Literal or Symbolic?...

[benedictus2]

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.
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).

Yes it does have everything to do with transubstantiation.

Here is the bit you conveniently left out. After asking how can this be, Augustine goes on to say:

My friends, these realities are called sacraments *because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. *

Basically he is saying: what you see is not exactly what you get.

That, and his opening lines clearly tells us that he understands it in the transubstantiated sense, because that is what transubstantiation says: what our senses apprehend is not what our faith fathoms.

As a matter of fact, his opening line and the line about this being a sacrament, seems to be the basis of one of the lines in St Thomas hymn - Tantum Ergo. It goes: “what our senses fail to fathom, let us grasp through faith’s consent”. You can almost hear St Augustine singing that.

What you see is mere bread and wine, but what you see bears fruit. Why “bears fruit”? Because as He has already said in his opening lines “But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood.” It bears fruit because it is Christ’s Body and Blood. You can almost hear him connecting this to the vine and the branches passage. What did Christ say? Those who remain in the vine bear fruit. Cut off from the vine, the branches die.

And then because we know that it is Christ’s Body and Blood, by eating His Body and drinking His Blood, every time we partake of this sacrament, we are re-membered into His Body.

It is very much like St Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians.

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).

As I have shown above he does see it in the transusbstantiated way. Not quite in the material way we know but in the substance of it.

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).

As Augustine himself said, this is what our sight reports but our FAITH demands a subtler insight.

So here he equates the ability to discern the Body and Blood of our Lord with faith. If you do not have faith you will not discern it. You will only see what your eyes tell you not what faith demands.

Which brings me back to St Thomas song Tantum Ergo. What our senses fail to fathom, we grasp only through faith.

 

[benedictus2]

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).

Actually, reading the full context does not eliminate EENS’s claim. A further and greater understanding of the full context leads us to the Catholic interpretation.

As I have already posted before, there was something in Tractate 27 that you left out as well which would have cleared up your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of St Augustine:

Here it is again:
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.

Notice how in that last sentence he makes the vine and branches connection as well. Same as the “bears fruit” phrase in Sermon 272.

 

[Radical]

Yes it does have everything to do with transubstantiation.

Here is the bit you conveniently left out. After asking how can this be, Augustine goes on to say:

My friends, these realities are called sacraments *because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. *

Basically he is saying: what you see is not exactly what you get.

yep, he is saying that you see bread and wine and that you should grasp/understand something else. He then went on to explain that the spiritual understanding is about the Church being on the altar.

That, and his opening lines clearly tells us that he understands it in the transubstantiated sense,…

Clearly? Not even close…He clearly stated that his spiritual understanding was that the Church on the altar. He never mentioned a change of substance (in this passage or in any other), no matter how much you try to pretend that he did.

…because that is what transubstantiation says: what our senses apprehend is not what our faith fathoms.

that might be what transubstantiation says, but transubstantiation isn’t anything close to what Augustine believed. You are simply projecting your belief onto him.

 

[benedictus2]

yep, he is saying that you see bread and wine and that you should grasp/understand something else. He then went on to explain that the spiritual understanding is about the Church being on the altar.

Sorry but he did not say that all.

Now if you can offer proof that would be different.
Clearly? Not even close…He clearly stated that his spiritual understanding was that the Church on the altar. He never mentioned a change of substance (in this passage or in any other), no matter how much you try to pretend that he did.
Nope. He didn’t say that.

Do you want me to post the sermon here and then pehaps you can show where he said that Church is the one on the table.

Or maybe you can just post the exact words that makes you think he said that.

that might be what transubstantiation says, but transubstantiation isn’t anything close to what Augustine believed. You are simply projecting your belief onto him.

Sorry but I have just shown how it is.

Transubstantiation says you see bread but in faith you see the Body of Christ.

Augustine says : you see bread but your faith tells you something else.“your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood”

Maybe you don’t see this because as Augustine said - it requires FAITH.

Don’t worry. If you pray for faith, God will give it to you and then you will also be able to see. Just like St Augustine.

 

[lyrikal]

Sorry but he did not say that all.

Now if you can offer proof that would be different.

Nope. He didn’t say that.

Do you want me to post the sermon here and then pehaps you can show where he said that Church is the one on the table.

Or maybe you can just post the exact words that makes you think he said that.

Sorry but I have just shown how it is.

Transubstantiation says you see bread but in faith you see the Body of Christ.

Augustine says : you see bread but your faith tells you something else.“your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood”

Maybe you don’t see this because as Augustine said - it requires FAITH.

Don’t worry. If you pray for faith, God will give it to you and then you will also be able to see. Just like St Augustine.

For the record, Radical is right, Augustine did say the Church (ecclesial Body of Christ) is on the table. But he also (elsewhere) says that the Church (eclessial BOC) died on the cross and the Church (eclessial BOC) resurrected. That doesn’t mean Augustine denied the crucifixion and Resurrection of the ACTUAL Body of Christ. Augustine’s theology of the Body of Christ consists of the ecclesial Church and the actual Body of Christ. The Church being on the altar is consistent with Augestenian theology on the BOC. It was never meant to deny the actual BOC on the altar just like the BOC (ecclesial) dying on the cross and resurrecting was never meant to negate the actual BOC dying and resurrecting. It is figurative and beautiful language.

 

[benedictus2]

For the record, Radical is right, Augustine did say the Church (ecclesial Body of Christ) is on the table. But he also (elsewhere) says that the Church (eclessial BOC) died on the cross and the Church (eclessial BOC) resurrected. That doesn’t mean Augustine denied the crucifixion and Resurrection of the ACTUAL Body of Christ. Augustine’s theology of the Body of Christ consists of the ecclesial Church and the actual Body of Christ. The Church being on the altar is consistent with Augestenian theology on the BOC. It was never meant to deny the actual BOC on the altar just like the BOC (ecclesial) dying on the cross and resurrecting was never meant to negate the actual BOC dying and resurrecting. It is figurative and beautiful language.

I have re-read it again and I cannot find where it says that the Church is on the table.

It is one thing to say that the mystery of the Church is on the table. It is another to say that the Church itself is on the table.

For one thing, Augustine says “It is your own mystery that you are receiving!” So do you think that Augustine is saying that you are eating the Church?

 

[david_ruiz]

Howdy, yourself, david ruiz. As a Texan; I like you already.

How does John 6 tell us He is speaking figuratively?

 

[david_ruiz]

To recap,up to John 6:38,you have the bread ,with no inference of eating,except believing. You have salvation ,by believing, not eating.You have unbelief also ,nothing to do with eating. Jesus plainly says you see the signs(miracle of 5000) and “YE BELIEVE NOT”.Again,nothing to do with eating and no murmuring, yet. So, you have faith in Him gets you life ,you have unbelievers amidst the crowd, the disciples, and the apsotles,and you have jesus talking about meat and that He is the Bread from heaven.That is it to verse 38. Up to now ,figurative/spiritual is the context.Up to now. to be cont…

 

[ufamtobie]

To recap,up to John 6:38,you have the bread ,with no inference of eating,except believing. You have salvation ,by believing, not eating.You have unbelief also ,nothing to do with eating. Jesus plainly says you see the signs(miracle of 5000) and “YE BELIEVE NOT”.Again,nothing to do with eating and no murmuring, yet. So, you have faith in Him gets you life ,you have unbelievers amidst the crowd, the disciples, and the apsotles,and you have jesus talking about meat and that He is the Bread from heaven.That is it to verse 38. Up to now ,figurative/spiritual is the context.Up to now. to be cont…

David,

you are not recognizing that it is the body of Christ, let see what scriptures say about those and YOU who do not recognize the Body of Christ the Eucharist: 1 Cor 11: 29 because a** person who eats and drinks**** without recognizing the ''body"** is eating and drinking his own condemnation. OUCH

1Cor 11:26 Whenever you eat** this bread**, then, and drink** this cup,** you are proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes.

David take notice: THIS BREAD, THIS CUP, Paul is not referring to a symbol of just bread and cup. “THIS!” Paul, is meaning here is our salvation the Body and Blood of Christ.

David, by proclaiming the Lord’s death can not be done by a symbol, the way you believe, no! We can only proclaim the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ by “recognizing,” RECOGNIZING, RECOGNIZING the flesh of Jesus Christ that we eat and drink.

David you are recognizing alright, but you are recognizing that the bread is only a symbol the opposite of what Paul and the Catholic Church Teaches, Yes indeed, Paul, speaks of you above in 1 Cor 11: 29

But then again everyone has their own free will by God to choose right or wrong.

Ufam Tobie

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

you are not recognizing that it is the body of Christ, let see what scriptures say about those and YOU who do not recognize the Body of Christ the Eucharist: 1 Cor 11: 29 because a** person who eats and drinks**** without recognizing the ''body"** is eating and drinking his own condemnation. OUCH

1Cor 11:26 Whenever you eat** this bread**, then, and drink** this cup,** you are proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes.

David take notice: THIS BREAD, THIS CUP, Paul is not referring to a symbol of just bread and cup. “THIS!” Paul, is meaning here is our salvation the Body and Blood of Christ.

David, by proclaiming the Lord’s death can not be done by a symbol, the way you believe, no! We can only proclaim the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ by “recognizing,” RECOGNIZING, RECOGNIZING the flesh of Jesus Christ that we eat and drink.

David you are recognizing alright, but you are recognizing that the bread is only a symbol the opposite of what Paul and the Catholic Church Teaches, Yes indeed, Paul, speaks of you above in 1 Cor 11: 29

But then again everyone has their own free will by God to choose right or wrong.

Ufam Tobie

Thank-you .I am only discussing John here in a sequential manner to answers Ann’s question. I do not think you can apply future scripture and insight without possibly losing actual context. I am not sure you can determine an RP eating before John 6. What you do have are symbols in the Passover, and historical content of "manna"and Messianic prophecies etc. that the audience of Jesus words in john 6 have as their “backdrop” . I understand in hindsight you can absolutely "fit’ in RP, as you have done here, but that doesn’t make it “the” fit , which I believe is figurative /spiritual. Again, I am trying to look at john 6 as if we were there,2000 years ago, and had no knowledge of "John 7 “etc…”

 

[david_ruiz]

How does John 6 tell us He is speaking figuratively?

 

[david_ruiz]

How does John 6 tell us He is speaking figuratively?

End round 3.For sure it was the disciples that left that murmurred .That Jesus did eventually turn to the apostles and ask if they were leaving too may only indicate that while they may not have murmurred , they may not also have been positive or perhaps were silent. Jesus says they did not believe (disciples-murmurrers). How can you be a disciple of a “rabbi” whom you do not believe in ? Jesus tries to show them this by saying in essence they are carnal ,don’t get spiritual things and are not led by the Father - vs 63, 65. Another words, give it up .If you are not born again , you follow Jesus in vain or pretentiously. Jesus knew from the beginning , all the way back to vs 26, where this whole discourse began, who did not believe, even whom would betray Him - vs 64. What really separated the goats was this eating flesh and drinking blood. Again, he was still alive. They may have taken it to mean He would die (therefore not to sit on Davidic throne). The nail in the coffin was to mention His ascension , quite bluntly, "What if you see the Son of man ascend up to where He was before " vs. 62 I do not believe Jesus would have said this whole discourse, if it were just to the apostles. It was not necessary for them, for they already believed. Jesus knew they would be faithful to “remember” . To recap, I believe it began figuratively/spiritually in vs 27 and carried thru the discourse. We also have several cross references that says by believing you have same benefits as “eating”(resurrection ,abiding, eternal life). You separate the sheep from goats(main reason for discourse). And it futuristically sets up the Last Supper and it’s significance to this discourse. Again ,I don’t use this( Last Supper) to get meaning of john 6, so as to read it as if we were there, in their shoes, with no prejudicial hindsight.

 

[david_ruiz]

As I asked before; how does John 6 tell us Jesus is speaking figuratively? And, if those to whom he spoke understood his words to be figurative; why did many of his disciples say, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60) and then turn back and leave him (verse 66.)

 

[david_ruiz]

I am curious about something. You list your religious denomination as “Protestant, raised Catholic.” Were you a well catechized Catholic? Just wondering how you made the leap from the “Real Presence” of the Catholic Mass to “Remembrance, only”? ----if you want to answer–no pressure. You’ve taken enough heat.

One of these past threads I gave a short testimony.Yes .I believe I was well catechized, and if I wasn’t, then very few kids in our parish were. The leap was possible because I left the church (well just stopped going at 18 or 19) , and was quite worldly (spiritually dead) by 20 years of age. A more simple yet profound gospel (protestant for brevity in definition) was preached to me, that I had always rejected before. I became born again, by His word , no sacraments . I would now say as a Catholic youth I was like those in John 6 following Jesus by my own efforts, not being led of the Lord , cause I was spiritually dead, though very religious (this happens in all churches, I have been told). Of course I was then taught and practiced non-RP communion .It seemed quite natural, for I felt,because of His word, I had Jesus inside me already , in a true spiritual way .When it is by grace, it is not by religious deed, or rite, or sacrament. He indeed is like the wind. I also felt,because of His word, really empowered, dignified yet humble, that any true Christian is a priest, and can boldly go into the Holy of Holies.John 6:45 “and they shall all be taught of God,” The spirit bears witness in our hearts.Yet we are a community , the Body, the Church, and scripture also says every neighbor will teach his neighbor.,The middle wall of separation is gone.There are no formal intermediaries, for we are all intercessors .There are no more priests, for there are no more sacrifices in the OT sense. Only a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, and we are all priests .We can all equally give Him thanks . Alleluia…Anyways ,hopefully I have answered all your questions ,finally .Thanks for being patient.

 

[david_ruiz]

1 Cor 11: 29 because a** person who eats and drinks**** without recognizing the ''body"** is eating and drinking his own condemnation
1Cor 11:26 Whenever you eat** this bread**, then, and drink** this cup,** you are proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes

David take notice: THIS BREAD, THIS CUP, Paul is not referring to a symbol of just bread and cup. “THIS!” Paul, is meaning here is our salvation the Body and Blood of Christ.

Wait,wait wait .Where does Paul say This Cup is our salvation, or drinking it is our salvation ? He says poor discernment (not recognizing) is a condemnation(and not sure that is loss of salvation). That is not quite the same as saying good discernment/recognizing of the Cup is our salvation.Paul does not say this.This is all about partaking of communion worthily, as the ECF’s also said (make sure you are a Christian, confess your sins first etc)

David, by proclaiming the Lord’s death can not be done by a symbol, the way you believe, no! We can only proclaim the death of Our Lord Jesus Christ by “recognizing,” RECOGNIZING, RECOGNIZING the flesh of Jesus Christ that we eat and drink

False,false false.Proclaiming the Lord’s death can be done with symbols much like in the original ,old covenant Passover, which foreshadowed the first advent. Secondly we proclaim it with words, with preaching .“I came to you trembling with one thought ,preach the cross”, (Paul) We, as Christians, not only proclaim His death, but His resurrection, and His second coming, with words -The Gospel: ( “Meditate how to save a soul by the word” - Barnabus 100 A.D. ECF), and actions/attitude: (“Be His witness, and when necessary, use words.” St. Francis-?), and when we assemble with the remembrance communion rite.

David you are recognizing alright, but you are recognizing that the bread is only a symbol the opposite of what Paul and the Catholic Church Teaches, Yes indeed, Paul, speaks of you above in1 Cor 11: 29

Yes, that is what CC says Paul teaches, and as you know, I disagree. Paul does not directly say the Cup is a symbol . Paul does not directly say it becomes the Blood at consecration either.You may infer that , as I may infer "the Body "to be recognized is the Body of Christ, which should be acting in accordance with the Head, to participate worthily.Thank-you

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8446610:

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

Thanks ,Trip was good.I know you are not saying where I am headed, nor am i saying it .I am only taking CC decrees( Trent) literally: seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God. CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.
“an anathema is a thing or person accursed or damned; a thing or person greatly detested; a formal curse or condemnation excommunicating a person from a church or damning something; any strong curse.”

 

[CopticChristian]

ufamtobie;8448290:

Thanks ,Trip was good.I know you are not saying where I am headed, nor am i saying it .I am only taking CC decrees( Trent) literally: seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God. CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.
“an anathema is a thing or person accursed or damned; a thing or person greatly detested; a formal curse or condemnation excommunicating a person from a church or damning something; any strong curse.”

You may want to investigate this site for the meaning of Anathema.

catholic.com/quickquestions/could-you-explain-anathema-does-the-church-teach-that-protestants-are-anathema-becaus

Here is one response.

I believe it just means excommunicated.

I don’t know that it matters. You state you are Protestant raised Catholic. I suppose you could say David had shipwreck of the Faith, David was not Catechized, David is Protestant and has Catholic roots.

If you are Protestant according to this post Anathema no longer applies to those anathemas you listed. If you were truly Catholic and truly understood what you were doing in renouncing Catholicism then shipwreck might apply. Only you know and I really don’t think it matters, you are happy and you are here posting and I for the life of me cannot believe I am posting anything to you since I had given up on you long ago.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hey David,

I’m back from vacation. Did you miss me?

. . . .Believed what ? To eat Him ? Maybe, but probably not . .

“Maybe” & “Probably not” can be somewhat risky when one’s salvation is at stake.

Of course, Jesus is the Messiah and has the words of life. What words of Spirit and life did Jesus speak? "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:54); “. . .unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

. . .scripture speaks figuratively in several other places of eating the “word” as meat ,or drinking it as milk.

1 Corinthians 3:2 does use “milk” and “solid food” as a clear metaphor, as does Hebrews 5:12-13.
**
1 Peter 2** speaks of “spiritual milk.” The passage does not say the milk is “true milk”; and neither does 1 Corinthians 3:2 or Hebrews 5:12-13.

1 Peter 2: 1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

Other metaphors are used and explained, such as the Temple:
John 2: 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

The temple destroyed and raised up in three days was used as a metaphor for the Body of Jesus–which, btw, the passage explains; but something literal did happen: Jesus was raised from the dead.

In Mark Chapter 4 we find The Parable of the Sower, The Purpose of the Parables, A Lamp Under a Basket, The Parable of the Seed Growing, The Parable of the Mustard Seed, etc. Jesus spoke in parables to the crowd, but notice Mark 4: 33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. 34 He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

The Biblical usage of milk and solid food figuratively/metaphorically, and other metaphors/parables, does not mean the Bread and Wine do not become the true Body and Blood of Christ during the Holy Eucharist.

. . . Augustine quite succinctly and descriptively expounds a figurative eating also ).

benedictus2 has already answered this very well:

Yes it does have everything to do with transubstantiation.

Here is the bit you conveniently left out. After asking how can this be, Augustine goes on to say: . . .
benedictus2;8450289:

Actually, reading the full context does not eliminate EENS’s claim. A further and greater understanding of the full context leads us to the Catholic interpretation. . .

This “eating” tripped" up the unbelievers. It alluded to His death (whether they thought of eating literally or figuratively) .Why else would he say to the unbelievers that he was going to ascend back to heaven also. . . .

The Jews asked a very direct question:
John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus gave a direct answer, including the fact that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink:
John 6: 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

. . . .John 6 has nothing to do with RP, everthing to do with the biggest question in the universe , whom is Jesus to the individual, does one believe in the creed ? And if you do, it is because you are drawn of the Father (the departing disciple were not) who reveals to you His son.Alleluia. …to be cont, with pleasure and Lord willing

John 6 has to do with the Real Presence of our Savior, in Spirit and Flesh and Blood.

If you do not believe in consuming the true flesh and true blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; how do you fulfill the requirement to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood-----in order to have life in you----eternal life----and be raised up on the last day?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Because Love is blind; What david ruiz fails to realize is that when he recieved a Catholic baptism the graces never left him.

When his ear was tickled, and emotions stirred he professed “I believe”. This is one of the vows professed at baptism. But david’s god parents probably professed it for him in “Faith”.

When david got his ear tickled, he claimed his sacramental graces from his baptism. The sad thing is Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli as david recieved their sacramental graces, then proclaimed to their converts they don’t need a sacramental baptism.

How is it that these recieved the graces from God from their sacraments and then refuse them to others is beyond me.

“And sacramental love is unconditional and never earned”

Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world have mercy on me “a sinner”. Amen

 

[benedictus2]

Those that turned away did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, hence could not take it figuratively /spiritually. They somehow took it literally, or that he must die (not knowing why).

As I have already explained before, those that turned away and those who stayed can only have had a literal understanding.

They understood it literally was because Jesus said it over and over again. Jesus was practically saying "what is it you do not get when I said eat my flesh drink my blood?’ This is the only time in all of the texts in the New Testament when Jesus repeated it over and over again and his language became harder and harder - five times over a a few verses. Remember that. That is why they understood him well enough to be speaking literally.

The other option was to understand him figuratively which is a No-No because as I have already explained before, for the Jews of His time to “eat someone’s flesh” is to do someone harm by calumny and they understood perfectly well that Jesus’s couldn’t possibly be telling them to harm Him in this way.

You made a very good criteria for understanding John 6. You said, let’s find out what those who stayed - the apostles - understood.

Well, the apostles understood it literally too. As I have already shown you, the Church Fathers, those who succeeded the apostles understood it the same way which they have only received from the Apostles. Paul whose writings were earlier than the gospels understood it literally too.

There was no question of this understanding till the 12th century. When other things were questioned this one never was.

So, even according to your own criteria your own understanding is false.

So what do you do then? This only goes to show that you want to believe a lie. You make justifications for yourself so that you can continue believing the lie even when you know full well that it is a lie.

This whole exchange is supposed to be God’s grace to you to come the truth but on and on when you are cornered you retreat into your own rationalizations. I am sure that your own rationalizations don’t make sense even to you but you cling to them. Why? Only you can answer that. For that you need to be honest to yourself…