Literal or Symbolic?...

[Radical]

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.

that sounds right.

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

yep, and that point of mine cannot possibly be refuted by you…According to Augustine, Peter ate Christ’s flesh that day and no Eucharist existed at the time. As such, there is no way around the fact that the Eucharist is not necessary for the eating of Christ’s flesh to be achieved…the Eucharist is one way one can eat Christ’s flesh/retain a memory of the cross, but it is far from being the only way…and the eating doesn’t involve transubstantiated flesh…

That is what you said previously. What you said recently is that there is a Eucharistic context. So which one is it?

It is just as I said before. There is no need for the Sacrament of the Eucharist for one to be able to eat Christ’s flesh. This is an absolute no-brainer. If Peter could eat Christ’s flesh that day when no Eucharist existed, then it irrefutably follows that the Eucharist is not needed for the eating of Christ’s flesh. Here is also what I said before:
I don’t see where you have ever managed to show where Augustine, in that passage connected the flesh that we eat for our salvation to the Eucharist (it seems to me that such is a presumption that comes from your inclination at the cost of ignoring what Augustine identified as HOW that flesh is eaten).
…and I still stand by that statement. In that passage Augustine specifically stated (in absolute contrast to what you claim happens at your Eucharist) that we don’t eat Christ’s body, nor do we drink his blood which is poured out at the cross. At the Lord’s Supper we celebrate what Christ achieved at the cross, but that is the celebration, but not the eating (in and of itself). Note how Augustine contrasts the celebration with the spiritual understanding. Although we must celebrate Christ’s work on the cross in a ritual, the eating of Christ’s flesh is achieved by way of a spiritual understanding. It is the spiritual understanding that achieves the eating, whether that spiritual understanding occurs at a Eucharist or somewhere else (as with Peter). That again, is why Augustine repeatedly said things such as “To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already”.

 

[Radical]

…continuing

Let’s also remember that “footstool passage” is one of your “go to” passages. Your argument can be summarized as:
Augustine said we could not eat Christ’s flesh [at the Eucharist] as commanded, unless we first worshipped that flesh [by worshipping the Eucharistic elements]. Therefore, a RBP is needed for the Eucharist, otherwise Augustine would be advocating idolatry.
The things in the brackets weren’t said by Augustine and are your additions. You feel justified in adding those phrases b/c the passage mentions the celebration of Christ’s work on the cross. Yes, the Lord’s Supper is the ritual by which we celebrate Christ’s work on the cross, but that doesn’t make: 1) the Eucharist the only way in which one eats the flesh; or 2) the Eucharistic elements the object to which the worship is directed. W/o both 1 and 2 your case isn’t made and the stuff in the brackets remain your questionable assumptions. It is very possible to understand it this way:
Augustine said we could not eat Christ’s flesh [in a variety of ways including the Eucharist] as commanded, unless we first worshipped that flesh [which was sacrificed on the cross]. Therefore, this passage in no way establishes that a RBP is needed for the Eucharist in order to avoid having Augustine advocate idolatry.
…or paraphrased, it becomes:
Augustine said we could not believe in Christ as required for our salvation, unless we first adored the work done by that flesh on the cross. Although, we celebrate the work of that flesh at a visible ritual, the key to our salvation is a spiritual understanding and an acceptance of what that work achieved.

While I am at it, here again, is another passage from Augustine:
This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 18)
There again, Augustine contrasted the visible eating (the visible celebration) with the spiritual eating. Belief is what achieves the spiritual eating and that eating by way of belief is something that can be done apart from the Eucharist…which is why Peter could eat Christ’s flesh w/o a Eucharist and why Nicodemus would have eaten Christ’s flesh (when Christ went to his house) if he had only understood and believed Christ’s words in a spiritual fashion.

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.

a couple of words in common does not establish a “Eucharistic context”. In OCD III, Augustine speciifes that the eating is to be understood figuratively…and so, whatever eating is involved, must be of a figurative form. Say what you will, but the CC does not claim that its transubstantial mode of eating is figurative in nature. It claims that Christ flesh is truly present and is truly eaten b/c the substance of the bread is replaced by the substance of the body…that simply isn’t figurative.

 

[Radical]

…continuing

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.

I don’t believe that I responded in detail to your analysis of John 6…Augustine most certainly connects John’s eating of flesh with the Eucharist, but you should also note what Augustine said about the manner of eating (In Tractate 26 & 27…with my comments, at times, following in bold):

For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. (c. 1)** eating is achieved figuratively through belief **

For what does the soul more strongly desire than the truth? For what ought it to have a greedy appetite, with which to wish that there may be within a healthy palate for judging the things that are true, unless it be to eat and drink wisdom, righteousness, truth, eternity?(c. 5)

For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. (c. 11)

Hear the apostle: For I would not that you should be ignorant, brethren, says he, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat. Of course, the same spiritual meat; for corporally it was another: since they ate manna, we eat another thing; but the spiritual was the same as that which we eat. (c. 11) * ** the OT fathers ate the same spiritual meat as the Church eats…yet the OT fathers didn’t have a Eucharist…they ate in the same way Peter could eat before the crucifixion*

*But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth. (c. 12) * it is not the visible eating that counts, but the eating with the heart that counts

*And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. (c. 15) *** the meat and drink are fellowship…not transubstantiated bread and wine **

For while by meat and drink men seek to attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints, where will be peace and unity, full and perfect. (c.17) *** the meat and drink are fellowship…not transubstantiated flesh and blood*

*In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, (c. 18) *** eating is achieved by dwelling in Christ and Christ dwelling in you **

• the Son, who was begotten equal, does not become better by participation of the Father; just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him; that is, by receiving Himself as the eternal life, which we did not have from ourselves (c. 19)

He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted. (T 27 c. 1)

will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting…(c. 3)

For there is nothing that a Christian ought to dread so much as to be separated from Christ’s body. For if he is separated from Christ’s body, he is not a member of Christ; if he is not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by the Spirit of Christ *

as you can see, although Augustine connected the eating of Christ’s flesh (as required in John 6) with the Lord’s Supper…there is nothing that 1) approaches a claim of a RBP; or 2) a change of substance from bread to flesh. The eating of Christ’s flesh is done by the heart and not with the teeth. The OT Saints ate the same spiritual food as Christians eat. That last assertion by Augustine is particularly problematic for any one who wants to claim that, in Augustine’s opinion, the eating of Christ’s flesh was achieved at the Eucharist through the eating of bread that has had its substance changed to the substance of flesh. If that claim were true, then the OT Saints could not have eaten that same meat…

 

[rovimax]

During the discourse on the bread of life (the passover the year before His crucifixion), His disciples left, except for the Apostles.

David Ruiz said that to understand whether it is figurative or not, we need to understand whtat the Apostles understood. With me so far?

Did they think Jesus was talking figuratively or did they also believe what the others who left believed.

The key to understanding what Jesus meant (figurative or not) is to find out what the Apostles understood.

The Apostles passed their understanding to the ECF’s. So yes, the ECF’s understaning count because they were handed down by the Apostles. Later some may have held heretical understandings.

Notice how in the early Church, the Real Presence was never questioned. They had councils for settling the Trinity and the two natures of Christ but that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ was just an accepted fact. It was only 1000 years later when the reality was question by Berangarius of Tours. And he was branded a heretic.

So if the Protestants were to turn up in the first century among the apostles and their successors and start claiming what they do now, they would be branded heretics by the apostles and their successors too.

Very well said.

 

[Radical]

"Radical:

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? …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.

hmm, do you think that it might help if you looked at the right passage? Please note the bold part in my statement…that is a reference to OCD III c.16 where it reads (with emphasis added by me):
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” 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.
OCD III, after all, is an instruction manual for Augustine’s followers as to how they are to interpret scripture…I’ll simply ignore the rest of this post from you as it all seems to be premised on the wrong passage.
"Radical:

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.

I don’t take Augustine literally there. I take Augustine seriously…he wasn’t just blowing smoke. He meant what he said. I understand Peter’s eating to be figurative, which is exactly what one would expect, since Augustine said that we do not eat Christ’s flesh in a literal manner, but that we eat Christ’s flesh in a figurative manner.

Don’t you notice how he uses language such as “Peter ate Christ’s flesh that day.”?

well, given that I am the one that brought it up…yes

Do you really think that Augustine literally thought this?

Augustine definitely thought that Peter ate Christ’s flesh that day in a figurative manner. We do not eat literally, we eat figuratively.

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?

Augustine said that we do not literally eat Christ’s flesh, we eat figuratively. As such, we should expect to have Augustine give us examples of such figurative eating…and he does just that. Peter’s eating is one such eating. The OT Saints eating the same meat as us is another such eating. We should not expect Augustine to give us any examples of Christians eating Christ’s flesh literally…and we don’t see any such literal eating. Now, regarding your attempt at an analogy with “the Resurrected Body of Christ”. Did Augustine ever say that we do not understand the “body of Christ” in a literal fashion, but we understand it only in a figurative fashion? That is the claim that you would need for a proper analogy…but, of course, Augustine never made such a statement…and so we continue to understand the “body of Christ” is both literal and figurative ways. It is just that simple.

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?

Did Augustine ever say that we do not understand the “crucifixion of the body of Christ” in a literal fashion, but we understand it only in a figurative fashion? That is the claim that you would need for this to be a proper analogy…but, of course, Augustine never made such a ridiculous statement…and so he could continue to understand the “crucifixion of the body of Christ” is both literal and figurative ways.

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.

I never said it was such a denial. It is figurative eating…and such figurative eating should occur at the Eucharist too. However, no matter how much you protest, Augustine has that figurative eating also occuring apart from the Eucharist. It is just that simple.

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).

The way you that use “literal” here, makes no sense to me… Whether Augustine was speaking about a literal thing or about a figurative thing…he meant what he said.

 

[lyrikal]

Hello
Re: 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.
yes, he is talking about how one eats Christ’s flesh. He said it was done figuratively and not literally. If one properly participates in a Eucharistic celebration, then one will eat the flesh of Christ in the process, but not in the way that you claim. One will eat the flesh of Christ in a figurative fashion at the Eucharist by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can eat His flesh.
Your approach seems to be: if the Eucharist can (in any way) be connected to the passage, then the passage must have the Eucharist and only the Eucharist in mind. For Augustine it was : believe and you have already eaten. That is why he could say Peter ate Christ’s flesh on the day of the Bread of Life discourse. The Eucharist is one of many ways in which one’s belief is expressed. As a result, you should not be surprised if you are able to connect the “eating passages” to the Eucharist, but what you simply cannot do is show that the Eucharist is required for the eating (on the basis that it is the only way to eat Christ’s flesh). To repeat what should be obvious: The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
The reason I focus on OCD III is because that is where Augustine expressly interpreted what it was to eat the flesh of Christ. IMHO, what you do, is take a passage where Augustine used realistic wording, draw any connection that you can possibly make between that passage and the Eucharist, and then declare (by inferrence b/c there is no express statement) that the Eucharist is the one and only way in which Augustine envisioned that Christ’s flesh would be eaten. At that point you also err by presuming that a real bodily presence is in any way involved. It is assumption + inferrence + presumption = Augustine believed in a RBP.
Again, you need to read more carefully. You just quoted me saying: "“John 6 isn’t only about the Eucharist for Augustine”. That would mean that I see more than one thing under consideration… more than simply the Eucharist under consideration.
I have always advocated that we should refer to all of what Augustine said (as opposed to the practice of having a few snippets from Augustine determine his meaning). There is a rule of interpretation that has general descriptions yielding to specific descriptions. In OCD III Augustine stated specifically what is meant by “eating Christ’s flesh”. B/c inferences are to be subordinate to express statements, any inference you draw must conform to that express statement. What you are trying to do is make the express statement conform to your inferences by trying to claim that OCD III is describing the Eucharist and only the Eucharist. Earlier, in an attempt to do just that, you claimed that your Eucharist was a figurative (as opposed to a literal) manner of eating Christ’s flesh. You had to do that b/c Augustine clearly stated that one eats Christ’s flesh figuratively (and not literally). I am afraid that I simply can’t take that claim of yours seriously…it is too at odds with what the CC and Catholics claim for their Eucharist.

So far, I have only read this page to your reply and I have a question:

Where did I ever say that the Eucharist is a figurative way of eating the flesh of Christ? I said it is a spiritual way and the spiritual doesn’t negate the literal. A literal way would be to eat Christ’s body parts in a literal way as He was in a human form. The spiritual way is to eat Christ’s Body in a SACRAMENTAL way (NOT FIGURATIVE) which involves a literal because we are still literally eating the Body of Christ (in a spiritual way and not in the same way as if we are literally swallowing body parts and having his finger nails stuck in our teeth).

So again, where did I say that I believe the Eucharist is a figurative way of eating Christ?

 

[Radical]

Lyrikal:

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.

I think you must have had this post in mind (it is the time I recall mentioning OT sacraments), but it has nothing to do with downplaying NT sacraments:
13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honours a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honour the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, 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; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.

14.But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative…
… By the time Augustine got to section 13 he was talking about useful signs, being the OT signs that pointed to Christ and then the signs of baptism and the Eucharist which are possessed by the Church. Augustine is in the process of providing a rule for interpretation, to be used by the members of his Church. Section 13 takes this form:

a) Someone who doesn’t know what a sign points to and who honors the sign is in bondage to it.

b) a fellow who knows that a useful sign (one which points to Christ) is a sign, really honors Christ and not the sign itself.

c) the OT patriarchs and prophets are examples of the second type of fellow.

d) Christians are free from attending to the many (useful) signs of the OT

e) baptism and the Eucharist are rites/signs received from Christ and the apostles by the Church

******** from here I’ll make Augustine’s remarks particular to the bread/body of the Eucharist **********

f) as soon as a Christian looks at the bread he knows it points to Christ’s body

g) to follow the letter, and to take the bread (the sign) for Christ’s body (the thing that is signified by it), is a mark of weakness and bondage and is error

h) a person who doesn’t know what the bread points to, but still knows that the bread is a sign is not in bondage to that sign.

i) it is better to be in bondage to the bread (as per [a] above, being someone who honors the bread w/o knowing what it points to) than to err in interpreting the sign of the bread by following the letter and (mis)taking the bread for Christ’s body

******* the first sentence of section 14 should be noted for it further clarifies Augustine’s purpose. It reads: *********

But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal , we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative.

So the crux of it is this:

1. Christians have fewer signs, baptism and the Eucharist being listed
2. Augustine provides a rule for Christinas to use wrt their signs
3. the rule is to not follow the letter and take the signs for what they signify
4. the rule guards against Christians taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal

It would sure seem that Augustine was concerned that Christians were taking Christ’s metaphorical words (about the Eucharist) and committing the error of understanding them literally …b/c that is the clearly stated purpose of the rule…a rule for Christians to guard against error

 

[Radical]

"Radical:

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.

It is sure amazing that if Augustine believed as you do, that he never qualified his statements as you do.

Radical:

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.

Lyrikal:

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?

Augustine: you are not to…drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1365): : In the Eucharist Christ gives us the…very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”

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.

although I have studied Augustine, I hardly think that he got it right all the time

Lyrikal:

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

Radical:

…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
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

In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. 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?
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)

Lyrikal:

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.

well in Sermon 272 I don’t think Augustine ever gets to the incarnate body of Christ even being on the altar…maybe he does in 227…I would have to read it again with that focus in mind…it is as we have both said, his focus in those sermons is on the unity of the Church and so, when that focus is in play, it is the Church that is on the altar.

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.

it is possible, but not at all probable given the other things that Augustine said…and again, let’s keep in mind that the mention of these Sermons (227 and 272) started out as snippet proofs that Augsutine believed in a RBP. Now, after we have looked at the HOW contained in the Sermons, you are left with protesting that it “doesn’t mean He is denying the ACTUAL Body of Christ in a more literal way.”

 

[Radical]

Lyrikal:

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.

there most certainly is a “but”. In sermon 227, right after the bit you quoted, Augustine immediately explained how the bread symbolizes unity. He gave much the same explanation as he did in Sermon 272 just after he asked, "How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” Notice the order of things in those to Sermons:

1. Augustine said that the bread (after sanctification) is the body of Christ.
2. he immediately asks/explains HOW the bread is the body of Christ (he is not
   transitioning to a new way of understanding that the bread is the body of Christ, but he is explaining HOW he could make the claim at #1)
3. Augustine’s explanation of the HOW focuses entirely on the qualities possessed by bread…it is ground, water is added, it is baked, it comes from many grains etc…**You think that Augustine is claiming that a change of substance occurs at #1, but Augustine’s explanation of HOW the claim at #1 could be correct focuses exactly on the qualities and accidents of the bread that DO NOT CHANGE (according to the doctrine of transubstantiation)…you have Augustine justifying a change by referencing what doesn’t change…and that makes no sense (unless the actual change is a spiritual understanding) **

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.

actually, the explanation of the HOW that I provided is pretty well nothing more than a point by point summary of part of Sermon 272

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.

are you kidding me? Look at the end of the second paragraph of that sermon (227). It reads: “Therefore, the Holy Spirit draws near, the fire after the water, and you ** become** bread, that is the Body of Christ.” By your reasoning, the use of “becomes” in that sentence means that there has been a material change and the believers are now bread in substance…that can’t be right, so your reasoning ain’t sound.

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 now 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.

yep, and the HOW that Augustine provided was by way of similtude…which means it is still bread and not a actual body by way of transubstantiation…your attempt to utilize “becomes” fails.

 

[Radical]

So far, I have only read this page to your reply and I have a question:

Where did I ever say that the Eucharist is a figurative way of eating the flesh of Christ? I said it is a spiritual way and the spiritual doesn’t negate the literal. A literal way would be to eat Christ’s body parts in a literal way as He was in a human form. The spiritual way is to eat Christ’s Body in a SACRAMENTAL way (NOT FIGURATIVE) which involves a literal because we are still literally eating the Body of Christ (in a spiritual way and not in the same way as if we are literally swallowing body parts and having his finger nails stuck in our teeth).

So again, where did I say that I believe the Eucharist is a figurative way of eating Christ?

It was at Post 396 from the Real Presence Thread where you wrote (emboldened by Radical):

Part3:

Notice how Augustine does not only give us one example of how to interpret some verses figuratively. He does not only use the passage from John 6. He uses other passages that sound like they would be bizarre if they were to be understood carnally. From the context and from the fact that Augustine use 5 examples in what he means by figurative, we can see that what we are NOT supposed to do is interpret some passages LITERALLY. We are to interpret them FIGURATIVELY. This way of “figuratively interpreting Scripture” is not to be understood in a modern way the way Protestants understand John 6. It is to be understood this way: Jesus is NOT commanding us to chop of His arm and start eating it. This is the LITERAL way of interpretation.** A figurative way of interpretation is the Eucharist. **Figurative interpretation for Augustine does NOT mean symbolic. It means there is a great mystery there and Christ is talking about something else other than physically eating His flesh as He is speaking to the Jews in front of them. For Augustine, this mystery can mean a variety of different things, depending on the passage. In order to see what Augustine believes Jesus is talking about in John 6, we have to take a look at ALL of his writings regarding John 6, not just one little line from OCD III where Augustine is not so much concerned with the commentary of John 6 but is concerned with warning us to be careful not to interpret some verses literally.

I should add that if I misunderstood your meaning, then my apologies.

BTW…may God bless you.

 

[lyrikal]

It was at Post 396 from the Real Presence Thread where you wrote (emboldened by Radical):

Part3:

Notice how Augustine does not only give us one example of how to interpret some verses figuratively. He does not only use the passage from John 6. He uses other passages that sound like they would be bizarre if they were to be understood carnally. From the context and from the fact that Augustine use 5 examples in what he means by figurative, we can see that what we are NOT supposed to do is interpret some passages LITERALLY. We are to interpret them FIGURATIVELY. This way of “figuratively interpreting Scripture” is not to be understood in a modern way the way Protestants understand John 6. It is to be understood this way: Jesus is NOT commanding us to chop of His arm and start eating it. This is the LITERAL way of interpretation.** A figurative way of interpretation is the Eucharist. **Figurative interpretation for Augustine does NOT mean symbolic. It means there is a great mystery there and Christ is talking about something else other than physically eating His flesh as He is speaking to the Jews in front of them. For Augustine, this mystery can mean a variety of different things, depending on the passage. In order to see what Augustine believes Jesus is talking about in John 6, we have to take a look at ALL of his writings regarding John 6, not just one little line from OCD III where Augustine is not so much concerned with the commentary of John 6 but is concerned with warning us to be careful not to interpret some verses literally.

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. Let me go ahead and bold different words that you may have missed:

Notice how Augustine does not only give us one example of how to interpret some verses figuratively. He does not only use the passage from John 6. He uses other passages that sound like they would be bizarre if they were to be understood carnally. From the context and from the fact that Augustine use 5 examples in what he means by figurative, we can see that what we are NOT supposed to do is interpret some passages LITERALLY. We are to interpret them FIGURATIVELY. This way of “figuratively interpreting Scripture” is not to be understood in a modern way the way Protestants understand John 6. It is to be understood this way: Jesus is NOT commanding us to chop of His arm and start eating it. This is the LITERAL way of interpretation. A figurative way of interpretation is the Eucharist. Figurative interpretation for Augustine does NOT mean symbolic. It means there is a great mystery there and Christ is talking about something else other than physically eating His flesh as He is speaking to the Jews in front of them. For Augustine, this mystery can mean a variety of different things, depending on the passage. In order to see what Augustine believes Jesus is talking about in John 6, we have to take a look at ALL of his writings regarding John 6, not just one little line from OCD III where Augustine is not so much concerned with the commentary of John 6 but is concerned with warning us to be careful not to interpret some verses literally.

I hope that helps. If you want to read in detail about my views (and what I believe to be Augustine’s views), please refer to Posts 591 and 592 of this thread.

For Augustine, figurative is not meant to negate the spiritual, but it is meant to negate the literal. What is literal for Augustine? To literally chop off Christ’s body and eat as He was speaking to the Jews. THAT’S the crime/vice that would occur if one was to take the words LITERALLY.

 

[lyrikal]

I should add that if I misunderstood your meaning, then my apologies.

BTW…may God bless you.

No worries. I hope my post above clears it up.

God bless you too, Radical. I’m not sure when I’ll get a chance to replying to your posts. If I can’t do it within the next couple of days, then it will probably have to be in about a week or two (perhaps even more).

 

[ufamtobie]

Sorry ,I forgot to be technical .It is not your view, it is the CC view. Agreed. Ditto for me. I believe it to be “His” view, not my view. If I say my view, it is because it is mine now also. He is His own interpreter. The earliest of fathers did not deal in transubstantiation, but in the universal thanksgiving/remembrance…

David, so the word “Transubstantiation” was not used at that time but it is now. David this is what you should be concerned about and that is:** never, never did the Early Church Fathers think of the Eucharist being a “symbol”**. Why do you you believe it is a symbol?

You are fighting against the Early Church Fathers therefore you are fighting against Jesus Christ, a battle you will not win.

Ufam Tobie

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

From everything that I responded to, I was really looking forward to a question that I provided with regards to what you said about Sermon 227:

…You might be forgetting the ancient view point that the symbol/figure of a thing somehow shares in the power of the thing that it symbolizes. As such, in the neoplatonist view, if God injects the saving grace/ the unifying grace (“earned” by the body of Christ on the cross) into the bread, then by taking that bread (which is a figure of that body) the participant shares in the grace of the body. Further, (from a neoplatonistic outlook), b/c the reality of a thing is best defined by the power it possesses, one could declare that by giving the (empowered) bread and wine, “the Lord Christ gives to you HIS BODY and BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS”. No RBP is contemplated. The figurative understanding describes a spiritual reality and the spiritual reality is “more real” than a material reality. You have not produced anything that requires a change in the substance of the bread…and that is something you won’t find in Augustine. 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. The bread can be called the body of Christ (meaning the Church) b/c it (after consecration and belief) possesses (some of?]) the saving and unifying grace possessed by the Church. In neither case is it that the bread’s substance is replaced by the substance of the incarnated body or the substance of the Church…

…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.

You claim that when Augustine says the “Bread is the Body of Christ and the wine is the Blood of Christ” does not literally mean that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ. You claim that the “how” of Augustine explains that the Church is on the altar. When you make this claim, what you seem to be doing is you seem to negate the first part of Augustine’s sermon (bread=Body, wine=Blood…by Body and Blood I mean Christ’s, not the Church). Your focus is centered on the “how” which explains that the Body and Blood of Christ is really the Church so it is the Church that is on the altar. When you say this, you have Augustine denying a change to the bread and wine to being the Body and Blood of Christ even though Augustine says that when the prayer is set or when the bread is sanctified, then the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. The “how” for you, seems to negate that part. Yet, you do say:

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.

My question to you is: If Augustine’s “how” seems to negate the “change” of the bread and wine into the Body of Blood (Christ’s) of Christ, then how did you come up with the above statement that on the altar, the Body of Christ (incarnated Body of Jesus) is on the altar. Wouldn’t the “how” tell us that Jesus is NOT on the altar at all? Since Augustine’s how excludes Jesus being on the altar altogether? His “how” only includes the Church being on the altar. So where does Augustine’s “how” teach that Christ is on the altar at all for you?

My point is: When we see Augustine’s Body of Christ theology (Eucharist, Crucifixion, Resurrection, etc.) we see he holds to a two-fold understanding of the Body of Christ (The Church and the Christ). His figurative understand of the Body of Christ being the Church is not to negate the actual Body of Christ (whether it is the Eucharist, Crucifixion, Resurrection, or what have you). He uses the Church as the Body of Christ to emphasize unity, not to deny the actual Body of Christ. That is how I come to believe that his “how” does not negate the change of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ when the bread and wine is sanctified. How do you come up with your belief that Christ is figuratively on the altar for Augustine when he just went on to explain that the Church is on the altar and doesn’t mention Christ being on there at all?

I’m not sure if my question even makes sense. I have it in my head, it just seems difficult for me to put it on here. Please let me know if my question requires a further explanation.

 

[david_ruiz]

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. Let me go ahead and bold different words that you may have missed:

I hope that helps. If you want to read in detail about my views (and what I believe to be Augustine’s views), please refer to Posts 591 and 592 of this thread.

For Augustine, figurative is not meant to negate the spiritual, but it is meant to negate the literal. What is literal for Augustine? To literally chop off Christ’s body and eat as He was speaking to the Jews. THAT’S the crime/vice that would occur if one was to take the words LITERALLY.

Just quickly as I have scanned some of Radical /Lyrikal dialogue. Wouldn’t any type of flesh eating, literal or implied (RP type) been a crime/vice to the Jews ? There is a difference between arm eating and RP eating , but it is still flesh eating, hence a crime by any means . The "safest " (morally/legally) way out is to figuratively eat, spiritually eat His flesh. Everybody is happy . Calvary is Remembered People are born again, filled with the spirit, going to heaven etc., and no literal flesh eating to offend Jewish law, even pagan sensibilities.

 

[benedictus2]

Just quickly as I have scanned some of Radical /Lyrikal dialogue. Wouldn’t any type of flesh eating, literal or implied (RP type) been a crime/vice to the Jews ? There is a difference between arm eating and RP eating , but it is still flesh eating, hence a crime by any means . The "safest " (morally/legally) way out is to figuratively eat, spiritually eat His flesh. Everybody is happy . Calvary is Remembered People are born again, filled with the spirit, going to heaven etc., and no literal flesh eating to offend Jewish law, even pagan sensibilities.

And if you remember, healing anyone on the Sabbath was a violation of the Torah as far as the Jews were concerned. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath. The Jews believed that only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins and more than that, gave His apostles the power to forigive sins. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law.

And as you can see, no “visible” flesh eating happened. God is powerful enough to give us His flesh without making it look as if we are eating flesh. If you trust God enough, you will realize that He fulfills His promises.

 

[benedictus2]

**you have Augustine justifying a change by referencing what doesn’t change…and that makes no sense (unless the actual change is a spiritual understanding) **

How does one eat spiritual flesh? Is there such a thing as spiritual flesh? What would a spiritual flesh look like?

 

[lyrikal]

Just quickly as I have scanned some of Radical /Lyrikal dialogue. Wouldn’t any type of flesh eating, literal or implied (RP type) been a crime/vice to the Jews ? There is a difference between arm eating and RP eating , but it is still flesh eating, hence a crime by any means . The "safest " (morally/legally) way out is to figuratively eat, spiritually eat His flesh. Everybody is happy . Calvary is Remembered People are born again, filled with the spirit, going to heaven etc., and no literal flesh eating to offend Jewish law, even pagan sensibilities.

Do you know who St. Ambrose was? He was St. Augustine’s mentor/teacher. St. Ambrose clearly believed in RBP (as I believe even Radical would admit this and has before) and furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that he believed in Transubstantiation. For you to think that Augustine’s “crime/vice” is not only about literal flesh eating but it is also about a Sacramental flesh eating, means that Augustine thinks his mentor is committing a crime/vice when his mentor partakes of the Eucharist. That is CLEARLY not what St. Augustine is saying. Saint Augustine gives us a clear understanding of when one would commit such a crime/vice and it has nothing to do with the Eucharist. It has everything to do with chopping the flesh of Christ, cooking it up and eating it.

 

[lyrikal]

Several issues here…

First of all, do you believe that Doctrine can develop?

Second of all, if 3rd/4th century is late for you, are you aware that the Canon of Scripture was completed in the late 4th century?

Also, how many wills/natures did Christ have? Where did you come up with this number? Is it in the Bible? If so, where? If not, is it in the writings of the Early Church Fathers? If so, what’s the earliest mention of this? Are you aware that it was the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681 AD) that dogmatized the fact that Christ has two wills? We’re talking LATE 7th CENTURY HERE.

With all that said, 3rd or 4th century all of a sudden doesn’t seem so late does it?

But, ALL of this assumes your argument that the RBP doctrine was invented in the 3rd/4th century. This is not so, David. It wasn’t invented in the 3rd/4th century the same way the canon of Scripture wasn’t invented in the late 4th century and also the same way that Christ having two wills wasn’t invented in the late 7th Century.

All of these doctrines (as well as every single Christian doctrine) were developed and more fully understood later on.

With all that said, I will post for you the earliest interpretations of John 6, Last Supper, and also passages about the RBP from the first 2-3 centuries.

In the meantime, can you post the earliest Church Father who believed in a symbolic Baptism and a symbolic Eucharist?

Grace and peace, David.

Also, David, I am really looking forward to getting a reply to the above post.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8433568:

Sorry ,I forgot to be technical .It is not your view, it is the CC view. Agreed. Ditto for me. I believe it to be “His” view, not my view. If I say my view, it is because it is mine now also. He is His own interpreter. The earliest of fathers did not deal in transubstantiation, but in the universal thanksgiving/remembrance…

David, so the word “Transubstantiation” was not used at that time but it is now. David this is what you should be concerned about and that is:** never, never did the Early Church Fathers think of the Eucharist being a “symbol”**

. Why do you you believe it is a symbol?

You are fighting against the Early Church Fathers therefore you are fighting against Jesus Christ, a battle you will not win.

Ufam Tobie

Didache- "On the Lord’s day break bread, giving thanks…“14:1, “Did bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life thru the son”, 10:3, “He tabernacles in our hearts” Didache, “not in anything made by hands”-scripture. Ignatius twice says to come together to give thanks (not sacrifice-me) to God, and talks of breaking of bread. Rebuked gnostics who said Christ came not in flesh (no fleshly death resurrection, ascension) and obstained from eucharist for they were ashamed of cross and mock the passion.Barnabus talks against sacrifices and incense (they were OT). Martyr-“The bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remebrance of his being made flesh for the sake of his believers, for whom he also gave us to drink,in remebranceof his own blood,with giving thanks”. “Do not suppose that Isaiah or other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar of his second coming but a true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks”. “The giving of thanks is the only preferred and well pleasing sacrifices to God”-# 117 'Eating of flesh is a shameful thing”. He also mentions OT flour and remembrance, and sacrifice is now prayer and thanksgiving…Mathetes- “To him, supposing they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, are the same as those destitute of sense”. “Christians are distinguished form other men not by country, language or customs they observe. They live normal according to their place yet foreigners, sojourners. They marry, have children have a common table” They were not flesh eaters, for that would raise eyebrows, make them “distinguishable”, wouldn’t it ? In fact some (non-Christians-pagans) insinuated that, and it was denied. Perhaps the words of remembrance being spoken at the breaking of bread made the rumor mill , misleading outsiders to a literal interpretation of flesh eating. In fact, some historians have noted that the consecration words became a “secret”, perhaps to avoid trouble . I know non-baptized (catechumen) were lead out of early churches before the consecration, for they could not participate in communion…Like I said , I see no hard case for RP in these earliest Fathers (up to 130 AD). They do define remembrance , sacrifice (really lack of it in OT sense,or even in Catholic sense). They speak of the bread and the cup, and what they symbolize. They do not mention eating His flesh/blood . Ignatius comes closest,but only in terms of Christ not coming in flesh, hence how can we have a communion remembrance (symbolic or RP) But you have one quote saying eating flesh is shameful (in a general sense ,do not think he was addressing RP cause it wasn’t there).