Real Presence and John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Couldn’t somebody believe in transubstantiation and the real presence and just feel that Augustine did not properly understand or was wrong?
Yes.
Isn’t it possible to believe that he was wrong on something?
Yes.
Why do people go so far and take quotations out of context to show that Augustine believed in a physical change in the Eucharist?
Why do you take him out of context, when even academics that you quote admit that he believed in the Real Presence? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you misunderstand the way that certain words were used in antiquity, even when passages have been posted by scholars showing that the way you are reading Augustine is not the way he intended?
He clearly wrote that John 6:53 was figurative (post #31).
He also clearly wrote that the Eucharist must be adored. So if he is being figurative about the Eucharist, he has just commanded idolatry. So either he is an idolater, or he is not. But if he is not, then you misinterpret how the word figurative and symbol were used in the early Church. Fortunately, for Augustine, just about every Augustinian scholar admits that the way he uses those words are not the way that you interpret them. The following passage is taken from this article: matt1618.freeyellow.com/realpresence2.html
The Fathers looked at the Eucharist in many ways. While primarily the Eucharist was seen in realist means (as a sacrifice and as the literal body and blood of Our Lord) some Fathers also entertained other means of viewing this mystery. Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and even at times Augustine of Hippo were more allegorical in their approach and some Protestant apologists point to the symbolism used in the writings of these Fathers (and a few others) and claim that these Fathers did not take the realist view. However this is a serious error in anachronism, because what we call a symbol or figure today is not what the ancients held it to be. As the liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack (who was never fond of the Catholic Church) noted in his work History of Dogma, what we nowadays understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents. This is markedly different from the way the ancient Church understood the concept. To paraphrase Harnack: “At that time, ‘symbol’ denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies.” This point was also emphasized in the writings of the aforementioned J.N.D. Kelly, considered one of the greatest Protestant early church hisitorians of the twentieth century:
Code:
Occasionally these writers [the Fathers] use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.'
Code:
*Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type;** the symbol in some sense was the thing symbolized.*** Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make present.'
Code:
All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, **he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are now Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine. [4]**
This point is also amplified by the Anglican scholar Rev. Darwell Stone:
Code:
**To suppose that 'symbol in Clement of Alexandria or 'figure' in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is gravely misleading. [5]
**
The key misunderstanding above (referred to by Rev. Stone as “grave”) is why Protestant apologists are so far off base when they try to appropriate Fathers who were more allegorical then literal in their theological approaches as believers in the Real Presence different to what Catholics, the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans hold to. (Among those popularly appealed to include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine.) What we now call “symbol” is something completely different from what was so called by the ancient Church. This is why the failure to understand time periods, languages, customs, and thought patterns of the ancients will get one in a whole heap of trouble when they try to determine according to modern meanings of terms what the ancients meant by using the same terms.
A contemporary example of words undergoing a change in their usage is what has happened with the word “gay.” Compared with its usage only fifty years ago, the meaning is night and day different. This is the same with the concept of “symbol” or “figure” in what it means now and what it meant fourteen hundred plus years ago. **A little common sense is in order here: if the Divine Scriptures can be twisted as to their meaning by the unlearned and unstable among us (2 Pet. 3:14-17), why would anyone be naïve enough to think that the non-inspired writings of the Fathers are less susceptable to being misunderstood then the very Word of God is??? **
 
I agree Duane,

I don’t recall where it was, but I actually really liked how Origen explained the Eucharist. There is a “symbolic” aspect to His Eucharist no doubt. But it’s more about symbolizing what His Body and Blood means, and what it is for us, than whether His Eucharist actually has a “change”. I believe St Augustin did believe there was a change. The principal factor, regarding this change, is in the “consecration”. The consecration is very significant. Who can perform this consecration, and so call the Spirit to change what was common bread and wine into the Sacramental Body and Blood which Jesus gave, His Church, for the life of the world.

Did St Augustine believe that any Christian could consecrate a Eucharist meal? This is an important aspect of the issue. Augustine was not faced with the Church’s definition and use of transubstantiation. It’s not entirely fair to place him in rejection of it. He expressed the Spiritual. But this is true, even holding to transubstantation. We believe it is the Spirit who descends on the gifts to make them the sacrificial lamb from that moment at Calvary. We believe Jesus (bodily) moves with the Spirit, as one.
 
I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it? 🤷

Thanks
The real presence has come under much scrutiny since Jesus Christ first introduced the subject in John 6, and celebrated later before His passion and death and finally after His resurrection on the road to Emmaus.

Firstly the Eucharist is the most blessed Sacrament of all Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

One cannot define or exhaust the meaning of the real presence in the Eucharist, Just as no one can exhaust the definition of the blessed Trinity, when God is in Presence.

One cannot eat another who is living eternally, so the definition of cannibalism does not apply, when the later means **to eat a dead one **of the same species. Christ Lives Amen.

The Eucharist is celebrating a new and everlasting covenant in God’s presence. When we partake of the Eucharist, we go before the Father, because “NO ONE goes before the father except through the Son”. In our human nature we begin the path by consuming the Eucharist, but the eternal reality is, It is Jesus Christ Himself who consumes our whole being into His presence, as we enter the Holy of Holies.

Without going into a mystical explanation here, Let us place God’s Love in place of God’s real presence when neither is ever divided or separated, thus it is God’s Love (real presence) which we are partakers of, and It is God’s Love (real presence) who consumes the believer in God’s real presence, which Jesus Christ promised to be with us always, especially when two or more are gathered in His name, there Christ is ever present.

A sacrament is the finger of God touching our humanity.

Peace be with you
 
So Schaff is saying Augustine believes in the Real Presence correct? Now look up the theory of the Real Presence. The very terminology of Real Presence means not symbolic, as we now understand symbolism.
I have been trying to research the history of the term ‘real presence.’ It is kind of a vague term that could mean anything from the promise of the Holy Spirit in John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. and Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them to consubstantiation and transubstantiation. I had understood that when most people use this term today they are speaking of a physical presence of Jesus’ flesh and blood via transubstantiation or consubstantiation. However as I am seeing this term has a different meaning in 19th century Anglicanism. The English reformers (and some in previous centuries like Wycliffe) used it to show a high view of the Eucharist while denouncing transubstantiation. They spoke of a real spiritual presence, but denied a physical presence. It is a more modern usage where these concepts are combined under the umbrella of “Real Presence.” Pusey was a 19th century Anglican who Schaff had met and who Darwell Stone quotes in his book. Pusey is noted to be the one who “re-coined” this phrase and stated that there was a real spiritual presence, but denied a real physical presence. So when Schaff says Augustine believed in the ‘real presence’ he was not contradicting himself in the same paragraph, but referring to a different 19th century understanding of real presence. JND Kelly was from the 20th century and I believe his terminology was “realist.” Does realist mean real spiritual presence or transubstantiation? If you are stating that these authors correctly identify that Augustine noted a real spiritual presence (though not physical), I would agree.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/beware-the-term-real-presence
anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/2/23_Edward_Bouverie_Pusey1800-1882Tractarian.html
Which is the sacramental part. I am not eating Jesus’ fingers, or His leg. I am consuming His flesh sacramentally, which is why Kelly says veritably receive. Kelly is saying truly eating Christ’s body and blood, but in the form of bread and wine.

Notice what Augustine says. He says what the chalice holds, after it has been consecrated, IS the blood of Christ. That’s why he mentions consecration, he doesn’t call it wine anymore. Ergo, Augustine believes some sort of conversion has happened.
I think Augustine believed there was a spiritual presence and spiritual reality that occurred. However it wasn’t a physical conversion. That is what JND Kelly wrote about in his book and why in Augustine’s Christian Doctrine where he writes on what is literal and what is figurative he says that John 6:53 is figurative.

Chapter 9:13 “but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
He then goes on to explain how to know what is figurative and what is literal and how to interpret these phrases. And then in Chapter 16:24 he writes:
“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Notice what this passage is saying. It’s saying Augustine had a conception of Transubstantiation, just not a clear conception.

Because every academic you have quoted in other places says Augustine believed in the Real Presence, which means he took John literally. And we have shown you where these same academics (except for Schaff), have stated the way you interpret the words symbol and figurative in the fathers, is not the way the fathers are using the words symbol and figurative.
I have only used the academics that you introduced. Schaff uses the term real presence in its 19th century usage and JND Kelly uses the term realist which isn’t the same thing as a conversion. That is why he separates the 2 concepts of symbolism and conversion in his book. I accept a different connotation of the terms ‘symbol’ and ‘figurative,’ but I don’t accept that these terms mean ‘conversion’ and ‘literal.’
 
I have only used the academics that you introduced. Schaff uses the term real presence in its 19th century usage and JND Kelly uses the term realist which isn’t the same thing as a conversion. That is why he separates the 2 concepts of symbolism and conversion in his book. I accept a different connotation of the terms ‘symbol’ and ‘figurative,’ but I don’t accept that these terms mean ‘conversion’ and ‘literal.’
Susan, St. Augustine repeatedly refers to the Eucharist as a Sacrament (a physical sign, instituted by Christ, to give us grace). A few examples below from the tractate on John:

“A man can come to Church unwillingly, can approach the altar unwillingly, partake of the sacrament unwillingly: but he cannot believe unless he is willing.”

For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle saith, “Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”

To receive the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord is possible even for
a bad man: for of such it is said, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”2369

Do you believe that the Eucharist is a Sacrament, even if it is a symbol only??
 
I have been trying to research the history of the term ‘real presence.’ It is kind of a vague term that could mean anything from the promise of the Holy Spirit in John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. and Matthew 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them to consubstantiation and transubstantiation. I had understood that when most people use this term today they are speaking of a physical presence of Jesus’ flesh and blood via transubstantiation or consubstantiation. However as I am seeing this term has a different meaning in 19th century Anglicanism. The English reformers (and some in previous centuries like Wycliffe) used it to show a high view of the Eucharist while denouncing transubstantiation. They spoke of a real spiritual presence, but denied a physical presence. It is a more modern usage where these concepts are combined under the umbrella of “Real Presence.” Pusey was a 19th century Anglican who Schaff had met and who Darwell Stone quotes in his book. Pusey is noted to be the one who “re-coined” this phrase and stated that there was a real spiritual presence, but denied a real physical presence. …
catholic.com/magazine/articles/beware-the-term-real-presence
anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/2/23_Edward_Bouverie_Pusey1800-1882Tractarian.html
Susan, the first link you posted gives the historical view of what the Real Presence was. It did not change until the Reformers. Kelly, and Stone, make it quite clear that Augustine accepted the Real Presence, NOT UNDER SOME MODERN DEFINITION, but the historical definition. Schaff admits almost as much. Both Kelly and Stone repeatedly say that Augustine accepted a physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
I think Augustine believed there was a spiritual presence and spiritual reality that occurred. However it wasn’t a physical conversion. That is what JND Kelly wrote about in his book and why in Augustine’s Christian Doctrine where he writes on what is literal and what is figurative he says that John 6:53 is figurative.

Chapter 9:13 “but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”
He then goes on to explain how to know what is figurative and what is literal and how to interpret these phrases. And then in Chapter 16:24 he writes:
“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Which is why Kelly and Stone warn you, which you refuse to heed, that you cannot ascribe modern usage of the term figure with any of the Church fathers. As I have posted, both Kelly and Stone both say that when Augustine uses the word figurative, it is not in the modern sense. Here is what Augustine is saying in the passage you posted, from Catholic.com: catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence
When Tertullian and St. Augustine use the term “figurative,” they do not mean to deny the Real Presence. In the texts cited, St. Augustine, for example, is warning against falling into the trap of believing the Lord was going to cut off parts of his body and give them to us. This would be cannibalistic and that is a definite no-no.
I have only used the academics that you introduced. Schaff uses the term real presence in its 19th century usage and JND Kelly uses the term realist which isn’t the same thing as a conversion.
You posted a link showing that the term Real Presence has gone through changes. And then you seem to say that since Schaff wrote at a time when there were different definitions instead of the historical view, that when Schaff wrote about Augustine and the Real Presence, Schaff was taking the modern view, and you post nothing to backup your viewpoint.
That is why he separates the 2 concepts of symbolism and conversion in his book. I accept a different connotation of the terms ‘symbol’ and ‘figurative,’ but I don’t accept that these terms mean ‘conversion’ and ‘literal.’
But either Augustine believed a conversion took place, or he is an idolater, because he did command that the Eucharist must be adored, and that can only be given to God. And that’s a meaning that hasn’t changed.
 
John 6:

51 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, **but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” **

Genesis 3

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Genesis 3 is the last time “live forever” was used and Jesus says this about him.

Amen. :highprayer:

MJ
 
Susan, St. Augustine repeatedly refers to the Eucharist as a Sacrament (a physical sign, instituted by Christ, to give us grace). A few examples below from the tractate on John:

“A man can come to Church unwillingly, can approach the altar unwillingly, partake of the sacrament unwillingly: but he cannot believe unless he is willing.”

For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle saith, “Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”

To receive the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord is possible even for
a bad man: for of such it is said, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”2369

Do you believe that the Eucharist is a Sacrament, even if it is a symbol only??
I do believe that the Eucharist is a sacrament. I don’t exactly agree with the definition of sacrament as: “a physical sign, instituted by Christ, to give us grace,” but in a broader definition for sacrament. I believe the Eucharist is beautiful and meaningful practice that is essential for all Christians.

I also don’t necessarily agree with every teaching of Augustine or any other theologian for that matter. There is so much we can learn from theologians of the past and present, but they are not infallible. I am not trying to state that Augustine’s understanding is the only correct one. I am just trying to correctly state Augustine’s understanding.
 
I am just trying to correctly state Augustine’s understanding.
So if Augustine gave a sermon where he said something along the lines of that: ‘Jesus got His flesh from Mary, this flesh was crucified, and He give us His flesh to eat’, you would still say that Augustine did not believe Jesus was physically present in the Eucharist?

I would also add that it was St. Ambrose who had a major influence on St. Augustine. St. Ambrose said this:
“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ **But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. **So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.”
-“The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.
It’s funny that St. Augustine never says St. Ambrose was wrong.

Also where St. Ambrose said the bread becomes, that’s clearly a conversion, ergo transubstantiation. Because the word was not around, does not mean the concept was not there.
 
I do believe that the Eucharist is a sacrament. I don’t exactly agree with the definition of sacrament as: “a physical sign, instituted by Christ, to give us grace,” but in a broader definition for sacrament. I believe the Eucharist is beautiful and meaningful practice that is essential for all Christians.

I also don’t necessarily agree with every teaching of Augustine or any other theologian for that matter. There is so much we can learn from theologians of the past and present, but they are not infallible. I am not trying to state that Augustine’s understanding is the only correct one. I am just trying to correctly state Augustine’s understanding.
I should add clarity and state that its more proper to say “outward” sign rather than “physical” sign as words and actions also are part of a sacrament. What Susan is a broader definition of sacrament? Broadening the definition changes the meaning of the word. Doing so no longer describes a sacrament but something else.
 
The Jewish Passover had remain the same for thousands of years. Remained the same in symbology, in commemoration of the events in Egypt, in how it was observed, etc. This was a pinnacle of Jewish life (religious, cultural, secular, etc).

Now here comes Christ, and He introduces (what appears to be) a new meaning and a new purpose of this ceremony, (apparently) shattering thousands of years of foundational traditions of what it is to be Jewish. This is HARD for people. HARD for people to embrace the fact that Jesus was the Christ. HARD to to embrace the new covenant. People really struggled with it, and many outright rejected it.
I can underatand that viewpoint. However what about verse 52 where the Jews specifically ask “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”. That would suggest that tje hard teaching relates to the eating of flesh?
 
I agree Duane,

I don’t recall where it was, but I actually really liked how Origen explained the Eucharist. There is a “symbolic” aspect to His Eucharist no doubt. But it’s more about symbolizing what His Body and Blood means, and what it is for us, than whether His Eucharist actually has a “change”. I believe St Augustin did believe there was a change.** The principal factor, regarding this change, is in the “consecration”. The consecration is very significant.** Who can perform this consecration, and so call the Spirit to change what was common bread and wine into the Sacramental Body and Blood which Jesus gave, His Church, for the life of the world.

Did St Augustine believe that any Christian could consecrate a Eucharist meal? This is an important aspect of the issue. Augustine was not faced with the Church’s definition and use of transubstantiation. It’s not entirely fair to place him in rejection of it. He expressed the Spiritual. But this is true, even holding to transubstantation. We believe it is the Spirit who descends on the gifts to make them the sacrificial lamb from that moment at Calvary. We believe Jesus (bodily) moves with the Spirit, as one.
Do Catholics believe that everything that is consecrated undergoes a physical change? When a Catholic Bishop consecrates oils, are those oils believed to have changed in the way that it is believed that the host and wine change? If not, wouldn’t that mean that the use of the term “consecrated” does not necessarily mean a physical change is automatically assumed.?
 
Do Catholics believe that everything that is consecrated undergoes a physical change? When a Catholic Bishop consecrates oils, are those oils believed to have changed in the way that it is believed that the host and wine change? If not, wouldn’t that mean that the use of the term “consecrated” does not necessarily mean a physical change is automatically assumed.?
I think the “change” which occurs is as different as the purpose of the use. Blessed water and oils are “set apart” from ordinary water/oil by the prayer and Word of God. But the prayer and blessing of the bread and wine is to become the actual Person of Jesus. It’s a very different purpose.
 
Let’s assume for a moment that John 6 should be taken literally and that transubstantiation was meant by Christ.

Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:
“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

Given the corruption acknowledged by an infallible Pope, who’s to say that God didn’t withdraw its recognition of the Earthly church due to its corruption and that at some point cease recognizing the authority of the Catholic clergy celebrating Mass?

The Ephesians already received such a threat in Revelation 2:1-5

*1. To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write this: The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this:

2 I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.
  1. Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary.
  2. Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first.
  3. **Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. ***
 
Let’s assume for a moment that John 6 should be taken literally and that transubstantiation was meant by Christ.

Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:
“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

Given the corruption acknowledged by an infallible Pope, who’s to say that God didn’t withdraw its recognition of the Earthly church due to its corruption and that at some point cease recognizing the authority of the Catholic clergy celebrating Mass?

The Ephesians already received such a threat in Revelation 2:1-5

*1. To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write this: The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this:

2 I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.
  1. Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary.
  2. Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first.
  3. **Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. ***
Interesting quote. Thanks for that! However, I’m not following your conclusion. You seem to make a large leap from the fact that abuses that corrupt the purity of practice, to being unable to trust the Teaching (any Teaching, for that matter) of the See of Rome.
 
Given the corruption acknowledged by an infallible Pope, who’s to say that God didn’t withdraw its recognition of the Earthly church due to its corruption and that at some point cease recognizing the authority of the Catholic clergy celebrating Mass?
Gazelam, reason is that Christ made a promise: to lead his Church to all truth, to be with it until the end of time - continuously - and that the gates of hell would not prevail. Thus, the Church is protected by Christ at all times, from teaching what is false as true, and as true as false. Christ’s promise does not protect it from sinful men, some who have even sinned greatly. Yet, all through the years of those very sinful men, in any age, the Church has never changed doctrine. That’s an example of Christ’s protection at work.

One tacitly trusts this promise on the canon of the New Testament: 27 books, all the inerrant and inspired, Written Word of God, no fewer books, no additional books (out of 300+ early Christian writings). The Church did not affirm this canon until the late 4th century, well past the beginning of a great apostasy. The ONLY way that fallible men can do so, infallibly, is if they were guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit, just as Christ promised.
 
So if Augustine gave a sermon where he said something along the lines of that: ‘Jesus got His flesh from Mary, this flesh was crucified, and He give us His flesh to eat’, you would still say that Augustine did not believe Jesus was physically present in the Eucharist?
I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him. John6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

This doesn’t describe a physical conversion, but a spiritual understanding.
I would also add that it was St. Ambrose who had a major influence on St. Augustine. St. Ambrose said this:It’s funny that St. Augustine never says St. Ambrose was wrong.

Also where St. Ambrose said the bread becomes, that’s clearly a conversion, ergo transubstantiation. Because the word was not around, does not mean the concept was not there.
Ambrose did express a change in substance in his writing. In On the Mysteries he writes: “50. Perhaps you will say, I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ? And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.” This does sound like he is writing of a physical change. Cyril of Jerusalem also writes of a clear physical change around this time.
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

Augustine never writes, “Ambrose is wrong!” But he does go to lengths to explain the difference between sacraments and the realities they represent. He writes about what is literal and figurative in his Christian Doctrine that I shared. This condemns the practice of taking the sacraments in carnal bondage instead of spiritual freedom. He doesn’t mention any names, but he is clarifying his understanding.
 
**Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. **
Ephesus was a harbor city, its economy completely dependent on shipping. Twice the city had to relocated because the harbor filled with silt. The lampstand is referring to the threat of their having to do so again (summarized commentary from both the St. Ignatius Study Bible and Michael Barber’s Book on Revelation “Coming Soon”)

Note: in my profile, I mention that the best $30-$35 that one can spend is on the St. Ignatius Study Bible. Barber’s commentary on Revelation is excellent as well.
 
I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him. John6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

This doesn’t describe a physical conversion, but a spiritual understanding.

Ambrose did express a change in substance in his writing. In On the Mysteries he writes: “50. Perhaps you will say, I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ? And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.” This does sound like he is writing of a physical change. Cyril of Jerusalem also writes of a clear physical change around this time.
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

Augustine never writes, “Ambrose is wrong!” But he does go to lengths to explain the difference between sacraments and the realities they represent. He writes about what is literal and figurative in his Christian Doctrine that I shared. This condemns the practice of taking the sacraments in carnal bondage instead of spiritual freedom. He doesn’t mention any names, but he is clarifying his understanding.
What Augustine says we feed on Christ’s body, but not the crucified one, and it cannot be understood with human understanding, you need the Spirit to understand.

But Augustine does say we are eating His flesh. You have just admitted this from his sermon. And Augustine in this passage says we must worship what we eat. Again, worship or adoration to anything but God, is idolatry. Augustine in this sermon says the Eucharist is His flesh. Now if he believes there is no conversion, then He is saying Christ’s flesh is there alongside the bread. Commanding worship in this case would still be idolatry, because the bread is still present.

The only way Augustine can command worship or adoration of the Eucharist, is if the bread has transubstantiated. Anything less is idolatry.

That’s why he never says Ambrose, or Ignatius, or Irenaeus is wrong. He is in complete agreement with them. Is it so hard for you to believe that Augustine was fully Catholic?

Don’t you find it odd that all the ancient Churches have the same view of the Eucharist?
 
I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him. John6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

This doesn’t describe a physical conversion, but a spiritual understanding.

Ambrose did express a change in substance in his writing. In On the Mysteries he writes: “50. Perhaps you will say, I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ? And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.” This does sound like he is writing of a physical change. Cyril of Jerusalem also writes of a clear physical change around this time.
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

Augustine never writes, “Ambrose is wrong!” But he does go to lengths to explain the difference between sacraments and the realities they represent. He writes about what is literal and figurative in his Christian Doctrine that I shared. This condemns the practice of taking the sacraments in carnal bondage instead of spiritual freedom. He doesn’t mention any names, but he is clarifying his understanding.
You do realise your quote supports the real presence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top