Literal or Symbolic?...

[You]

Celiac wasn’t the issue for the reformers, it was the restriction of the cup, contrary to Christ’s words, “drink of this, all of you”. Their contention was the cup should not be restricted.

The result is people licking the floor. Christ is fully in both. If you receive one or both you receive Christ. If you destroy His Church because you cannot understand that, then I don’t know why you would do that.

Lutherans, too, generally use unleavened wheat bread. My question is why does Rome accept Orthodox sacrament if they do not use unleavened?

Have you asked Rome? What do they say?
Yeast is in the air and on every surface including your skin. Yeast is not an evil substance. The intention is to use unleavened bread because that was what was used. If you ask me why does someone want to do it a different way than it was done at the last supper then I do not know why.

I am not sure of the relevence. Jon

The American Orthodox say they always used leavened bread. Non-Orthodox are not welcome to receive the Orthodox eucharist. ‘Rome’ accepts whatever they want to do.
‘Rome’ does use unleavened bread because that is what was eaten at the last supper. That was the bread Christ held in His hands and blessed.

 

[JonNC]

=You;8424026]The result is people licking the floor. Christ is fully in both. If you receive one or both you receive Christ. If you destroy His Church because you cannot understand that, then I don’t know why you would do that.

Of course Christ is in both, but Christ gave both.

Have you asked Rome? What do they say?
Yeast is in the air and on every surface including your skin. Yeast is not an evil substance. The intention is to use unleavened bread because that was what was used. If you ask me why does someone want to do it a different way than it was done at the last supper then I do not know why.

Cory told us what they say. The reason for using unleavened bread is because that is what Christ used. Correct. The reason for giving both kinds is because that is what Christ did.

The American Orthodox say they always used leavened bread. Non-Orthodox are not welcome to receive the Orthodox eucharist. ‘Rome’ accepts whatever they want to do.
‘Rome’ does use unleavened bread because that is what was eaten at the last supper. That was the bread Christ held in His hands and blessed.

Agreed. He used unleavened bread, and He used wine - and he gave both for them to eat and drink.

Jon

 

[You]

Of course Christ is in both, but Christ gave both.

Cory told us what they say. The reason for using unleavened bread is because that is what Christ used. Correct. The reason for giving both kinds is because that is what Christ did.

Agreed. He used unleavened bread, and He used wine - and he gave both for them to eat and drink.

Jon

And you can eat and drink if you need to. If you don’t need to then either or both are the same, they are both fully Christ.
If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

 

[JonNC]

And you can eat and drink if you need to. If you don’t need to then either or both are the same, they are both fully Christ.
If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
He that eateth my flesh, **and **drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Indeed true.

Jon

 

[You]

Indeed true.

Jon

If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever;

Indeed, its true.

 

[wmscott]

Howdy .The proof is in the pudding . Actually we have evidences, not proofs.You beautifully, as do others , speak of the Eucharist experience.You also make the symbolic communion seem trite in comparison, which is understandable from your point of view. It is just that I have seen almost no difference in the participants spiritual demeanor based on RP or symbolic communion. If indeed symbolic communion is so lacking , why is it that episcopals or lutherans or baptists seem to walk the walk as well, (or not so well ), as any RP participant ? The difference should be night and day shouldn’t it ? After all, non-RPers do not have eternal life, and in CC fashion, are anathema. Yet they seem to love Jesus as Lord and Savior equal to the non-anathemized. Again, these are not proofs, merely evidences, that unfortunately can be easily dismissed/rebutted. Back to square one, right ?

So by this logic you are saying that someone who has actually received the “RP” should be all glowing with rainbows and rolling around on the floor so to speak. you are looking with human eyes and judging Gods work. we cant see into the soul of one who has received the Most Holy Eucharist and determine the effects. that is between God and the recipient. how dare we judge. remember we approach God a sinner and will always be a sinner, no night and day as you would have it.

 

[david_ruiz]

So by this logic you are saying that someone who has actually received the “RP” should be all glowing with rainbows and rolling around on the floor so to speak.

No, that is for charismatics, or for people who get an extra dose of the Holy Spirit ( I am partially kidding, partially). Actually, I never meant it the way you put it. I said there doesn’t seem to be an effectual difference in the two communions . Are there more corporal works ? Are there more fruits of the Spirit ? Do they all leave church the same, some going to eat, some for a smoke, some to meditate etc. ? Whatever we do, could you tell which ones have Christ fullness, body, blood, soul, and divinity, flowing thru them ? Do they speak differently, “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”

you are looking with human eyes and judging Gods work. we cant see into the soul of one who has received the Most Holy Eucharist and determine the effects. that is between God and the recipient.

I understand, but Jesus did say there should be outward signs/fruits that we are His, and He is ours .For instance, how is our love towards the brethren ? Are we living holy lives ? Do we cuss, lie ,steal ? These things are visible .I understand some things are personal /internal in the spiritual realm, but what is inside eventually is manifest on the outside, all judging aside.How does RP or non-RP effect this ? I did state we are all sinners as you do .The question is what is the value of our communion dogma ? Catholics are the ones saying we are missing out, even anathemized, but can you quantify that ? Is it visible finally on the outside ? ,

no night and day as you would have it

. I am not night and day, “either/or” here .I do not anathemize you for being “night/or”. I am not saying there is a difference in our demeanor after Church/communion because of dogma. How is challenging you to show in substance how we are worse off for symbolic communion (except for final judgement) “night and day” ?

 

[benedictus2]

Oh please, it is said He does not enter (tabernacle) in a place made of hands. God is everywhere and can use all material, things, including people, to mirror himself, to reveal himself . Things are just things, and people just people, but it is by His spirit that He quickens His Word to bring forth new life.

You are losing it David. You are beginning to argue against yourself and you did that in a matter of 3 sentences.

First you said Christ does not tabernacle in things man made. Then you say God is everywhere and can use even in material things.

Secondly, your first statement seems to imply that God tabernacles only in people, then in the third sentence you say people are just people so by inference are not worthy of being tabernacled in by God.

And thirdly, if Christ did not tabernacle in a place made of hands, where do you think he lived when He still walked the earth? In a cave?

Shall I venerate a closet, a sofa, tv, radio, street corner, a pulpit, a statue,

Now here you are being incredibly silly and irrational. I suspect you know it too but wrote it anyway because you have run out of arguments.

a communion element ?

So the Body and Blood of Christ (the Body that died on the cross for your sins and the Blood that was shed on the cross for your sins) is just a communion element?

No wonder you agree with Radical that a church is nothing more than a restaurant.

Although I must agree with you too. In your church, the bread is nothing more than bread. So yes, in your church it is only a communion element. It would indeed be idolatry if you bowed and prayed to it. So very sensible that you don’t.

So I stand corrected, Radical is correct, your church is really just a restaurant - just a place where people gather for a meal and some preaching on the side.
Nothing more .

Even Peter said I am just a man as yourself , but it is the (spiritual) Christ that has healed you… I have also heard it is what happens when you leave the building that is telling. I have proposed that there is no difference in those leaving a building and a building still containing the body of Christ, that is attributable to RP dogma.

When you gather for worship, God is there among you as He promised. But once you are no longer there, that’s it.

Whereas with us, even if there is no one else in the Church, so long as the Eucharist is there, it remains Church because the Head of the Church is there. That you don’t believe it makes no difference to the fact that it is true as many Protestants have found out to their immense joy.

I have a Protestant friend who told me about this Church (not knowing that this is the Church I go to) and how he likes sitting there just at the back because according to him “there is a Presence there”, you can feel it.

There was a Lutheran who converted to the faith and he recounts of how he once stumbled across Eucharistic Adoration not knowing what it was. He and a friend just saw people kneeling, deep in prayer and he said that the moment he opened the door, he was struck by this palpable and overwhelmingh sense of God’s presence. It was just so strong and it seemed to be coming from the altar but he had no idea why. He had a friend with him when this happened and as they left, he asked his friend if she felt it too and she said yes, it was incredible. It was only later on that they came to know what it was. That was what sealed the deal for him to convert.

 

[david_ruiz]

Apology accepted.

So you do understand, then, that a marriage can be imperfect yet still be LICIT, yes?

And imperfect marriages, while imperfect, are still marriages. And no one can divorce his wife over this.

ILLICIT marriages are, well, not marriages. That’s why they can be declared to be NULLIFIED.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what these “flaws that were discussed” were. And why you see them as "basic imperfections.

The important point, I think, is that one ought take very, very seriously any vow one makes before God, in His Church, about a promise to love another person fully.

If he did this before God, then, well, it ought to be considered permanent (until death, of course) unless proven otherwise.

See this thread for a discussion on the Greek word translated “adultery”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583878

Thank-you .I read thread # 15 which seems is what the radio priest was driving at :A person may be psychologically impaired at time of vow. Maybe the thread says what I was thinking too.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

why not just refer to the explanation that Augustine provided regarding what it was to eat figuratively?

You mean the one from OCD? This one here?

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.

Do you really think that Augustine is talking about something other than the Eucharist there? Are you aware that when one reads this in Latin, the Eucharistic language is striking? In English, you see the word “should have a share…” but in Latin, the word share is :communicandem" which means “communion”. So a more literal translation would be “we should have a communion in the sufferings of our Lord…”

Also, take a look at the word “memory”. With no pun intended, what does the word memory remind you of? Perhaps, “Do this in MEMORY of me”? The so called “figurative” language that “kills” (as you put it in our previous discussion) my arguments seems to “kill” yours because it is talking about the Eucharist.

I gave you about 10-15 posts (which I am sure you love ) of how John 6 (which is what Augustine is quoting here to talk about the above quote) is about the Eucharist. You counter with this OCD III passage as if it is the final authority of Augustine’s John 6 interpretation. You are convinced that there is nothing Eucharistic about it.

In fact, I am not sure if you are aware of the context of the passage that I presented here in this thread. I did not quote the beginning of it because I didn’t want your biased interpretation. I knew that if I had quoted the beginning of the exposition on the psalms (98/99), you would have dodged a Eucharistic context. I will show you how you dodged a Eucharistic context in the previous thread and all of a sudden here, you admit that there is a Eucharistic meaning to Augustine’s words. Just this time, you say that it doesn’t prove a RBP. Granted, it doesn’t. From what I showed, it doesn’t prove a RBP. But I didn’t show the whole thing. When I show the context, you will see how you just basically shot yourself in the foot by admitting there is a Eucharistic meaning to the passage. Please note that I am not talking about the passage from OCD III but the passage from the Exposition on the Psalms 98/99. It is where I asked you the following:

Before I post a reply, I would like to ask you to be more specific here, please. Not according to you and me, but according to Augustine in this context, what sacrament is the visible celebration of the cross?

I’ll wait for your response then reply accordingly.

and you answered:

Wouldn’t the answer be the same for all three of us? The Lord’s Supper is the visible celebration of what Christ achieved with his body for us on the cross. That is how I would answer for Augustine and me.

Please remember all this as we proceed. But first, let’s go back to OCD III. In our previous discussions, you kept clinging to the passage on OCD III to get the “final interpretation of what John 6 means according to Augustine.” It seemed like everything I showed Augustine connecting John 6 to the Eucharist, you would cling to the OCD III passage as if to say “John 6 isn’t only about the Eucharist for Augustine. As you see in OCD III, it is ‘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.’”

What you failed to do is you failed to continue reading OCD III. If you had continued reading, you would have arrived at Augustine saying the following:

In OCD 3, 27, 38, Augustine says:

**When, again, not some one interpretation, but two **or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth.

TWO or MORE, Radical. NOT just one where we are to cling to it every single time someone brings up another interpretation. I have shown in many instances where John 6 is referring to the Eucharist and you cling to the OCD III passage for some reason. Now if there are two or more possible interpretations for Scripture passages for Augustine, how do you suppose we can know what other interpretations are? Perhaps by reading more passages about John 6 from Augustine other than just the OCD III.

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

Perhaps now we can show the context of the Exposition on the Psalms passage. I am sure it’ll sound VERY familiar to you because you were fighting to disprove that there is any Eucharistic meaning behind such a passage:

Augustine in context:

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 eats that flesh, unless he has 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. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing.”…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. **Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood. **

As I recall, in our previous discussions, I kept trying to show you that the context of the “flesh that we eat” is about the Eucharist. You kept denying this. I even showed the context (as shows above) to show you that Augustine goes on to talk about the Eucharist and you still did not buy it. In fact, here is what **you **said:

Please note that according to Augustine, Peter savored the flesh of Christ right there and right then w/o any cannibalism or Eucharist involved…the eating is achieved by believing in Christ…and it seems to me that if Nicodemus would have answered correctly by recognizing Christ’s spiritual meaning, then Nicodemus would have eaten Christ’s flesh that day too (instead he only savored his own flesh). That is Augustine’s spiritual understanding of HOW Christ’s flesh is eaten…no need for the Sacrament of the Eucharist (it didn’t even exist when Peter first gnawed on Christ’s flesh)

That is what you said previously. What you said recently is that there is a Eucharistic context. So which one is it? Why did you change your answer? Did you answer the way you did the first time (no Eucharistic context) due to the fact that you saw the “worshipping the flesh that we eat”? Did you answer the second time that there is a Eucharistic context because I did not post the full context and therefore you didn’t see the whole “Worship the flesh that we eat”?

Do you remember how I posted so many posts trying to prove that Augustine had the Eucharist in mind when talking about the “Worship the flesh that we eat…” and you kept trying to prove that wrong? In fact, you clinged to OCD III again to show that “eating the flesh of Christ” does not always mean a Eucharistic context. So you were claiming that “worshipping the flesh that we eat” is properly understood in a non-Eucharistic context and more of an OCD III context. What you failed to realize are two things:

1.) OCD III DOES have a Eucharistic context when you read the Latin and not the modern English.
2.) Augustine says that there are two or more interpretations to Scripture passages. Since I have shown that “Eating flesh and drinking blood” of John 6 is about the Eucharist for Augustine, we can conclude that OCD III is not the final authority of Augustine’s interpretation of John 6.

IF you admit that OCD III is about the Eucharist, then you will also have to admit that “worshipping the flesh that we eat” is also about the Eucharist. IF you admit that there is a Eucharistic context in the Exposition on the Psalm, then you would have to admit that “Worship the flesh that we eat” is not only about the incarnation, but it is also about the Eucharist. Why? Because HE TALKS ABOUT EATING. If you’re going to quote the OCD III passage to disprove that “eating flesh” always means the Eucharist, then please refer to my above post. OCD III IS about the Eucharist…it’s just not the FULL understanding of Augustine’s John 6 interpretation. All he was doing in OCD III is telling us that we are not to take the John 6 passage LITERALLY to where we are to understand that Christ meant we were to chop off His flesh, cook it, and eat it. We were to understand it figuratively. Only figuratively? No. Augustine goes on to tell us that there are two or more ways to interpret one passage of Scripture.

 

[lyrikal]

yes, Augustine described their carnal understanding. When Augustine said we are not to understand the requirement to eat Christ’s flesh literally and were to understand it figuratively, he was speaking about how we (not the Jews in front of Jesus that day, but we - him, you and I) are to understand that requirement.

Really? Let’s take a look at what actually happened:

But He instructed them, and says unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

Where does it say what you are trying to make it say? No where. In fact, take a look at the quote from John 6:63. That implies that it is JESUS talking, not AUGUSTINE. Since Jesus is talking, the rest of it is still Jesus talking BUT in Augustine’s own words.

Do you think that it is Augustine telling his audience “I have commended unto you a certain mystery…”? Don’t you think it is Augustine putting words in Jesus’ mouth to clarify that Jesus is NOT talking about eating Him in a cannibalistic way? Do you understand Augustine being at the Last Supper, or Jesus? WHO commended unto us a certain mystery to be spiritually understood? Jesus or Augustine? If you want to make it seem as if that section is Augustine telling his audience that “you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth” then your context would suggest that it is Augustine who commended us a certain mystery, not Jesus.

What is clearly happening is that Augustine understands Jesus telling HIS (Jesus’ audience, the Jews) that they are NOT to understand the “eating of flesh and drinking of blood” in a cannibalistic way, but they are to understand it in a spiritual way. THEN, Augustine, puts words into Jesus’ mouth to clarify what Jesus meant. THAT PART is for Augustine’s audience as a WHOLE. WE too, are not to understand the words of Christ in a literal fashion (OCD III ) but we are to understand them in a SPIRITUAL fashion (the Eucharist).

In fact, just a couple of sentences prior to all of this, this is what Augustine says:

It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:” **they **received it foolishly, **they **thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and **they **said, “This is a hard saying.” It was **they **who were hard, not the saying; for unless **they **had been hard, and not meek, **they **would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein.

The whole “we are not to literally eat flesh” is the carnal understanding that THEY (the Jews) had and has NOTHING to do with denying that we eat the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. That is NOT what Augustine is saying here. It would surely be convenient for you for him to say such things but that’s not what he’s saying.

Again, you simply can’t let Augustine speak for himself. He said in that lesson:

…you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken…
but you want to make it read:
…you are not to eat this body which you see, but you will eat this very body that you see in a Eucharistic celebration (during which my body can’t be seen); nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. **except that you will drink exactly that blood in a Eucharistic celebration ** I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken…
You have got Augustine speaking out of both sides of his mouth at once.

Nope. I’m letting Augustine speak for himself. I am taking the context of the whole thing. You are ripping it out of context. See post above.

again, why not just refer to the explanation that Augustine provided regarding what it was to eat figuratively?

I do…but according to Augustine, there are two or more interpretations to Scripture. The Eucharist is another way we eat the flesh of Christ. See Exposition on the Psalms above and note the context is the Eucharist.

Continued…of course

 

[lyrikal]

I have never said that it was purely symbolic for Augustine
great, please be reminded that Augustine believed that Peter ate Christ’s flesh that day. Peter didn’t eat Christ’s flesh that day in the carnal fashion that Augustine described, nor in a literal fashion nor in a Eucharistic fashion…yet Peter savored the taste of Christ’s flesh that very day.

I love how you take Augustine’s words to be literal there. Have you not read Augustine’s writings? Don’t you notice how he uses language such as “Peter ate Christ’s flesh that day.”? Do you really think that Augustine literally thought this? If so, do you recall how I showed you that Augustine used the Church to describe the Resurrected Body of Christ? He called the Resurrected Body of Christ, the CHURCH. Do you somehow have Augustine denying the Resurrection of Christ because he used such symbolic language?

How about the time where he said that the Church (The Body of Christ) was nailed to the cross WITH Christ? Do you think Augustine was denying that it was only Christ that was on the cross? Do you really think he believed that we (the Church) were there on the cross with him?

How about the time where Augustine believed that when Christ was sweating blood in the garden, that the blood was the martyrs of the Church? Not only that, but that the blood that was coming from Christ was not coming from Christ, but from the BODY OF CHRIST (the Church). Therefore, the CHURCH (Body of Christ) was bleeding and that blood is the martyrs. Do you believe this literally? IF so, then you have Augustine denying the following:

1.) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
2.) Christ alone died on the cross for us
3.) Christ bled in the garden while he prayed

I doubt you would deny those. So pardon me as I deny the fact that Augustine believed that “Peter ate the flesh of Christ that day” is denying that we eat the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. It’s poetic language, Radical. Augustine thought that his audience would see that as something obvious…Especially since in the 5th century, they understood that eating the Body of Christ was done during the Eucharist just like they understood that Christ rose Bodily in the Resurrection, NOT the Church.

I love how you pick and choose what you want Augustine to mean by symbolic (the Church being the resurrected Body of Christ, Church being nailed to the cross, etc.) and what you want Augustine to mean by literal (denying the RBP of Christ because of the Peter quote).

What about me? How do I decide? Well, I take a look at history. The Christians believed that it was Christ who rose from the dead, not the Church, and I conclude that it Augustine must be speaking in poetic language. I also conclude that historically, in the 5th century, there was a somatic belief in the Eucharist for the Christians, therefore the Peter eating the flesh of Christ is symbolic language.

you must keep in mind that Augustine has Peter eating Christ’s flesh that very day…it can’t have been a Eucharistic/Last supper eating. It is belief in Christ for one’s eternal life. As Augustine said: “Believe, and you have eaten already.”

See above.

 

[lyrikal]

any way you want to dress it up…we still have Augustine saying that we don’t eat Christ’s body and we don’t drink his blood…which absolutely contradicts what you claim happens at your Eucharist.

Yes we do have Augustine saying this. Which means we are not to chop off Christ’s flesh, cook it up, and eat it. This has nothing to do with Augustine denying that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. Look at the context and see my posts above.

Again, if you don’t believe me, start a thread here declaring that “Catholics, at their Eucharist, do not drink the blood of Christ that was poured out at the cross” and see how that flies with the Catholics here.

You are more than welcomed to start such a thread. But I can care less what a Catholic layperson’s opinion is. If I quote you some Church authority saying that we Eat the RESURRECTED BODY OF CHRIST IN A SACRAMENTAL WAY, then who cares what some Catholics may believe? All that would mean is that they are misinformed.

Let’s take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1380):

1380 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; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us “to the end,” even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love

I never suggested that the Eucharist was taken lightly…

But you seem to downplay the importance of the Eucharist in the Early Church every chance you get. I even have you denying that the Eucharist is the source of unity. You say that Christ is the source of unity. Well, you’re absolutely right! Since the Eucharist IS Christ…

Also, I find it funny that you would deny that the Eucharist is the source of unity and you have Augustine talking about that in sermons 227 and 272. That’s just ironic to me.

I recall you pointing out that to Augustine, the sacraments of the Old Testament were similar to those in the New. You mentioned that they both point to Christ. Perhaps, you’re right, but they point to Christ in a different way.

Take a look at how Augustine puts it:

For if we distinguish between the two Testaments, Old and New, there are not the same Sacraments nor the same promises; nevertheless, the same commandments for the most part…When examined they are either all found to be the same, or there are scarce any in the Gospel which have not been spoken by the Prophets. The Commandments are the same, the Sacraments are not the same, the Promises are not the same. Let us see wherefore the commandments are the same; because according to these we ought to serve God. The Sacraments are not the same, for some Sacraments there are giving Salvation, others promising a Saviour. The Sacraments of the New Testament give Salvation, the Sacraments of the Old Testament did promise a Saviour.

Do you see the distinction? I recall a post where you made it seem like for Augustine, the sacraments in the NT were similar to the sacraments in the OT. You did that to show Augustine downplaying the importance of the NT sacraments. Perhaps you may have missed that part of Augustine’s writings? Please note that I am going off of memory here of what you claimed. If I have misrepresented your views on Augustine in this matter, then I apologize in advance.

It seems that you don’t understand my position. here are some bits from that other thread where I clarified a few things:

Perhaps, I can also quote what **you **said in the very beginning of our discussions regarding sermons 227 and 272:

…reading the whole sermon kinda calls into question the impression that is given from your little snippet. For Augustine the body of Christ was the Church…that is primarily how he used the “body of Christ” when speaking about the Eucharist. The Body of Christ (aka the Church) is on the altar, neither is really consumed and neither is bodily present

and…

look at his other sermons (see discussion of sermon 272 below) and you should realize that by “becomes the body of Christ” Augustine meant becomes the Church by way of similtude.

and…

In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ

1. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ

1. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

For Augustine, a real somatic presence is not involved. The Lord’s body involved in the Eucharist is not the one of flesh that walked about Palestine in the 1st century, but is instead, the other thing called the “body of Christ”, namely the Church/congregation. If there was any doubt in regard to this understanding, it should be removed by the second paragraph of the sermon where Augustine specifically asks “HOW” the bread can be Christ’s body?

 

[lyrikal]

and **YOU **also said:

Please note that Augustine’s answer to “HOW” has nothing to do with a real bodily presence. Please note that what is entirely absent from Augustine’s explanation of the “how” is anything about a conversion of the elements. Instead, the “how” for Augustine has to do with the similarity between bread (which is produced by many grains coming together) and the church (which is produced by many people coming together)

It seems that the idea of “Christ” being on the altar even “spiritually” was missing from your interpretation of Augustine’s sermons 227 and 272. It wasn’t until I gave my detailed interpretation of Augustine’s two sermons that you updated your view later on to:

…obviously, I wasn’t clear enough…like you, I see that Augustine focused primarily on the unity achieved by the Eucharist and so when that focus is in play, it is the Church that is on the altar. On the other hand, if it is the saving grace imparted by the Eucharist that Augustine has in mind, then it is the incarnated body of Christ that is on the altar. Neither, is on the altar by way of a substantiated presence. Both are on the altar through the bread that symbolizes those things…What is actually on the altar is bread and wine and grace and nothing else.

Let’s talk about this in more detail. In the two sermons, Augustine talks about the bread IS the Body of Christ and the wine IS the Blood of Christ. He goes on to explain “how” that is. His “how” as we both agree is figurative/symbolic and not to be taken literally. His “how” has Augustine believing that the Church is on the altar since the Church is the Body of Christ. I have shown that Augustine has called the Resurrected Body of Christ to be the Church. I have noted that, just because Augustine uses such symbolic language, doesn’t mean he is denying the literal BODILY RESURRECTION of Christ. The same way, I concluded, that just because Augustine is using such symbolic language as to refer to the bread as the ecclesial Body of Christ, doesn’t mean He is denying the ACTUAL Body of Christ in a more literal way.

I have shown how Augustine’s writings have two-fold meanings to them sometimes. He does this on purpose and does this a lot when talking about any form of the Body of Christ (whether the Eucharist, Resurrection of Christ, the Cross, etc.). The two-fold meaning is to emphasize unity using the language of the Body of Christ.

So in the two sermons, I concluded that the two fold meaning are:

1.) The ACTUAL Body of Christ (Jesus RBP).
2.) The Ecclesial Body of Christ (The Church).

How do I come up with this conclusion? Well, I take a look at what Augustine said. Let’s take the first claim (The ACTUAL Body of Christ) and see where we can find that in the sermons:

“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.”

Clearly we see, that when the bread and the wine are sanctified, they become the BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. No ifs, ands or buts. In fact, in another place (Sermon 229), Augustine says the following:

“…We come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word and it’s now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.” (sermon 229.3)

You see that Radical? Augustine doesn’t go on to explain in detail what you explained. Your interpretation of Augustine’s view of HOW Christ is on the altar is putting words into Augustine’s mouth. My interpretation is letting Augustine speak for himself. You have Augustine believing that on the altar, there is nothing but bread, wine, and grace. I see Augustine here saying that when the holy prayers are added, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Since he talks about “becomes” that means that there is a change to the material. If I say “That chair is going to become a table” then I am saying that the chair will no longer be a chair, but it will not BECOME a table. I will transform it into something else. So when the prayers are added to the bread and wine, they are no longer bread and wine, but they BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. What you are trying to make Augustine say is that there is nothing but bread, wine, and grace on the altar. Yet, Augustine says the Body and Blood of Christ are on the altar.

 

[lyrikal]

What about my second claim about Augustine’s belief in the Eucharist and what’s on the altar (The Ecclesial Body of Christ)? Where do I get that from? From here:

How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you….

Since we can quote Augustine talking about the Church is the Body of Christ that Resurrected (as opposed to the literal Body of Christ), we can conclude that he was speaking symbolically, not literally. Same thing here, Radical. This part is symbolic language which is to emphasize unity.

What I would like you to do is to tell me how **you **came up with this:

…obviously, I wasn’t clear enough…like you, I see that Augustine focused primarily on the unity achieved by the Eucharist and so when that focus is in play, it is the Church that is on the altar. On the other hand, if it is the saving grace imparted by the Eucharist that Augustine has in mind, then it is the incarnated body of Christ that is on the altar. Neither, is on the altar by way of a substantiated presence. Both are on the altar through the bread that symbolizes those things…What is actually on the altar is bread and wine and grace and nothing else.

by using sermons 227 and 272. Where does Augustine talk about the Body of Christ being present on the altar the same way you have him believing? Specifically this part where you say:

The bread can be called the body of Christ (meaning incarnated body) b/c it (after consecration and belief) possesses (some of?]) the saving and unifying grace possessed by the incarnated body.

Can you show me where Augustine says that “some of” the Body of Christ is on the altar? Can you show me where Augustine, in sermons 227, 272, and even 229, is saying what you are trying to make him say? You see, I did not put words in Augustine’s mouth. He said it IS the Body of Christ and IS the Blood of Christ, and I left it at that. You seem to be doing gymnastics around the two sermons to make it say what you’re trying to make it say.

I do recall you saying that the two-fold understanding of the two sermons are:

1.) The Church is on the altar
2.) Bread and wine are on the altar

You seem to have added a 3rd part to it:

3.) “Some of?” the Body of Christ is on the altar

#1 is correct but it is symbolic language. #2 is incorrect because Augustine says that when the holy prayers are added, the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ. #3 is incorrect because Augustine NEVER says “some of” the Body of Christ is on the altar. Rather, he says the bread BECOMES the BODY OF CHRIST (he doesn’t use the words “some of”, therefore, I am forced to conclude that the WHOLE BODY is there on the altar). Any other meaning is adding to Augustine’s words.

Do you recall when I quoted these sermons and **you **said the following?:

why not…and I’ll tell you why your snippets don’t impress me much

and

have you read the rest of Sermon 227? Here is some more of it for you:

and

…reading the whole sermon kinda calls into question the impression that is given from your little snippet.

Do you recall those? You accused me of taking the sermons out of context. I believe that it is YOU who has taken the sermons out of context. You are the one who has taken the “how” of Augustine out of context, not us Catholics. So next time someone wants a passage of Augustine believing in the RBP, I am going to quote those sermons for them. Not only those sermons, but every single passage that I quoted from Augustine in the beginning of our discussion in the Real Presence thread.

Grace and peace be with you.

 

[benedictus2]

What about my second claim about Augustine’s belief in the Eucharist and what’s on the altar (The Ecclesial Body of Christ)? Where do I get that from? From here:

v
v
v
Do you recall those? You accused me of taking the sermons out of context. I believe that it is YOU who has taken the sermons out of context. You are the one who has taken the “how” of Augustine out of context, not us Catholics. So next time someone wants a passage of Augustine believing in the RBP, I am going to quote those sermons for them. Not only those sermons, but every single passage that I quoted from Augustine in the beginning of our discussion in the Real Presence thread.

Grace and peace be with you.

I am about to go into the land of Nod but I thought I would just say you are doing a wonderful job. And so young too. May God continue to guide you.

(Maybe you’ll discern the priesthood at a later date )

 

[david_ruiz]

The very Teaching in Grade School by Catholic Church Is that the Consecrated Bread Wine are The Real Presence Christ, retaining the Appearance of Bread/Wine also, David. It’s not an easy concept to grasp, even now that I’m an adult. But I’ve seen the Evidence at Every Communion, and the Results, and the Eucharistic impossible Miracles. And I don’t doubt Anything Christ Said! :tsktsk:

Thank-you .It is not the concept I don’t understand .It is understood, both as when I was a Cathoilc and now . It has been very well explained here on CAF. And I am sure there are “signs” of it’s effectualness. What I have been asking, which has been partially answered and partially ignored, is that there are “signs” and effectualness equaly when it is symbolic AND there seems to be no difference in a Catholics spiritual life and a non-RPer’s spiitual life, that can be attributed to communion doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

AND there seems to be no difference in a Catholics spiritual life and a non-RPer’s spiitual life, that can be attributed to communion doctrine.

I really wish to avoid a “my people are holier than your people” debate, but, really, there are no non-RPers who are comparable to these Catholic folks: Theresa of Calcutta, Maximilian Kolbe, Francis of Assisi, Paul of Tarsus, etc etc etc when it comes an elevated “spiritual life.”

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Shameless Popery has a nice recent blog post about this subject.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/dog-that-didnt-bark-eucharistic.html