E
elvisman
Guest
Answer this:
Why did Jesus make mud out of dirt and saliva to heal the blind man?
Why did God put the 10 Commandments on 2 stone tablets?
- Status
Why did Jesus make mud out of dirt and saliva to heal the blind man?
Why did God put the 10 Commandments on 2 stone tablets?
A
Arandur
Guest
Yes, because Christ never divorced the spiritual from the physical. Why do you?
Humans are both physical and spiritual beings. To ignore the physical is to ignore that which makes us human. God does not do so. He meets us in physical ritual throughout the OT, and in person physically through the Incarnation and the Eucharist.
Why would you throw that away? Do you think matter is evil, as the Gnostics do?
I
IronHammer
Guest
You have given (here and in your previous posts in this thread) the clearest, most profound and objectively compelling argument for the miracle of the Eucharist that I have ever read. You are an eloquent, patient and learned defender of the Faith. I hope to hear more from you on these forums.
I
IronHammer
Guest
Firstly, I trust the Church, which Christ established and from which the Scriptures come. Sure, the Church had serious issues growing up, but it never taught error. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all Truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Church has prevailed as He promised.
What do you think the Catholic Church is today? We trust and follow the Church’s teachings. When we identify flawed theology, we compare it against the teachings of the Church. I don’t see the problem with this line of thinking.
This is merely an opinion you hold with no real authority. But there are many, many people who go against this teaching and still call themselves Christian…equally with no authority for their opinion. What makes your standpoint more valid than theirs? For me, it is the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. Isn’t it curious that, after nearly 2,000 years, the Church still won’t bend on these issues? The Church is only a messenger, it cannot edit God’s mail.
In the great scheme of things, Scripture was more of an after-thought. Jesus held scripture to be of such importance that He felt compelled to write nothing at all anywhere. Nor did He instruct his disciples to do so. Don’t you find that strange? Decades passed where the Apostles and their successors passed the faith on merely by word of mouth. Scripture was written to counter the attacks of non-Christian elements trying to infiltrate the churches. And if, by some miracle, more scripture were to be found and the Catholic church prayerfully declared it to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be added to the Canon, then that is all the authority I need. The fact is, I trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to not allow the Church to teach error.
Sorry, I know this is off topic, but I just had to get that off my chest!
H
historyb
Guest
Because He desired to do those things, He could have easily used anything He wanted. The elements don’t matter, the effect is what mattered
H
historyb
Guest
No of course not, let’s not be silly. I say the elements do matter because they don’t become nothing the Lord’s Supper is but a memorial that as oft as we do it we are to do it in remembrance of Him. Instead in Catholicism there is to much concern over the elements instead of the remembrance
A
Arandur
Guest
Thank you, but I can’t claim credit for much more than trying to be vessel. Anything I provide that’s true comes from God, for I lived in denial of these great truths when left to my own faculties. Most of what understanding I have has come through contemplation during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, Adoration, and the Rosary. That’s one of the reasons I believe so strongly now, because I don’t find much insight when I’m not doing those things. Therefore, I see all the more power in those things, and I only say this because I hope this testimony suggests the same to others.
R
Radical
Guest
Judechild and elvisman, I have dealt with Augustine’s view at some length in this thread .
And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”
Was Jesus literally carrying something? Yes, he was carrying bread. Is it lying to call the bread Jesus’s body? No, because Augustine was referring to the similitude that the bread bore to the body. So in that certain way, Jesus literally carried that body (the body by way of similtude) in his hands.
In his letter to Bonafice (Lettter 98) letter Augustine said:
Frequently we speak in such a way as to say, [for example] when Easter draws near, “Tomorrow or the next day will be the Passion of the Lord”, and we say this although he suffered many years ago and although the Passion occurred once and for all. Likewise on a Sunday we say, “The Lord rose today” – even though very many years have passed since he rose. Now no one is so inept as to call us liars when we speak this way, because we are referring to these days according to the similitude they bear to those in which such events happened…Was not Christ immolated in himself once and for all? Nevertheless is he not immolated for the people in the Sacrament not only at the Paschal solemnities but every day, so that anyone who replies to a questioner that he is immolated does not lie? For if the sacraments did not bear a certain similarity [Lat. quondam similitudinem] to those things for which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith.
In his letter to Bonafice, Augustine again uses “certain way” when he states: “Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord” Allow me to set the context in point form.
a) Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord rose on every Easter Sunday (year after year) b/c of the similitude those subsequent Easter Sundays bear to the first
b) Again b/c of the similtudes, Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord is immolated every day, even though he was immolated once and for all.
c) Again b/c of the similtudes, the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord
the certain way described by Augustine is by the way of similtude, or symbolically if you prefer
I had said this regarding Augustine’s two sermons on Psalms 33/34…In the second sermon Augustine picked up where he left off and continued by saying:
And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”
Was Jesus literally carrying something? Yes, he was carrying bread. Is it lying to call the bread Jesus’s body? No, because Augustine was referring to the similitude that the bread bore to the body. So in that certain way, Jesus literally carried that body (the body by way of similtude) in his hands.
In his letter to Bonafice (Lettter 98) letter Augustine said:
Frequently we speak in such a way as to say, [for example] when Easter draws near, “Tomorrow or the next day will be the Passion of the Lord”, and we say this although he suffered many years ago and although the Passion occurred once and for all. Likewise on a Sunday we say, “The Lord rose today” – even though very many years have passed since he rose. Now no one is so inept as to call us liars when we speak this way, because we are referring to these days according to the similitude they bear to those in which such events happened…Was not Christ immolated in himself once and for all? Nevertheless is he not immolated for the people in the Sacrament not only at the Paschal solemnities but every day, so that anyone who replies to a questioner that he is immolated does not lie? For if the sacraments did not bear a certain similarity [Lat. quondam similitudinem] to those things for which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith.
In his letter to Bonafice, Augustine again uses “certain way” when he states: “Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord” Allow me to set the context in point form.
a) Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord rose on every Easter Sunday (year after year) b/c of the similitude those subsequent Easter Sundays bear to the first
b) Again b/c of the similtudes, Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord is immolated every day, even though he was immolated once and for all.
c) Again b/c of the similtudes, the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord
the certain way described by Augustine is by the way of similtude, or symbolically if you prefer
R
Radical
Guest
continuing…
Re sermon 272 here are my remarks from the other thread:
IN SERMON 272 Augustine said:
Further, Augustine first notes that one thing is seen and another is understood. He then asks, “How can bread be his body?” His answer to that question (which continues to the second paragraph) is not one which points to a bodily presence. I understand his answer to be:
Re sermon 227 This passage can be easily understood in a figurative manner. I would like to see an English translation of the whole sermon, b/c as with Sermon 272 it may actually prove to be of use in arguing against a real bodily presence in Augustine’s view of the Eucharist
Re sermon 272 here are my remarks from the other thread:
IN SERMON 272 Augustine said:
- the bread IS the body of Christ
- it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
- it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table
My position is that if one is going to understand that the “IS” in #1 means “is actually” as opposed to “is symbolically” or “is spiritually”, then one should be consistent and understand the “ARE” in #2 to mean “are actually” and the “BEEN” in #3 to mean “actually been”. From there, if one claims a real bodily presence of Christ from “is actually”, then one should be consistent and claim a real bodily presence of all believers from “have actually been”. Further, if one can understand that in saying #2 and #3 that Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner, then one should be consistent and understand that in saying #1 Augustine could have been speaking in a purely figurative manner.
Further, Augustine first notes that one thing is seen and another is understood. He then asks, “How can bread be his body?” His answer to that question (which continues to the second paragraph) is not one which points to a bodily presence. I understand his answer to be:
- Just as Paul tells the believers at Corinth that they are the body of Christ, Augustine’s congregation are also the body of Christ
- If one accepts this understanding, then by partaking in the Eucharist one is partaking in the sacrament of peace and unity with one’s fellow believers (who are the members of Christ’s body)
- A loaf of bread is suitable for this understanding because it is made from many grains (and many believers are united in the body), the grains are ground (believers are exorcised), mixed into dough (believers are baptized) and baked (believers receive the fire of the Holy Spirit).
- “Be what you can see, and receive what you are. That’s what the apostle said about the bread.” This is how Augustine concludes his remarks on the loaf of bread.
Re sermon 227 This passage can be easily understood in a figurative manner. I would like to see an English translation of the whole sermon, b/c as with Sermon 272 it may actually prove to be of use in arguing against a real bodily presence in Augustine’s view of the Eucharist
A
Arandur
Guest
The Jews saw/see the Passover as the greatest of their feasts, do they not? And a participation in the ACTUAL original Exodus Passover? It’s not just a “remembrance.” According to Zola Levitt, anyway (a Christian Jew), Jews are taught that at the Passover meal, they share a meal with the original Israelites of the Passover as if they were actually there at the same table. So too is it with the Christian celebration of the Eucharist with the Last Supper.
Scott Hahn is fond of pointing out the significance of the bread and wine as they replace the lamb and wine of the Passover. If you are right and the bread and wine don’t matter, then what would have happened to the Israelites if they had not eaten the lamb and drank the wine as commanded? Their firstborns would have died. That sounds pretty significant to me.
Well, Jesus is the firstborn and he DOES die so we don’t have to. But in order for that ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God to be recognized and efficacious for us, can we just ignore it and claim it a symbol, or do we actually have to EAT it? Seems Scripture is pretty clear. Scripture speaks in patterns, and the patterns for the Eucharist in the Catholic understanding are perhaps stronger than any other pattern anywhere, save for the entirety that proves Jesus is the Son of God. God has filled His Scriptures from cover to cover with evidence after evidence that Jesus IS the Lamb, the Bread, the Wine. Seems to me the greatest desires of the Devil are first to convince man there is no God; failing that, Jesus is not our Redeemer; failing that, Jesus is not present with us and a part of us in the Eucharist, but is spiritual only and physically distant. For this would leave Satan with ultimate control over the physical dimension of this universe, as he claimed before Christ–if he can’t convince you Christ is nothing, then Satan would want to convince you that Christ is not with you in the physical realm, where Satan is strongest. It is sad that so many have fallen prey to the Prince of Lies in this manner.
H
historyb
Guest
The Lamb was commended to be eaten, not so with bread and wine. With the memorial it was commanded to do that in remembrance of our Lord as often as we partook. Really different things.
A
Arandur
Guest
I wouldn’t try if I were you. All of that is better interpreted in context of a real bodily presence. Again, perhaps you’re hung up on “flesh and blood” expecting it to be human flesh and blood in a cannibalistic manner. It is not. It is Jesus becoming bread and wine, which necessarily makes it not just bread and wine, but truly the things that it signifies–body and blood.
I’ll take your 3 points.
- Literal. The bread IS the Body of Christ; Christ is actually there, physically present.
- Literal. This is the great revelation to Paul. We are literally the Body of Christ because of the Eucharist. When we consume the bread and wine that is Christ, we in-corp-orate that physical reality through digestion. God has made it very real both physically and spiritually that we become the Body of Christ through consuming him in the Eucharist.
- Literal. As mentioned before, the Passover is understood by its participants as an actual, literal participation in the original meal. So too do we, through the miracle of the Mass, participate in one eternal meal with Jesus at the Last Supper and all Eucharistic celebrations in all places at all times, on earth and in heaven. This is the Catholic understanding, and it is wholly consistent with Augustine’s words, no dicing of literal vs. figurative required.
As for this:
Please explain how you arrive at your conclusion. I don’t see where “in a certain way” necessarily means “symbolically.”
Baptism is not just a symbol because it is conducted similarly to Jesus’s baptism. It actually confers the grace of baptism through salvation.
Marriage is not just a symbol because we say pretty words and exchange rings. It is makes grace efficacious through the exchange of vows in the presence of witnesses and with the full consent of both parties.
Ordination is not just a symbol because laying on hands is what was originally done. It confers grace through that action when validly done that would not otherwise have been conferred had hands not been laid.
So too the Eucharist is not “Christ’s body” just because bread is symbolically and thematically similar to Christ’s role, actions, and human body. It is made so through the same actual working of grace that makes all the other Sacraments efficacious. In fact, perhaps moreso, for in the Eucharist, Jesus, the High Priest, offers himself by his own Word. God says “I AM” and He IS. Jesus says this (bread) IS my Body, and it IS. By the same power through which God spoke the universe into existence–for God spoke the Word (His Son, Jesus) and there was light. When the Word speaks, what it speaks becomes true. Such is God’s power.
A
Arandur
Guest
The bread and wine weren’t commanded to be eaten? That’s what John 6 in the OP was about.
With the Last Supper in the context of the Passover, is it not clear that Jesus’s transformation of the Passover meal into the Eucharistic meal was not to be the same?
E
elvisman
Guest
WRONG.
The elements DO matter to the human being.
God knows this and used the mud, the tablets and the bread and wine to remind us of our humanity - just as he made Adam from clay and reminded him of this fact in Gen. 3:19.
He KNEW that we, as humans, live with the tangible and need the tangible.
Your dismissal of this fact shows that you do not understand Scripture but make it up as you go along.
E
elvisman
Guest
Talk about having to perform theological gymnastics to arrive at a point! It’s a shame that you can’t (or won’t) accept the concept of the “polyvalent symbolism” used in Scripture AND holimetics. This is when there is more than one symbolism used to explain something. (i.e., the Body of Christ = the Church, Body of Christ = the Eucharist)
You can’t accept that Augustine believed in the Real Presence so you either go to a website that has the same problem as you and the people in John 6:66 (which is what I’m guessing) - or you make it up as you go along.
**It just doesn’t wash with the context of Augustine’s writings. **
It’s much like when a Protestant will claim the validity of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura based (wrongly) on 2 Timothy 3:16-17, but ignore avery other Scripture passage that contradicts their false belief.
Do you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? If you don’t, you’re a heretic, according to Augustine:
**"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56).
Do you believe in the Authority of the Church? If you don’t, you’re condemned by Augustine:
*"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" *
(The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
"If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).
Nice try - but I’m not a gymnast . . .
J
judechild
Guest
As Arandur said, yes it was commanded to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lamb of God. Jesus did not come to be an abolisher, but a fulfiller. It’s very interesting how many of the events in Jesus’ life attest to this Great Mystery: Bethlehem means “place of bread”, Jesus was laid in a feeding trough when He was born, he was called out of Egypt where Jacob had sent his sons (literally all of Israel) to get bread. Finally, Jesus became the Pascal Lamb Himself. It’s a Great Mystery.
E
elvisman
Guest
This is all polyvalent symbolism and will be lost on historyb, who believes that only one symbol at a time can be compared to a New Teatament fulfillment.
T
twohumble
Guest
Gentlemen:
Please let me ask you:
Please let me ask you:
- When Moses commanded put the blood on the door post, was this supposed to symbolize anything in the NT?
- When there were 3 unleavened loaves baked, was this symbolic or representative of anything? If so, what?
- Why was the lamb brought in as a pet before the sacrafice? Is this symbolic?
- How about the various chalices of wine, did the represent anything?
- How about the order to ‘clense the house of all leaven’ before the ceremony?
- How about leaven itself? Did this represent anything?
- How about teh aficoman or torn off piece of the bread, wrapped in linen and hidden away, to come back later in the meal…did this represent anything symbolically?
A
Arandur
Guest
As you gave no Scripture references either, I will respond off the cuff as well. If we have a misunderstanding, we may need to get into the Scriptures or into Jewish tradition. Most of my understanding of the Passover from the Jewish perspective comes from Christian Jewish sources, and most directly summarized by Zola Levitt, who operated his own ministry for Christian Jews. So I refer to tradition as well as the original Scripture, placing it in its proper context.
The blood of the sacrificial lamb is placed over the house of the family (the household), indicating to the angel of death to passover. Similarly, Jesus’ blood serves that purpose for us, but in a full and complete way.
It was an indication of the Trinity. This is something that may not have been well understood by the Jews because it is not well explained until Jesus. Zola Levitt indeed says they do not know why the three, nor fully why one is hidden and brought out later. As it is said, the Bible is a book with the answers in the back.
I don’t know about this “pet” business.
I don’t recall them all well (Sanctification, Judgment, Redemption, Restoration?), but I believe there were four, and they all had specific purposes during the ritual. Scott Hahn delves deeply into these. I believe Jesus consecrated the third cup as his Blood, the Cup of Redemption. He did not finish the Passover meal, but halted before the final cup. Depending on your interpretation, he took this cup either on the cross, or is waiting to take it in Heaven. Zola Levitt speaks of the similar cup of betrothal in Jewish wedding rites, and how Jesus partook of his cup (the third) like the cup of betrothal, but waits for the last for his Bride the Church in Heaven, going to “make a place” for her (the Church) as Jewish men would build a house for their brides, at the completion of which the father of the bride certifies it as ready and allows the wedding to take place.
Leaven was symbolic of sin. Catholics require a clear conscience (freedom from mortal sin through Reconciliation and general confession of venial sin prior to Communion during the Mass) prior to receiving the Eucharist, clearing our “house” of all sin.
Leaven is symbolic of sin. Unleavened bread is pure, lacking the yeast “rot” that is leaven. Jesus is without sin, and thus is truly the unleavened Bread of Life. He is also striped and pierced like the bread of the Passover would be, due to its baking process.
The manna from heaven returning (as Jesus calls himself in John 6); Jesus’ birth (in the Place of Bread); and Jesus’ burial and resurrection (wrapped in linen, placed in a tomb, and resurrected out of it).
All very strong foreshadowings of Christ and the reality of his being the Lamb and the Bread and the Wine of the Passover, that which the Passover was instituted to forecast and prepare us for. Why all this powerful connection to Christ if he was not to actually become the Lamb, the Bread, the Wine, and to be consumed physically as such? It makes little sense to relate such things to Jesus’ truth or doctrine or word (though he is also, of course, the Word) as some form of sustenance symbolized by bread. No, he tells us that he is truly food.
And how about Melchizedek’s supper; the manna; the contents of the Ark of the Covenant; the High Priest’s sacrifice on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies; the very concept of animal sacrifice and consumption, most dramatic with Abraham and Isaac; the manger; the encounter with the disciples on the road to Emmaus; the admonition of faithlessness for not understanding the loaves on the sea just before the bread of life discourse in John 6? All of these and many more testify to Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist.
J
judechild
Guest
You’ve done a good job laying out what you believe St. Augustine to mean in his sermons, and I’m too ignorant of the sermons themselves to give an adequate response to them directly (for now). But I do have one more thing to point out; an analysis from a socio-cultural perspective.
If St. Augustine had been saying that the Eucharist is only sybolic, why is there no uproar? That would be a clearly dissenting thought from both orthodoxy and mainstream thought of the time, and St. Augustine was a prominent bishop, his dissent would be noticed by others. In fact, I don’t doubt that not only would he have been officially denounced, but he would have had trouble getting away from being excommunicated. A total lack of outcry leads me to severely doubt your take on the Saint’s work. St. Augustine is also a “Doctor of the Church”. I doubt the Catholic Church would grant him that title if he went against “the source and summit of Christian life.”
For more help in this, I would like to appeal to Martin Luther:
“of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread and wine,’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread,’ or ‘Not that the body of Christ is physically present,’ or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ’s body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writing a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side” (Luther’s Works, St. Louis, MI: Concordia Publishing, 1961, Volume 37, 54).
It does seem a bit odd that a former *Augustinian *monk apparently believes that St. Augustine is among the other father who “stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side”. The reason there is no uproar is because St. Augustine did not believe in a static, symbolic Eucharist. The socio-cultural conotations surrounding St. Augustine’s work are not compatible with the belief that he goes against orthodoxy.
- Status