Literal or Symbolic?...

[CopticChristian]

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.

Romans 7, Old Covenant dead. Why are we concerned about eating flesh and what the Jews think. As I recall Paul was trying to teach the Judaizing Christians that we are not to follow the works of the law and here you want to impose them as a crime. Did you read Romans?:

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Good point.Perhaps both Fathers took the Didache to heart where it says, “Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify them that contend”. I take that to mean a " big tent", being slow to cry heretic for sure. Is the schism made by the one in error ,or by the right one being an over lord and not pacifying ? To Augustine , what mattered was a pure spiritual eating , and for sure Ambrose did that. He was born again and Christ filled. Keep the main thing the main thing. Both were at the table. Both Remembered.Both were admiring, respectable brethren. I am sure there are differences of opinion in the CC today on some important topics, where expression is still free, for the church has not ruled on the matter, yet. But otherwise, good point.

 

[lyrikal]

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).

1.) I highly disagree with this. God-willing, I’ll provide you quotes from St. Ignatius and also from St. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd Century).
2.) With regards to this 130 AD date of yours: How many wills did Christ have? If one, where does Scripture/Fathers teach this? If two, where does Scripture/Fathers teach this? Please provide quotes prior to 130 AD since this is the standard you have set up. You’ve basically fell into your own trap here.

 

[david_ruiz]

Romans 7, Old Covenant dead. Why are we concerned about eating flesh and what the Jews think. As I recall Paul was trying to teach the Judaizing Christians that we are not to follow the works of the law and here you want to impose them as a crime. Did you read Romans?:

Good point (even though CC relives/rebuilds much of ot again ) but I believe the discussion was the thought process of the Jews in John 6, whom Jesus was speaking to, still in OT. Even many NT pagan sensibilities are offended by flesh eating.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8443852:

1.) I highly disagree with this. God-willing, I’ll provide you quotes from St. Ignatius and also from St. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd Century).
2.) With regards to this 130 AD date of yours: How many wills did Christ have? If one, where does Scripture/Fathers teach this? If two, where does Scripture/Fathers teach this? Please provide quotes prior to 130 AD since this is the standard you have set up. You’ve basically fell into your own trap here.

Give the full Ignatius quotes .Yes I know "silence “proves nothing”,…perhaps .Fact is some things were there all the time but to be defined later on(trinity) , but just as sure as some things were not there, and later came to be.I understand. Alleluia, we are still at the Lord’s mercy and grace for all enlightenment. Scripture, Fathers, history, tradition, preachers /teachers, brothers, magisteriums speak in vain apart from His teaching us thru them and about them (discerning them, Augustine and other Fathers attest to this)

 

[benedictus2]

Didache- 10:3, “He tabernacles in our hearts” Didache, “not in anything made by hands”-scripture.

You are misquoting and misrepresenting the Didache.

Here is the sentence pertaining to your quote :
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts.

The Didache says it is God’s Holy Name which tabernacles in our hearts.

Secondly,** this is a prayer after communion** - after a communion where the author/s would have believed in the Real Presence ( being 1st century Christians). Therefore, we can infer that God’s Holy Name tabernacles in our hearts AFTER Holy Communion, i.e. after partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ.

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.

This is what Ignatius of Antioch said:

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. **They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. **
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
The Didache regarding Sacrifice:

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

Sorry to say this but you are not exactly honest when you quote. You chop up sentences and pick only phrases in the hope that severed from the rest of the text, it will make your case for you. But they do not.

You see, if you persist in this very typically protestant habit of chopping up the text, you get very far from the truth. I wonder, do you prefer to be far from the truth? Is this why you extract words in this manner?

Do you not know that Christ is the Truth so if you persist in this habit, you are getting farther and father from Christ.?

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;8443888:

Give the full Ignatius quotes .Yes I know "silence “proves nothing”,…perhaps .Fact is some things were there all the time but to be defined later on(trinity) , but just as sure as some things were not there, and later came to be.I understand. Alleluia, we are still at the Lord’s mercy and grace for all enlightenment. Scripture, Fathers, history, tradition, preachers /teachers, brothers, magisteriums speak in vain apart from His teaching us thru them and about them (discerning them, Augustine and other Fathers attest to this)

Awesome. Then why did you say this with regards to the Fathers I presented who believe in RBP?:

Quickly- I believe most of your quotes of ECF were late 3rd and 4th Century

.The few before that are as debateable as scripture itself. But yes, from 4th c on, very strong in the literal .Hardly a good historical connection to the apostles. From the 4th C on till 14th C,CC RP was the norm. So you had a strong milenium and nonCC communion is about there also.History is not our back breaking criteria.

You contradicted yourself here with what you just said right now:

Fact is some things were there all the time but to be defined later on(trinity) , but just as sure as some things were not there, and later came to be

.I understand.

So which is it? Is 3rd/4th century too late for you with regards to the Eucharist and therefore it has no lineage to the Apostles? And at the same time the Canon of Scripture/Christ having two wills/etc. are teachings that were defined/came later on (late 4th century and late 7th century) are ok not to be found in the previous centuries? You like the canon of scripture and the fact that Christ has two wills and so you have no problem with them not being found in the first 3 centuries but when it comes to the Eucharist, you deny that it was historical because the quotes I provided were from 3rd/4th century. Well, 3rd/4th century is earlier than late 4th century (canon) and late 7th century (two wills) and yet you accept the latter and deny the former.

 

[benedictus2]

ON POSTING

Hi Guys,

There seems to be a lot of double quotes happening so sometimes you seem to be replying to yourself or you seem to be replying to someone else other than the one you intend.

To avoid this, here’s the trick.

When you first click on “quote” to reply, check the very first line of the text. If there are two quotes in brackets, that means you will end up with wrong quoting.

There should only be one set of opening quotes e.g. "

abc:

".

If there are two e.g. "

abc:

", then you need to delete the second quote.

Thanks.

 

[benedictus2]

yes, he is talking about how one eats Christ’s flesh. He said it was done figuratively and not literally.

What Augustine meant when he said it was done figuratively is that Christ was not commanding the disciples to slice Him up and eat His flesh right there and then.

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.

Augustine did not say that at all. He did not say that the Eucharist is just a mere retention of the memory of the crucifixion.

Here are some what he did say about the Eucharist. Lyrikal may have already quoted these before. (from this website)

• “Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”
• “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
• “The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
• “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
• “How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
• “Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)
• “Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)
• “By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

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.

True, but that is not ALL that the Eucharist IS and Augustine does NOT think that THAT is all the Eucharist means.

The Eucharist is but one of many ways in which we can eat His flesh.

Wrong. It is only during the Eucharist where we eat His flesh and drink His blood. But you are right, one can retain a profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded through other means. However, the Eucharist is more than just “retaining a profitable memory” of the crucifixion and death of the Lord.

**For Augustine it was : believe and you have already eaten.**

I doubt that. Show where he said that.

That is why he could say Peter ate Christ’s flesh on the day of the Bread of Life discourse.

Which part of the tract are you referring to?

The Eucharist is one of many ways in which one’s belief is expressed.

True, but it is the only way where one partakes of His Body and Blood as He commanded.

 

[benedictus2]

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).

But it IS the ONLY way to eat Christ’s flesh. How else could you do that? Believing is not the same as eating His flesh. There are passages where He says believe in me. But then He comes up with John 6 and the institution of the Eucharist. That goes beyond just believing. If believing is enough, considering that He has already said so a few times before, there was no need to say eat my flesh when all He wanted to do was to tell His disciples to believe in Him. He would not have said what He said at the bread of life discourse and He would not have done what He did at the last supper if all He wanted to say was believe in me. Clearly, these two goes beyond just asking the disciple to believe.

As a matter of fact, eating His flesh is a proof that one believes in Him.

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.

To repeat what should be obvious, the Eucharist is MORE than just retaining a profitable memory of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. It is in fact partaking of the Body that He sacrficed on the cross. He said " Eat, this IS my Body give up for you".

Simply believing is NOT eating the Body that was given up for you.

The reason I focus on OCD III is because that is where Augustine expressly interpreted what it was to eat the flesh of Christ.

Augustine mentioned one sentence regarding the interpretation of one of line of John 6 so this hardly constitutes all of his understanding of John 6.

Furthermore, he wrote many other things about the Eucharist which shows that He believes in the Real Presence.

Note also that when He says if it enjoins someone to crime or vice, He obviously was referring to the fact that Jesus was not telling His apostles to grab a knife and start eating Him piece by piece. In eating the Bread which is His Body, there is no vice or crime being committed.

Now if the disciples had rushed up to Jesus and started tearing Him up to pieces and eating Him, that would have indeed been a crime. But that is not what Christ had in mind all along because 1 year later, at another passover, He gives the apostles the means to follow His command of eating His flesh and drinking His blood without committing a crime.

Take note of what what Augustine said on Tractate 7 which I think you replace with elipsis when you quoted it.

They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up.

And further :

The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten. 6. Hence the words, says He, which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.

For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us.

And another point, while you are concentrating on Augustine who happens to be just one of the Church Fathers, take a look at what the other Church Fathers have to say.

Also, take a look at everything else that Augustine had to say about the Eucharist ( I have listed some of them in my previous post)

 

[ufamtobie]

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 .

David The Eucharist in 70 A.D.

The Didache (means “teaching”) or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” was written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D. This “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” contains the oldest Eucharistic prayer, liturgical worship, directions on Baptism, fasting, prayer, and the treatment of bishops and other clergy. It was used by bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” or “Didache”. The document tells us Catholics about the Mass and Eucharist in 70 A.D.:
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”. -Ch. 9:5****

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” -Ch 14

David you pick and choose what benefits your leaving the Catholic Church without looking at the whole: Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. **I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, **who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured,** is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”*** (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

David, I am sorry you lost your way perhaps you never had it but you must go on believing that your right in order to Justify your leaving the Catholic Church. But know this: “They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

Ufam Tobie

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8443852:

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 .

David The Eucharist in 70 A.D.

The Didache (means “teaching”) or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” was written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D. This “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” contains the oldest Eucharistic prayer, liturgical worship, directions on Baptism, fasting, prayer, and the treatment of bishops and other clergy. It was used by bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” or “Didache”. The document tells us Catholics about the Mass and Eucharist in 70 A.D.:
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”. -Ch. 9:5****

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” -Ch 14

David you pick and choose what benefits your leaving the Catholic Church without looking at the whole: Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. **I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, **who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured,** is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”*** (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

David, I am sorry you lost your way perhaps you never had it but you must go on believing that your right in order to Justify your leaving the Catholic Church. But know this: “They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

Ufam TobieWorse. I am anathema, going to hell, without eternal life in Him , per CC dogma.Be gone for a few days .Sorry about “short quotes”.Get back to you on that.

 

[ufamtobie]

ufamtobie;8445343:

Worse. I am anathema, going to hell, without eternal life in Him , per CC dogma.Be gone for a few days .Sorry about “short quotes”.Get back to you on that.

David, I am not saying your going to hell, you are saying that, who am I to judge, But the Lord did leave His One Church/House to guide His Church/us that we may not go to Hell, If not, why did Jesus even bother leaving a Church to teach us His Way! Amen

Have a safe trip

Ufam Tobie

 

[Radical]

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).

You should note that my response at that time was not limited to a consideration of Sermon 227. I have explained this already, but please allow me to repeat myself so that my meaning will be clearer.
Sermon 272 starts:
For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood.
Augustine then talks about Christ taking on flesh and then said:
There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" In asking that question, Augustine had not transitioned from viewing the bread as the incarnate body to viewing the bread as the Church. Instead, he asked how can it be said that the bread is Christ’s body when the incarnate body is in heaven.

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.

It is also Augustine’s focus. His answer to the HOW (we can say the bread is Christ’s body whilst the incarnate body is in heaven) has nothing to do with a transubstantiated presence of that body and has everything to do with the bread being the Church (the metaphorical body of Christ). As I said before, his answer (IMHO) negates the possibility that he is envisioning a material change with “the Bread becomes his body” b/c HOW Augustine justifies the BECOMING is by referring to exactly that which doesn’t change (the qualities of the bread).

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.

In sermon 272, when the incarnate body is considered, it is in heaven and not on the altar. In Sermon 227, at the end Augustine said something like: Is the Body of Christ consumed? Is the Church consumed? Hardly! That seems to be as close as he gets in those sermons to suggesting that the incarnate body is involved (and of course, it is to emphasize that the body is not consumed…can’t be consumed).

 

[Radical]

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.

…and technically, Augustine doesn’t actually have grace on the altar either. A non-believeer that eats receives nothing but bread and wine. The believer (b/c of a spritual understanding ) receives grace in the process. Augustine’s focus is primarily on the unification achieved by the Eucharist and so the bread (by its qualities, is a figure of the Church). He doesn’t seem to focus much, on the Bread = body which is broken or on the wine = blood which is poured out. That connection seems to be mentioned only in passing.

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?

Please keep in mind that the Church isn’t actually on the altar either. For Augustine, inclusion within the Church, inclusion within that body of Christ is essential for salvation. The Sacrament cements one more deeply into that body through the grace imparted by the ritual (provided the proper spiritual understanding accompanies the action).

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?

I don’t see it in sermon 272. I see it only suggested in Sermon 227 (as per his “hardly” statement summarized above). He does quote scripture “blood which is poured out” enough that I believe that he did make that connection…he just doesn’t emphaisize it nearly as much as the bread = Church connection.

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).

it seems to me that what is missing from Augustine, (such that you would be entitled to include the Eucharist in this grouping) is any statement from Augustine that even hints that a change of substance has occured. In the sermons that we have been discussing, Augustine defends the change of the bread into the Church (via a spiritual understanding). No where does Augustine state that a change of substance occurs…in the sermons or elsewhere. When Augustine described the eating of Christ’s flesh by explaining what that phrase meant, his explanation was always figurative. Although Augustine described the manner of eating on a number of occasions (by saying that “eating” meant this or that), no where does Augustine describe a manner of eating that isn’t figurative. When Augustine described who had eaten Christ’s flesh, he included OT saints and Peter before the Lord’s Supper was introduced. That Augustine held to a “and/both” view that included the consumption of a real bodily presence together with the figurative consumption that he always described, is IMHO merely wishful thinking on your part. His silence with regard to this central Catholic dcotrine is deafening.

He uses the Church as the Body of Christ to emphasize unity, not to deny the actual Body of Christ.

there are a multitude of non-existant things that he doesn’t deny…it doesn’t mean that he endorsed any one of them

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 have to think that somewhere along the way, Augustine at least focused long enough on the words of institution (as opposed to Paul’s words wrt unity and membership in the body) to hold that Christ’s incarnate body is also figuratively present…but even such a limited attribution wrt the incarnate body is hard to find.

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.

well, hopefully I understood what you wanted to ask. What I would like to ask, is can you give me any express statement(s) from Augustine that you believe contradict the blue assertions that I made above?

If I haven’t grasped your question properly, please clarify. Happy Canadian Thanksgiving.

 

[PRmerger]

In sermon 272, when the incarnate body is considered, it is in heaven and not on the altar.

In Catholic theology there is no dichotomy between heaven and “the altar”. What occurs at Mass on “the altar” is simultaneously occurring in heaven.

 

[E.E.N.S]

227…272…His silence with regard to this central Catholic dcotrine is deafening.

I haven’t been following this thread, so please forgive me is this has been pointed out, but I see that you mentioned St Augustine (both in 227 & 272), and say that he was silent on the matter, but I see in each of those cases he does speak on the matter:

I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons

227 A.D. 411]).

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

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you?

 

[Radical]

I haven’t been following this thread, so please forgive me is this has been pointed out, but I see that you mentioned St Augustine (both in 227 & 272), and say that he was silent on the matter, but I see in each of those cases he does speak on the matter:

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you?

those snippets that you provided are exactly how we got started with our consideration of Augustine’s view…wrt both 227 and 272 my comments are made with the whole sermon in mind (IMHO the full context eliminates what you claim).

 

[Radical]

In Catholic theology there is no dichotomy between heaven and “the altar”. What occurs at Mass on “the altar” is simultaneously occurring in heaven.

…and that surely isn’t how Augustine explained it…if it was, then modern Catholic theology might give is some insight into how Augustine thought.

 

[PRmerger]

…and that surely isn’t how Augustine explained it…if it was, then modern Catholic theology might give is some insight into how Augustine thought.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

Are you implying that what I proposed about there being no dichotomy between the altar sacrifice and heaven is “modern Catholic theology”?

If so, I must assure you that it is most certainly *not *modern. It is as old as the New Testament, echoed by the ECFs and proclaimed by the Church today.