The Eucharist

[Radical]

Yes, he did: “[Jesus] received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he first adores it… and not only do we not sin by adoring [His flesh], we do sin by not adoring.”

I still don’t see any reference to the Lord’s Supper in those words. It seems that you think “eating flesh” is synonymous with consuming the elements of the Eucharist. Such might be the case in your mind, but it wasn’t the case in Augustine’s mind. As stated, he thought that eating Jesus’s flesh meant that we share in the sufferings of our Lord and retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. These are things that can be achieved apart from the Eucharist.

Second, there is no mention by Augustine that the adoration of the Lord’s flesh is performed at the Eucharist. This would/could/should accompany belief.

Apparently you missed post #40. The passage from On Christian Doctrine is in perfect agreement with what Catholics have always believed, that Jesus is to be offered and consumed in an “an unbloody and sacramental manner,” rather than a natural, carnal manner.

Augustine contrasts a literal understanding of eating Christ’s flesh (which is wrong) with the correct figurative understanding. Augustine contrasts a carnal understanding of eating Christ’s flesh (which is wrong) with the correct spiritual understanding. Nothing about a figurative or a spiritual understanding requires a RP. Likewise, an unbloody and sacramental understanding does not require a RP. If Augustine thought a RP was involved, then he should have dismissed the literal, endorsed the figurative ** and added that there is also an eating that fulfills Christ’s command that entails eating flesh that is really present.**

As I stated elsewhere, in OCD bk 3, P 13 Augustine had written:

Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures.** But at the present time,** after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord,** we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand,** 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, 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.

14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative.

Please note that for Augustine:

a) The sign was one thing and what it signified was another thing. “…to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage…” A sign cannot signify itself, it can only be itself and signify something else…

b) after referencing the “the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord” he immediately warns that “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” and if that wasn’t clear enough he then specifies that that rule in question guards against “taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal”!

Except, of course, on those occasions when he does, for example:
“‘And was carried in His Own Hands.’ How ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’ …[In verse 8] will He speak openly of the same Sacrament, whereby He was carried in His Own Hands. ‘O taste and see that the Lord is good.’” (Explanations of the Psalms 33)

You noted Augustine’s use of in a manner carried Himself, ?

What “manner” do you suppose Augustine had in mind? I think figurative as opposed to literal, and Augustine’s use of “manner” constitutes a qualification that is consistent with my understanding.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SyCarl;6224483]John is not dealing with the Eucharist in this passage.

John is refuting the Gnostic belief that there is a dichotomy between the flesh, which is totally evil and the spirit, which is good. As flesh is evil the Gnostic teaching was that Jesus had not actually come in the flesh was not actually human.

1 John 4: 1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 **This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, 3 and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **
4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

John is the vessel by Which the Holy Spirit revealed God’s Word which withstands the test of time. The point John reveals here is not discussing whether Jesus was a human being or not, but emphasis is made on the RELATION BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST BEING IN THE FLESH AN SALVATION. This is the whole gospel message in minature.

This teaching applies to every people and age, not just the spirit of anti-christ in the first century, anti-christ teachings still remain as does those who reject “Jesus come in the flesh”, there is no direct quote of Gnostics, Arians, or Marcion anti-christ teachings, all of the above apply, including 20th century false belief in a symbolic Jesus, this epistle applies to every anti-chirst spirit that has come into the world.

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes, so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

What is faith?

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ: (This is transubstantiation by the words spoken from Jesus himself).

Hebrews 11:1…Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. (Transubstantiation comes to life in this scripture in the Eucharist which “IS” the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

1Corinthians 15:36 You fool!! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another.

1Corinthians 6:17 But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him.

The Scripture overrules any mans opinion and or opposition to the True presence of Jesus body and blood in his Eucharist.

1Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Protestants and non catholic view of the Eucharist comes from the “flesh” for if they accept the biblical teaching and the early church fathers apostolic teachings of Jesus body, blood truly present in the Eucharist, they beieve this to be “foolishness”. This anti-christ spirit which denies “Jesus come in the flesh” remains grounded in Law of the flesh which constitutes nothing. Whereby the Catholic and biblical view of Jesus true presence body, blood in the Eucharist comes from the revelation of the Spirit which gives eternal life.

1Corinthians 2v10…** This God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.14 Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.**

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

Now the Word of God became flesh. The second Adam makes his dwelling among us. But this Adam was not created, this second Adam was begotten from God. The Word of God put on the garment of flesh and wore it as his vesture. This new Adam has now come to redeem the fallen human race from the first Adam who sinned.

This is summed it when Jesus institutes his Eucharist from Luke 22:19
7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, **“This is my body, which will be given for you; **do this in memory of me.”
20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

How? The new Adam “washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes” Gen.49:11. So what is the blood of grapes? None other than the chalice (cup) of wine of the blood of the Lord. 1Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?

What is mysterious is that the cup of blessing is mixed with wine and water. These symbolize the divinity of Jesus and his flesh mixed. These species before the Word of God gives them his life through transubstantiation, are symbols of Jesus blood (blood of grapes) and our humanity now when mixed together at the consecration of the High Priest Jesus himself (Luke 22:20 “ likewise the cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you”.) This is what fallen humanity needs to have eternal life. Fallen humanity must partake of the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ the Word of God made flesh.

For one to assume that the Eucharist is flesh from the Earth which the flesh of blood and body returns to dust, has a problem with reality. Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. You must eat (consume) the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World, or you will have no life in you. This is the divine covenant commandment given to Moses and his people in the wilderness, This consuming of the flesh and blood of the lamb (Jesus himself) is a divine commandment from God, in the New and everlasting covenant. Without the blood of the lamb, and without the once and for all sacrifice of the lamb which is an “ETERNAL REALITY” which is of the Spirit ,which surpasses the flesh which turns to dust.

 

[aspirant]

God dwells in us already (2 Cor 6:16), not by eating the bread.

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

Does God leaves us when we sin?

Sin is our rejection of him, not the other way around.

I still don’t see any reference to the Lord’s Supper in those words.

It is said there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As stated, [Augustine] thought that eating Jesus’s flesh meant that we share in the sufferings of our Lord and retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

So do we. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? …as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

Augustine contrasts a literal understanding of eating Christ’s flesh (which is wrong) with the correct figurative understanding.

Exactly as we Catholics have always done.

Likewise, an unbloody and sacramental understanding does not require a RP.

In the Catholic Church, to which Augustine was unswervingly faithful and taught others to be as well, it does.

As I stated elsewhere, in OCD bk 3, P 13 Augustine had written

And? There is absolutely nothing contrary to the Catholic faith. If you think there is, it can only be because you misunderstand Augustine, Catholicism, or both.

You noted Augustine’s use of in a manner carried Himself, ?

What “manner” do you suppose Augustine had in mind?

It should not be difficult to understand from my previous posts: not carnally, but spiritually.