H
Hunho
Guest
Where in Augustine’s writings does your quote come from?
- Status
R
Radical
Guest
yes…I’ll give you links when I have time
Oh, we Calgarians don’t think that suggesting such is a valid argument…we think it is kinda amusing…(some of) those of the east think that b/c they “came first” theirs is the only valid vision for Canada and they have a hard time seeing any other view as valid or even possible (see the parallel between that and those who claim for themselves apostolic succession?)
well, b/c you have said:
1)he was asking them to believe something which violated deeply held Jewish taboos.
2)Yes, it would have been a taboo towards drinking blood and eating human flesh
#2 is the definition of cannibalism and yet, you would not say that what you do at the Eucharist amounts to cannibalism. Therefore, if #1 and #2 are correct, then Jesus can’t have been requiring his Jewish audience to do what you do at the Eucharist…and if that is the case, then he wasn’t teaching Orthodox doctrine.
you are right…it was at least 3rd …It went correct, gnostic and then “real” presence.
M
Mosacked
Guest
Workingman, if the Holy Communion alone dictates whether a man will be saved or not, then the people in Ethiopia would be in trouble. Cos they don’t even have water!..let alone a drink in a chalice. No food, talk about bread?
There are MANY sacraments that Jesus had said in relevance to Salvation. Eg. Baptism, Footwashing, Holy Communion etc.
But notice one thing in common? They ALL have something to do with being a part of Jesus. By themselves, each of these sacraments are ritualistic, symbolic and are insufficient in the attainment of Salvation. Did not even Jesus say “Depart from me, you evil do-er” when these people who even performed miracles in Jesus’ name wanted to go to Jesus?
Who is the Son of God and how do we know that these are Sons of God?
The ONLY evidence provided in the Bible is the Spirit that calls out Abba Father. Now, where is this Spirit? This is the most crucial question. According to the Bible, the Spirit guides us to God and is the essence of all these rituals. Without the spirit, its like having no licence but driving a car.
- A man can swim from mexico to Canada, sing the Canadian anthem and eat Canadian food, yet he remains mexican/spanish.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
And I suppose your denomination hold historic links to the “correct” (but somehow not Orthodox) way?
You affiliated with First Assembly by any chance?
W
workingman
Guest
Here is some of Augustine’s points on the Eucharist with some commentary.
St. Augustine (about 354-430 A.D.) is perhaps the greatest of the Early Church Fathers and is unfortunately often misunderstood for his discussion of sign and sacrament. The word “sacrament” for him does not mean precisely what it would in later theology, but it was a sign that contained a divine reality. The sign was visible (bread and wine) but the “reality” and the “power” of the sacrament were not. Commenting on John 6, he acknowledged that both Jews with their manna and Christians with the Eucharist had sacraments, although they were different in visible appearance or sign value. Thus, both represent Christ, but those who received the manna receive only a figure, while those who receive the Eucharist receive the Reality in truth. Hence, for Augustine sacrament is the term for “ the sign considered in itself.” But he testifies to the reality and power behind the sign telling the newly baptized:
St. Augustine also makes it clear that “. . . Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting us to his own Body, [for] he said: ‘This is my Body”[Mt. 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24]. Indeed he was carrying his own Body in his own hands.” St. Augustine also explains the reference in John 6 that Protestants love to bring up, namely, “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing” [Jn 6: 63]. The problem with their understanding is that they were thinking of flesh as when it is cut up in a meat market or cut from a corpse and not when it is animated by the spirit. To say that the “flesh profits nothing” he says, is the equivalent of saying “knowledge puffs one up.”
Thus, the Holy Spirit when joined to the flesh profits much!
source catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist2a.htm
St. Augustine (about 354-430 A.D.) is perhaps the greatest of the Early Church Fathers and is unfortunately often misunderstood for his discussion of sign and sacrament. The word “sacrament” for him does not mean precisely what it would in later theology, but it was a sign that contained a divine reality. The sign was visible (bread and wine) but the “reality” and the “power” of the sacrament were not. Commenting on John 6, he acknowledged that both Jews with their manna and Christians with the Eucharist had sacraments, although they were different in visible appearance or sign value. Thus, both represent Christ, but those who received the manna receive only a figure, while those who receive the Eucharist receive the Reality in truth. Hence, for Augustine sacrament is the term for “ the sign considered in itself.” But he testifies to the reality and power behind the sign telling the newly baptized:
Code:
... I promised you who have been baptized a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now behold and which you became partakers of last night. You should understand what you have received, what you will receive, indeed what you should receive daily. The bread you see on the altar and that has been sanctified by the word of God is the Body of Christ. Through these things the Lord Christ wished to entrust to us his Body and his Blood which he shed for us unto the remission of sins. If you receive them well, you are that which you receive. The Apostle says, ‘One bread and we, the many, are one body.’ [1 Cor 10: 17]
Code:
On that account are we supposed to hate knowledge? Far from it. Then what does it mean to say “knowledge puffs one up’? It does that when it is alone, without charity. And so it is added, ‘charity indeed edifies.’ Therefore add charity to knowledge and knowledge is useful, but not of itself but through charity. And so in this case where it is said, ‘Flesh profits nothing’. It refers to flesh by itself. Let spirit be added to flesh–as charity is added to knowledge–and the flesh profits very much. For, if flesh profited nothing, the Word would not have become Flesh so that he might dwell among us. If Christ has been such profit to us through the flesh, how is it that flesh profits nothing? Rather, through the Flesh the Spirit has acted for our salvation.
Code:
There have always been a plurality of legitimate approaches to Eucharistic theology. This was true with the Fathers and in the Middle Ages. Yet the Church has never sought to soften the shock value of Jesus’ words at the synagogue at Capernaum given to us in John 6. It was too much for most of his disciples who abandoned him as thoughts of Ezekiel 39: 17-19 came to mind, wherein it notes, “You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of princes of the earth as if they were rams ...
R
Radical
Guest
It is from On Christian Doctrine. If you want to read a full discussion on that bit (and most of the bits that Randy Carson pasted) go here . The thing is, and I get to this on the last page of that thread, scholars who actually study Augustine in depth (for the purpose of producing a biography) will come away with this sort of conclusion with respect to Augustine:
**“It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.” **
M
Mosacked
Guest
You can imagine it is transformed into the flesh of Christ, you can imagine it is tranformed into anything. But what’s the point? Haven’t we outgrown our age of imagination yet?
R
Radical
Guest
bingo
yes, in exactly the same way that I am affiliated with Catholics and Orthodox…we are brothers in Christ…notwithstanding that each think that they possess the the greatest understanding of Christ and his will…for the record I am an anabaptist
W
workingman
Guest
You are correct the Holy Eucharist alone does not dictate weather a man will be saved and that was not the intent of what I meant. I was trying to illistrate the true presence.
Water and food in Ethiopia
Seven sacraments to be exact. Foot washing
TryBaptism,Eucharist,Reconciliation,Confirmation,Marriage,Holy Orders,Anointing of the Sick
None of the sacraments are symbolic or ritualistic only. They were all instituted by Christ and point to him though.
There is only one Son of God. The Trinity is another thread if that is going to be a issue,
ummmmmmmmmmm yep
W
workingman
Guest
OK so what is the point of you on this thread if you just do not care and want to call it imagination?
M
Mosacked
Guest
The point is this. Since we all know the sacrament themselves do not save you, why argue if the sacraments should be imagined this way or that? Does it mean that if I imagine my baptizer to be my neighbor instead of my priest my baptism is of no avail?
Please.
Let’s just take it the way Jesus says it. In rememberance of Him sacrificing Himself for us and giving His body & blood for our salvation. Let’s not over-complicate things.
I’m very sure on the day of redemption, Jesus is NOT going to ask you…“So, did you imagine the bread to be my body or just a biscuit”?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Good thing you realized it was the original way by the 16th century. Gone on much longer and such claims would risk ridicule!
Good to know.
W
whatistruth
Guest
Please, for the state of our souls NEVER compare the “Spirit” as a symbol or metaphor. How do protestants answer to Saints like St Catherine of Siena that discontinued ingesting any food or water for most of her last years and the only food she ingested was the Eucharist? Judas left Jesus over this teaching! how can we not understand this message. The Eucharist is what restores us to the likeness of God and gives us his divine wisdom and satan will do anything he can to prevent you from partaking from the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. This food is the food from the “Tree of Knowledge” we are suppose to eat. Do not let satan fool you as he did our original parents!
whatistruth
T
Techno2000
Guest
Jesus is saying you can’t understand this by using “HUMAN REASON” he is talking about something "SUPERNATURAL ".
R
Radical
Guest
what view isn’t open to ridicule? You accuse the symbolic view of being a “johnny-come-lately”…and may be inclined to ridicule it as such. On the other hand, claiming a “real presence” when everyone can see that no body is physically present is also something easy to ridicule. The old age of a ridiculous claim doesn’t make the claim any less ridiculous…but IMHO the only productive and enjoyable way to approach this matter is through an open and respectful discussion where one actually listens to what the other has to say (and I expect that you would agree with that and be inclined to approach it in that fashion)
BTW I assumed from your very first remark about being from the same city that you were from Calgary too…was I right?Good to know.
R
Radical
Guest
agreed…and as indicated, Augustine thought that manner was by sharing in the sufferings of our Lord, and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. So if you want to try and establish that Augustine held to a “real presence” then you would have to show that he got that view from somewhere other than John 6, b/c wrt the requirement of eating and drinking in that chapter, he clearly stated that it had a figurative meaning.
R
Radical
Guest
Randy, I have little use for this type of copy and paste job b/c the statements have been ripped out of context and don’t really reflect Augustine’s actual belief (which can be gathered from the surrounding text and related writings). If you want to discuss any of these quotes in detail so as to establish your assertion that they “strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist”, then I would invite you to pick what you believe are the strongest three, provide the full context of the quotes and I will be happy to provide my argument as to why the support is not as strong as you think.
Workingman, you are, of course invited to do the same thing…but if either of you want to do so, we should start a separate thread
W
whatistruth
Guest
Very good point we can not fully understand with human reasoning, it takes a leap of FAITH to believe. Judas left Jesus over this doctrine. How can you leave Jesus on such an important scripture chapter and doctrine for our salvation. Anyone leaving Jesus over this doctrine takes the chance of losing their salvation. Judas lost his over this belief on the doctrine of the Eucharist?
D
DavidMark
Guest
As a Methodist-Baha’i, I am touched by your sincerity, but I would refer you to the thread about 666 and my posts there:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5858728#post5858728
The passage in John vividly calls to my mind how visitors and pilgrims, whether they were princes or paupers, had first to see Bahá’u’lláh’s son 'Abdu’l-Bahá before they could meet Bahá’u’lláh. These travellers walked for hundreds of miles sometimes to visit a prisoner! Once they were refreshed with tea and cleaned up, and if they were sincere, they might obtain a precious interview with the Everlasting Father, the Holy One of Israel, Whose Advent co-incided with the return of the Jews from diaspora.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
To me this verse means two things: No one gets to God except through Christ
(actually, you get to Christ and that’s far enough! He is, to use a Qur’anic expression, the Tree beyond which there is no passing or Sidrat’ul-Muntahá);
and no one gets to the returned Christ in ‘the Glory of the Father’ (Baha’u’llah) except by Jesus. In other words, to accept Baha’u’llah, one must accept Christ, because they are rays of one Light. Can I hear Amen!
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Indeed you’re right, however doctrine can not change. Therefore we must accept as doctrine what was believed from the first, or we must throw out the faith as being taught by liers and scoundrals. If you have evidence that the doctrine of Real Presence was preceeded by a doctrine that it was symbolic, share it. Augustine doesn’t work since he is far too late. The gnostics themselves, we agree, were not the first. Indeed we have St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle proclaiming it to be truly his blood and truly his body. St. Irenaeus likewise, a disciple of St. Polycarp, a disciple of St. John the Apostle wrote on the subject as well. If it is heresy, then I suppose it is likely it came from St. John, one of the twelve, choosen by the Lord.
Born and raised.
- Status