Please follow the only simple rule:

[Radical]

I think you are trying to muddy the waters here. Jesus clarified himself in John 6 by repeating the command to eat his flesh and drink his blood three times… His words were very disturbing, but not deceptive, and very clear.

They weren’t clear at all b/c the Jews were asking about how they would chew/gnaw on his flesh and in the Catholic view no actual gnawing of flesh occurs. The more palatable explanation of eating via transubstantiation was never offered and so, by your definition Christ would have been deceptive on that occasion.

In retrospect it’s easy for us to see that Jesus was speaking of his own body in his reference to re-building the temple in three days. But I’ll bet if the Pharisees would have torn down the temple he would have done just what he said he could. Just because he didn’t clarify the statement doesn’t mean he was deceptive at all.

The scriptures clarify exactly what he meant that day. You are utilizing a double standard to say a failure to explain in one instance is deceptive and in another instance it is not decpetive.

I don’t know what passage from St Augustine you are quoting from, but I’ll bet my boots you are taking it out of context.

On Christian Doctrine Bk III …feel free to drop your boots off at any Salvation Army facility

 

[Radical]

I hope that the following lets you see how we view the subject of Mary…

It most certainly did. Thanks. I see that it all comes down to the faith you place in the integrity of the works and councils of the Early Church Fathers…which I suppose you would attribute to Christ’s promise to lead the Church into all truth. I don’t understand that promise in that way and therefore hold to a different view.

I can see we don’t see eye to eye on the Eucharist but I’d like to offer the following on its importance:
"based on the intimate relation of body and soul, just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’"

With this I can agree…but, I would see the filling of the soul as a spiritual thing, and would then also say that the “true feeding” also takes place (only) on a spiritual plane with the actual physical feeding involving a physical symbol of Christ’s body. As with so many things, a physical act results in a spiritual benefit.

 

[greggy53]

They weren’t clear at all b/c the Jews were asking about how they would chew/gnaw on his flesh and in the Catholic view no actual gnawing of flesh occurs. The more palatable explanation of eating via transubstantiation was never offered and so, by your definition Christ would have been deceptive on that occasion.

Not by my definition at all. We believe in the literal interpretation of John 6. We eat and drink his flesh in the form of the Eucharist. By your figurative interpretation he was being deceptive, that he didn’t really mean what he said over and over again.

The scriptures clarify exactly what he meant that day. You are utilizing a double standard to say a failure to explain in one instance is deceptive and in another instance it is not decpetive…

Remember the scriptures were written after the fact, like I said in retrospect.

On Christian Doctrine Bk III …feel free to drop your boots off at any Salvation Army facility

Not a chance pal, St Augustine believed in the real presence of the holy Eucharist…all the saints did starting with St Paul, right from the get go.

 

[Liraco]

which I suppose you would attribute to Christ’s promise to lead the Church into all truth.

At least you see where I’m coming from.

With this I can agree…but, I would see the filling of the soul as a spiritual thing, and would then also say that the “true feeding” also takes place (only) on a spiritual plane with the actual physical feeding involving a physical symbol of Christ’s body. As with so many things, a physical act results in a spiritual benefit.

I guess this is where I see this as not limiting Christ’s body and blood to something purely physical OR purely spiritual.

I would tie this to the risen Christ’s body (it’s not purely spiritual because He could be touched and yet wasn’t purely physical because His body rose up to Heaven which we don’t hold to be a physical place). So just as His reincarnated body goes beyond the limitations of the what we know, so too do I think the Eucharist is beyond these limits (it’s still His body after all.) Just like Christ’s divinity was only shown to 3 during the transfiguration, so too is the Eucharist veiled in what it truly is.

In any event, I’m glad to have found someone who actually listens (as opposed to many I’ve met who just shout as loud as they can to ignore anything I say with a prepared script to follow when I’m done.) Your understanding seems to be SO close.

God bless.