bigger picture of Scripture you will never understand it. You devolved the entire discussion to a bickering of semantics.
You want evidence. John 6.

 

[dronald]

You do like to cherry-pick. Unless you see the bigger picture of Scripture you will never understand it. You devolved the entire discussion to a bickering of semantics.
You want evidence. John 6.

I’m actually discussing how Protestants can take John 6 figuratively by referring to the ECF’s who also took it figuratively.

Tertullian and Augustine couldn’t have been more clear on John 6. The reason I’m focusing on John 6 is because that’s what the OP asked for. If we wanted to make this a discussion on all the different beliefs of the Eucharist from the ECF’s I’m sure there can be a topic for it. It’s a tedious topic and one I don’t want to spend much time on; but John 6 and different interpretations is easy, seeing that the ECF’s saw it the same way I do.

 

[anixx]

I’m actually discussing how Protestants can take John 6 figuratively by referring to the ECF’s who also took it figuratively.

Tertullian and Augustine couldn’t have been more clear on John 6. The reason I’m focusing on John 6 is because that’s what the OP asked for. If we wanted to make this a discussion on all the different beliefs of the Eucharist from the ECF’s I’m sure there can be a topic for it. It’s a tedious topic and one I don’t want to spend much time on; but John 6 and different interpretations is easy, seeing that the ECF’s saw it the same way I do.

I’m unclear as to what ECF means. Can you clear that up for me?

 

[Milasol]

I’m actually discussing how Protestants can take John 6 figuratively by referring to the ECF’s who also took it figuratively.

ECF’s believed in figuratively??? Oh and Tertullian and St. Augustine were very clear on the real presence

I know you said you saw these, however did you actually see these?

THE DIDACHE

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

-Ch 14

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

**The list of how the Early Church Fathers believed in the real presence is overwhelming. I could go on and on and on **

 

[ezeekl]

I’ve read those before my friend. I appreciate you posting them and again they’ve been debated at length. But I just wanted to show what even Augustine and some ECF’s had to say about John 6 specifically. While beliefs differed on what communion meant (and they certainly did not all agree with the CC’s official definition) I have provided what the ECF’s said about John 6 specifically for the sake of this thread.

Apparently you can’t see the forest because of all the trees in your way. However, you have been shown repeatedly that your understanding of Augustine is a misunderstanding. When Augustine wrote:

"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]).

That is exactly what the Catholic Church taught then and today. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205"

“1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).”

"1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

Furthermore, and this has direct application to you, in 107 AD, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Sounds like Ignatius is referring to you

But even the scriptures are against you. You are not the only one who did not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. John 6 tells us that some of Jesus’ own disciples were divided and left Him. They said, “it was, a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Both the Eucharist and the cross are stumbling blocks. They are the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. Jesus asked His apostles, “Will you also go away?” By the immutable words of Holy Scripture, the Lord’s question echoes through the ages and is directed to you as a loving invitation to discover that only He has, as Peter said, “the words of eternal life” and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself." We Catholics stand with Peter on this.

 

[TimothyH]

Augustine was a student of Ambros. Ambros wrote the classic prayer before Mass…

May your body and blood,
which I intend to receive, although I am unworthy,
be for me the remission of my sins,
the washing away of my guilt,
the end of my evil thoughts,
and the rebirth of my better instincts.

Seems pretty clear to me.

-Tim-

 

[dronald]

John 6. I’m not discussing the last supper at this time. No one has even bothered to read my quotations.

 

[dronald]

:

Sounds like Ignatius is referring to you

But even the scriptures are against you. You are not the only one who did not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. John 6 tells us that some of Jesus’ own disciples were divided and left Him. They said, “it was, a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Both the Eucharist and the cross are stumbling blocks. They are the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. Jesus asked His apostles, “Will you also go away?” By the immutable words of Holy Scripture, the Lord’s question echoes through the ages and is directed to you as a loving invitation to discover that only He has, as Peter said, “the words of eternal life” and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself." We Catholics stand with Peter on this.

Ignatius was referring to those who didn’t believe a real, true, physical Jesus was crucified.

 

[anixx]

John 6. I’m not discussing the last supper at this time. No one has even bothered to read my quotations.

Actually, we have, trust me. In much detail. But you cannot talk about John 6 and not talk about the Last Supper and the Eucharist. That’s pulling a quote out of context, which you love to do so much, and thus misinterpreting it. I believe all that the Bible teaches, and follow it, but I do not accept your personal interpretation of it. Why don’t you get your own book and gives as back the Scriptures, and st Augustine, for that matter. Scripture and all the saints are Catholic.
While you may not like it, the sheer amount of evidence is quite against your view of John 6.
John 6 is an announcement of the Last Supper, the Passions and the Crucifixion.

 

[dronald]

Actually, we have, trust me. In much detail. But you cannot talk about John 6 and not talk about the Last Supper and the Eucharist. That’s pulling a quote out of context, which you love to do so much, and thus misinterpreting it. I believe all that the Bible teaches, and follow it, but I do not accept your personal interpretation of it. Why don’t you get your own book and gives as back the Scriptures, and st Augustine, for that matter. Scripture and all the saints are Catholic.
While you may not like it, the sheer amount of evidence is quite against your view of John 6.
John 6 is an announcement of the Last Supper, the Passions and the Crucifixion.

All you say is ironic considering you haven’t quoted the words of Augustine and Tertullian that I have and explained them.