The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[Radical]

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

---

We live in the flesh and in the spirit but we belong to Christ. He paid the price for us.

It seems that you need to read all of Sermon 272. In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

For Augustine, a real somatic presence is not involved. The Lord’s body involved in the Eucharist is not the one of flesh that walked about Palestine in the 1st century, but is instead, the other thing called the “body of Christ”, namely the Church/congregation. If there was any doubt in regard to this understanding, it should be removed by the second paragraph of the sermon where Augustine specifically asks “HOW” the bread can be Christ’s body? It reads:

*How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you…. But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. *

Please note that Augustine’s answer to “HOW” has nothing to do with a real bodily presence. It has to do with the similarity between bread (which is produced by many grains coming together) and the church (which is produced by many people coming together)

Now, it is MHO that it is an attitude such as yours which motivated Augustine to write things such as these:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III):* “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.*

Please note that Augustine is instructing his audience (and us) as to how we should eat the flesh of Christ. He sees two alternatives: A literal eating that would be a crime and is therefore to be avoided and the correct figurative manner of eating. If Augustine held to a view such as yours then, the alternatives that he supplied wouldn’t have been 1) literal and 2) figurative…instead he would have said that the options were 1) cannibalistic/literal and 2) Eucharistic real presence eating…but he doesn’t give this last option b/c he thinks it is carnal bondage:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III p.13):*…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, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error. *

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist
2. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood of Christ) is error. Pretty clear.

 

[DavidY]

Greetings, here, David.

GKC

Hey there!

 

[Radical]

But that doesn’t address the scriptural teaching that Jesus is specially present in the Eucharist.

I can’t find any statement that says that “Jesus is specially present” anywhere in the NT…maybe you could point out that phrase

. If the elements do not really convey his real presence in some way, then the final part of John Chapter Six makes no sense.

Steve, you seem like a decent fellow…so let me point out something that should give you pause for thought. The majority of Christians do not believe in real somatic presence (and the majority probably doesn’t believe in a special presence in the elements)…are you really saying that your cognitive abilities are such that you can legitimately declare that hundreds of millions of Christians are reading John 6 in a fashion that makes no sense? If so, I would love to see your reasoning (in point form) as to why John 6 must be understood in the way that you understand it.

Those who turn away from Jesus’ Bread from Heaven discourse turn away because they object to his insistence that his flesh is real food.

they do not know what he meant…it wasn’t made clear to them.

Their objection is not primarily against his nature as spiritual food, i.e., that he and his word are living manna from heaven.

no, they are exactly objecting to the words that he used that day…they can’t understand how his words can make any sense

It is the “elemental” part to which they object, and which Jesus insists upon is part of his authentic Bread from Heaven teaching.

there is no “elemental” part in play that day…the Lord’s Supper was a thing of the future…no one in the audience could have possibly tied the bread of life lesson to some future ritual involving the elements of bread and wine

 

[DavidY]

When Jesus’ followers were mumbling among themselves, he asked them a question in John 6:61 - *“Does this shock *you”, he asked. when they finally walked away from him a few verses later in John 6:66, what did he do? Did he explain to them that he was speaking symbolically or metaphorically and that it had some other meaning?
NO.
He turned to the Apostles and asked them, "Do you also want to leave?"

Jesus meant what he said and his followers simply could not handle it.

Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus tells his Apostles, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood." He never says, “This represents my body” or “This symbolizes my blood.” He even goes so far as to tell them that is is the cup of his blood - the blood of the New Covenant which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. . There is NO mention of the “New Covenant” in the Bible from the Book of Jeremiah to this point.

In 1 Cor. 11:27, Paul is telling the Corinthians about the reality of the Real Presence and warns of abuses against it when he tells them, Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer fort he body and blood of the Lord.
In verse 29, he says “For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

---

**These are radically harsh words - if this were only a symbol. The Bible is crystal CLEAR **that the Real Presence is a REALITY.

Thanks. This doesn’t really respond to my points with regard to the importance of a distinction, but let’s look at these passages.

1. In John, Jesus DOES explain His words by saying that His words are spirit. They are not flesh, comparing what He has said to His appearance in heaven. He points to heavenly things relative to the bread, which speaks to symbolism, or representation of the heavenly.
2. He also says ‘do this in remembrance (commemoration) of me.’ Must we commemorate what is literally present?
3. Paul wrote in the context of admonishing believers about getting drunk on the wine, and not allowing the poor to eat. Hardly the ‘you cannot participate unless you’re a RC’ as it has become today.

Also, of note is that Paul says that the ‘one remains hungry, another gets drunk.’ To remain hungry implies filling.
Why does the RC leave hundreds hungry at the Lord’s Supper every week, if it is so important to take all of these passages literally?

Not attacking just the RCC, as Protestant churches do it too, just saying that this passage clearly points to a communal meal, not the wafer and sip of wine with the terror of the current ceremony.

 

[joe370]

It seems that you need to read all of Sermon 272. In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ

1. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ

1. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

For Augustine, a real somatic presence is not involved. The Lord’s body involved in the Eucharist is not the one of flesh that walked about Palestine in the 1st century, but is instead, the other thing called the “body of Christ”, namely the Church/congregation. If there was any doubt in regard to this understanding, it should be removed by the second paragraph of the sermon where Augustine specifically asks “HOW” the bread can be Christ’s body? It reads:

Rad, of course we, as the church, are Jesus’ Body, just as Paul says, and it is the one loaf (Jesus) - that makes His Mystical Body, comprised of many, (us) - the one Mystical Body; the key to the oneness of Jesus’ Body Is Jesus in the Eucharist; that logic just jumped out at me as a former non-Catholic. I totally agree with Augustine as does Paul, or should I say Augustine agrees with Paul.

Perhaps that is why Jesus gave the world a teaching church guided by Him, to resolve doctrinal differences such as ours; agreed?

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

 

[DavidY]

Elvisman

One final point and then to bed. Would Jesus, if He were sitting there, NEED to say ‘this symbolizes by body?’ He was holding bread and wine. He even calls it the ‘fruit of the vine’ when He says that He will not drink of it again until He is in His kingdom.

It’s interesting that John doesn’t seem to feel it is important to include the ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’ as included in the other gospels. He includes the feet washing, saying that if you do not wash feet ‘you have no part with me.’ Any Catholic footwashings lately?

Just some points to ponder. I am just trying to follow the Truth as you are, I believe. Good night!

 

[ServantJohn]

This one has always seemed obvious to me, but it seems our separated brethren obfuscate, evade, or flat-out say we Catholics just don’t understand what Jesus was saying. So let’s look at the evidence.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:32-69[/BIBLEDRB]

Seems like if those that understood Jesus to be saying eat my flesh and didn’t like it walked away, why didn’t He say wait guys come back I am using a metaphor. Every time he is questioned he reiterates the same point. Eat My flesh. Drink My blood.

Discuss…

Not that I am debating you, but if I was going to present a Biblical defense for why Jesus did not act the way you say, I would use:

“And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.” (Matthew 13:10-11 DRB)

 

[steveb1]

Radical wrote:
I can’t find any statement that says that “Jesus is specially present” anywhere in the NT…maybe you could point out that phrase

==
steveb1
Scripture uses explicit phrasing at times, at other times it lays things out without assigning them a particular phraseology, i.e., Born Again Christian is not a biblical phrase, but it’s a legitimate conclusion from the “born again/from above” wordplay in John; that the Holy Spirit is especially present in Christians is a legitimate conclusion from the way that the Spirit’s activities are laid out; that the Eucharist specially mediates Jesus is a seemingly logical conclusion from that fact that it is a novel meal, different from Passover, unique to Christians, to be repeated more than once during the year, and which hinges on a novel presence of Jesus’ body and blood separate from Jesus’ assumed, prior, ever-present “in-soul” dwelling in the believer’s heart.​

radical
Steve, you seem like a decent fellow…so let me point out something that should give you pause for thought. The majority of Christians do not believe in real somatic presence (and the majority probably doesn’t believe in a special presence in the elements)…are you really saying that your cognitive abilities are such that you can legitimately declare that hundreds of millions of Christians are reading John 6 in a fashion that makes no sense? If so, I would love to see your reasoning (in point form) as to why John 6 must be understood in the way that you understand it.

==
steveb1
Of course, John 6 doesn’t need to be understood the way I understand it, but the way I understand it is … the way I understand it

(Please understand that I am not Christian/Catholic. My interest is in supporting truth in all religions. So I am supporting a “Catholic” reading here without being the least Catholic.)

Back to the point: I’m not certain about your statistics - the majority of Christianity before the Reformation did understand it in the elemental/somatic way, so I could use that statistic as a powerful historical support. Even Luther had a much more “Catholic” understanding than many other Reformers. Then of course there are the “high church” Anglicans, and the Eastern/Russian Orthodox.

Finally, of course, it’s not a matter of statistics, but of plausibility and truth, principles by which I am sure you are guided. We both know that the world frequently runs after bad alternatives, so statistics are already against us

=====
radical
they do not know what he meant…it wasn’t made clear to them.

==
steveb1
I think it was made as clear as Jesus could make it. They “choked” on the “my flesh is real food”, not on the metaphysical “my words are bread, life, manna”. Those words are not hard to accept symbolically. Naturally, the possible megalomania behind them would be irritating if you don’t think highly of Jesus in the first place. But in this case, the real objection comes when they think of Jesus’ flesh as real food and drink, and Jesus, far from correcting them, launches into Bread of Life Discourse Part II.​

[snip]​

radical
there is no “elemental” part in play that day…the Lord’s Supper was a thing of the future…no one in the audience could have possibly tied the bread of life lesson to some meal involving the elements of bread and wine​

steveb1
The Lord’s Supper was indeed to be a future event and in John 6, Jesus can easily be pictured as laying down the rubrics and consequences of a future practice based on an event he intends to perform in the future. Jesus says “the bread that I WILL give [future tense] is my flesh, which I WILL GIVE for the life of the world.” Again, “he who eats me, so too **he WILL live ** by me.” Here Jesus appears to be tying the future last supper/Eucharist with his death - as indeed do the the Synoptists and Paul. He’s not blaming folks for not eating his flesh/blood on the day of the discourse. He’s merely laying down a theology of a future Eucharist in which his life, flesh, blood *will * be given, and blaming them for their refusal to accept this groundwork as he presents it.

 

[Josh316]

When Jesus’ followers were mumbling among themselves, he asked them a question in John 6:61 - *“Does this shock *you”, he asked. when they finally walked away from him a few verses later in John 6:66, what did he do? Did he explain to them that he was speaking symbolically or metaphorically and that it had some other meaning?
NO.
He turned to the Apostles and asked them, "Do you also want to leave?"

Jesus meant what he said and his followers simply could not handle it.

Later, at the Last Supper, Jesus tells his Apostles, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood." He never says, “This represents my body” or “This symbolizes my blood.” He even goes so far as to tell them that is is the cup of his blood - the blood of the New Covenant which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. . There is NO mention of the “New Covenant” in the Bible from the Book of Jeremiah to this point.

In 1 Cor. 11:27, Paul is telling the Corinthians about the reality of the Real Presence and warns of abuses against it when he tells them, Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer fort he body and blood of the Lord.
In verse 29, he says “For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

---

**These are radically harsh words - if this were only a symbol. The Bible is crystal CLEAR **that the Real Presence is a REALITY.

And this is the EXACT reason why my signature says what it says.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Denise, I’ve posted more than once we may have to agree to disagree and let it go. But while I won’t name names certain posters more than others keep following me around it seems and bringing it up everywhere I go! I simply can not believe that anyone’s faith, not just Catholics, can be proclaimed to be for certain the truth. Well it can be proclaimed but to truly know with absolute 100% certainty is another thing I believe. Here we are on the non Catholic forum but yup many here stand up very well for what they believe! Peace my friend.

Some of us take it upon ourselves to keep an eye on those posters who have a tendency to speak lies about the faith, and bring calumny against the Church.

Here, you have reiterated one of your favorite calumnies. The Catholic Church does not teach that we “truly know with absolute certainty”. This is a strawman that you like to use so that you can deny the Teachings of the Faith. For some reason, reciting this mantra bolsters your decision to reject what the Church believes and teaches.

Your solution to “agree to disagree and let it go” is also not an option for faithful Catholics.We have an obligation to preserve the gospel as it was handed down to us through the Apostles, and to pass on that which was infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS. The failure to do this, or avoidance of it by “agree to disagree and let it go” is a failture to live the Gospel, the failure to obey Christ. You are suggesting that we take a course of action that will result in our condemnation.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Gabriel, yes but then we would have to get into all the Protestant beliefs about what is meant by the Church and the Body of Christ.

No, we don’t.

A detailed study of all the known heresies is not required for one to adhere to the Truth.

And I don't really feel like doing that at the moment.  All have been discussed I am sure over and over and over again here on our forum to probably not much avail.  Or at least perhaps not many minds are changed in such faith discussions.  :)

I would hopt not, CMatt. In fact, one of the reasons you are closely followed here at CAF is so that such attempts to lead Catholics away from the Faith so as to embrace heresies will not occur. We earnestly pray and work that people are not “discussed” into falling for heresies.

And trust me. I know full well what makes one a Catholic and who the Church identifies as such. But again that’s another topic to the forum. And I know you don’t really want me to go into all that again right now!

Peace to you my brother in Christ.

No, indeed not, as you have shown that this is also “to no avail”. You proceed at your own peril, CMatt, if this is indeed the case. You, and all others who knowingly and willfully reject the Teachings of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS will remain in our prayers for a hasty and complete conversion.

 

[guanophore]

No I do not suggest that at all.  Only that it is the Catholic Church interpreting and proclaiming Herself to be Christ's only one true Church.

I find it interesting that God has no place in your theory.

And I have less of a problem actually with homosexual priests than I do with how bishops for instance handled scandal not necessaily related to homosexuality at all.  And yes I know all about the concept of following what they teach, not doing as they do.  So no need for us to go into all of that.  But I still question if a true Apostolic successor would not know better.  And how by their fruits we are to know them.  And then that brings into the picture for me the whole concept of infallible teaching whether it be on the Eucharist, the topic of this thread, or something else.  Though I know Catholics separate teaching from other matters.

Yes, this is not an uncommon secular point of view.

It accuses the Teacher by the failure of the students to follow the teachings. It is the same as saying that what Jesus taught must not be real infallible teaching because Judas did not practice it, and fell from grace.

It means that none of the Teachings that were committed to the Bishops by the Apostles were valid because there have always been some that fell from the faith.

It is a way of denying that God is able to preserve His Word in the Church, in spite of fallible persons. It is a theory that requires that the shortcomings of man be stronger than the power of God.

 

[guanophore]

Or when I look towards the Vatican and see a lot of pomp and circumstance.  But you can believe differently. That's fine. That's why we call it faith.  Peace be with you.

Doesn’t sound like you would have been one of the ones lining the street with a palm branch in your hands when the donkey was riding into town.

It is also very telling that what you see when you look to the Vatican is not a strong base for the Faith of Christ. As Jesus said, it all depends on one’s perceptions. How one perceives things says a lot about the condition of their heart.

 

[panevino]

It seems that you need to read all of Sermon 272. In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

For Augustine, a real somatic presence is not involved. The Lord’s body involved in the Eucharist is not the one of flesh that walked about Palestine in the 1st century, but is instead, the other thing called the “body of Christ”, namely the Church/congregation. If there was any doubt in regard to this understanding, it should be removed by the second paragraph of the sermon where Augustine specifically asks “HOW” the bread can be Christ’s body? It reads:

*How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you…. But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. *

Please note that Augustine’s answer to “HOW” has nothing to do with a real bodily presence. It has to do with the similarity between bread (which is produced by many grains coming together) and the church (which is produced by many people coming together)

hey!
Your words above imply that he only saw the bread and wine as the believers. I accept thats not really what u mean but thought I’d flag it.
I believe augustines words above reflects the Catholic understanding of “us” offering ourselves though the Only Pure sacrifice made by Jesus.
I read Confessions about a month ago and there was a quote I am trying to find but in meantime I offer the following from his mums Funeral which I think is relevant

"… When the Sacrifice of our ransom was offered for her…"ch 12

 

[panevino]

Cont’d

Confessions(r.s pine-coffin)
Book IX
“… For she knew that at your altar we receive the holy Victim, who cancelled the decree made to our prejudice…”

Book XIII
“…through the sacrament of the Eucharist, when the Fish which was raised from the depths is held out to us and is received as food by the faithful earth…”

 

[rinnie]

One more point to ponder…

I read a lot of the comparison between the eating of the Passover Lamb and the eating of the flesh of Jesus. We literally eat the lamb, thus we must literally eat Jesus’ flesh.

This seems to be not the best analogy.

What does the Paschal lamb represent? Passover, an event. We are not literally eating the death of Pharoah’s firstborn. Nor are we eating the same lamb that was sacrificed and which blood was smeared on the door posts. It’s a remembrance…

I would argue the same for the Lord’s Supper, and per the Lord’s command. However, the Lord gave us common things to eat in order to represent Him and proclaim His sacrifice.

Okay lets go with what you are saying, If this is true why do we need the Eucharist for eternal life then? Why was the Passover Lamb stopped? Why did Jesus say that the bread that I give you gives you eternal life. Did the Passover Lamb give eternal life?

And if what you are saying is true, then what is the purpose of receiving the Eucharist, I mean its just a symbol correct?

And why was Jesus considered MAD (crazy) when he predicted this, Why could people not accept a symbol?

Why did Jesus say that if you did not EAT the bread and DRINK the cup you have no life in you? Why is the Eucharist actual bread and wine?

So you are saying you totally reject the teaching of the Apostles that when they take bread and wine and transform it into the body and blood of Christ that do not have this power to do so?

Okay lets go with your idea. Now answer me this, Jesus said if you do not eat the bread and drink the cup you will not have eternal life, How are we going to have eternal life in us then?

Because what Jesus really said then you are all going to hell then, because my ACTUAL body is not possible for you to obtain and you willl not have eternal life Correct?

Because you can’t have it both ways. Either the Eucharist is indeed the body of Christ and we can have eternal life if we eat and drink, or the Eucharist is just a symbol and eternal life cannot be achieved. Whats it gonna be?

And then you would have to say that Jesus made us a promise he did not keep. He told us to do something that was impossible to acheive, Correct??

 

[DavidY]

Okay lets go with what you are saying, If this is true why do we need the Eucharist for eternal life then? Why was the Passover Lamb stopped? Why did Jesus say that the bread that I give you gives you eternal life. Did the Passover Lamb give eternal life?

The point is that I don’t think that we do need the Eucharist on it’s own for eternal life. Unless Jesus contradicts Himself. In John 6:

40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is only when questioned on this that Jesus compares Himself to the manna from heaven as the bread of life.

He provides us a clue about the meaning of this in John 4

34“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

And if what you are saying is true, then what is the purpose of receiving the Eucharist, I mean its just a symbol correct? And why was Jesus considered MAD (crazy) when he predicted this, Why could people not accept a symbol?

Luke 8
10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

So you are saying you totally reject the teaching of the Apostles that when they take bread and wine and transform it into the body and blood of Christ that do not have this power to do so?

I don’t think that is the teaching of the apostles, that’s the point. It’s not an issue of apostolic authority, it’s an issue of understanding.

Okay lets go with your idea. Now answer me this, Jesus said if you do not eat the bread and drink the cup you will not have eternal life, How are we going to have eternal life in us then?

See above. Jesus tells us, along with most of the book of Romans.

Strange how Paul, in what many consider his magnum opus on justification, makes no mention of eating bread to attain life and be justified…

Because you can’t have it both ways. Either the Eucharist is indeed the body of Christ and we can have eternal life if we eat and drink, or the Eucharist is just a symbol and eternal life cannot be achieved. Whats it gonna be?

False dichotomy. See above

My turn for the Socratic method.

What is the difference between bread and wine symbolizing Jesus’ body and blood, and His literal body and blood in the appearance of bread and wine, when it comes to fulfilling our Lord’s command to eat His body and blood? Either way it’s a symbol, it represents something that is in heaven.

Do you think it’s better to stand before God relying on His grace through faith in Jesus’ merit, or to stand before God relying on grace through faith, plus the fact that I did the Eucharist 5000 times? Which more approximates the gospel?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

…the feet washing, saying that if you do not wash feet ‘you have no part with me.’ Any Catholic footwashings lately?

Yup every year at Holy Thursday Mass…

 

[elvisman]

It seems that you need to read all of Sermon 272. In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

1. the bread IS the body of Christ
2. it’s you (the believers) that ARE the body of Christ
3. it’s you (the believers) that have BEEN placed on the Lord’s table

For Augustine, a real somatic presence is not involved. The Lord’s body involved in the Eucharist is not the one of flesh that walked about Palestine in the 1st century, but is instead, the other thing called the “body of Christ”, namely the Church/congregation. If there was any doubt in regard to this understanding, it should be removed by the second paragraph of the sermon where Augustine specifically asks “HOW” the bread can be Christ’s body? It reads:

*How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you…. But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. *

Please note that Augustine’s answer to “HOW” has nothing to do with a real bodily presence. It has to do with the similarity between bread (which is produced by many grains coming together) and the church (which is produced by many people coming together)

Now, it is MHO that it is an attitude such as yours which motivated Augustine to write things such as these:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III):* “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.*

Please note that Augustine is instructing his audience (and us) as to how we should eat the flesh of Christ. He sees two alternatives: A literal eating that would be a crime and is therefore to be avoided and the correct figurative manner of eating. If Augustine held to a view such as yours then, the alternatives that he supplied wouldn’t have been 1) literal and 2) figurative…instead he would have said that the options were 1) cannibalistic/literal and 2) Eucharistic real presence eating…but he doesn’t give this last option b/c he thinks it is carnal bondage:

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist
2. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood of Christ) is error. Pretty clear.

WRONG.
Augustine was correct in saying that the congregation was also the Body of Christ. He is equating the body that is the congregation with christ glorified Body in the Eucharist.

**For some - Augustine is very difficult to understand. Calvinists take him out of context all the time in regards to his views on predestination. Others - like you, find his sermons andwritings on the Eucharist equally difficult but ONE thing is clear: **Augustine preached and believed in the Real Presence . . .

Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

Doesn’t get ANY clearer than that, friend.

 

[elvisman]

And this is the EXACT reason why my signature says what it says.

Right on!