The Real Presence

[Richard_Kastner]

Sorry,but grace-alone from God is what saves.

John14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[PJM]

=Gabriel of 12;8162475]It was St.Ambrose who taught and baptised St.Augustine.

Here is St.Ambrose "Now as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and Blood, 'do show the Lord’s Death (1Cor.11:26) (To Gratian, on the Christian Faith, bk. 4 Chap. 10).

St.Augustine was a convert to Catholicism during St. Jerome’s time. St.Jerome was feared by heretics and revered by Jews who went to him for Hebrew interpretations of the scriptures. St.Jerome debated this new convert St.Augustine and was humbled by him. Because St. Augustine being a pagan intellectual, took his Catholic faith to new heights taking his philosophical training and experience and converted them to Christianity. This combination is what baffles his readers from afar. St. Jerome knew St.Augustine and would of jumped at the occasion to label Augustine as a heretic and expose this new convert had he displayed any doubt regarding the true presence of Jesus in His Eucharist.

St.Augustine being a student of St. Ambrose elevated his Catholic faith which included Eastern philosophy, mixed with Greek philosophy now converted to a Western philosophy thinking. St. Augustine combines all of the above making his writings and apologies very mystical. St. Jerome himself understood St.Augustine’s thinking on the intellectual side because St. Jerome himself knew the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew languages and translated all the scriptures containing these languages into one the “Vulgate” or Latin common language.

So if St. Augustine got a green light from a heavy weight such as St. Jerome who left no heretics standing, confirms St.Augustine orthodox Catholic faith in the Eucharist, who went on to become a Catholic bishop of Hippo.

Very insightful POST. THANK YOU!

 

[Nicea325]

John14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And GRACE saves…from GOD!

 

[Defender1]

John14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Read John chapter 3 (Christs conversation with Nicodemous ) you must be born of water and spirit .

Also remember that we are not justified by faith alone (JAMES 2:24 )
Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of the father in heaven .(Matt 7:21-23 )

 

[david_ruiz]

Read John chapter 3 (Christs conversation with Nicodemous ) you must be born of water and spirit .

Water is NOT baptism here. Jesus healed many, and forgave many, and said folks were “saved” , and He told none of them to be water baptized.

Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of the father in heaven .(Matt 7:21-23 )

And this is the will of the Father -“believe on Him whoHhe sent”

 

[david_ruiz]

So David, if the debate is so old…what are you expecting to accomplish here???

The debate is as old as the Garden , and each generation makes it it’s own.Just like at Eden , there are only two kinds of people today , sons of the Promise,and sons of Satan. Gen. 3:15 “I will put enmity between thy (Satan) seed and her seed (Eve)”. It is not protestant vs Catholic.

 

[KathleenGee]

So do you think Catholics are going to hell, like we are the ones of Satan? Some people do that look at the Bible similar to yours…Just wondering.

 

[david_ruiz]

There is One absolutely MANDATORY RULE in understanding the Bible. It is that NO one part of the Bible can contradict another part.

They said similar things about Jesus during His ministry on earth .He was a law breaker, destroyer, and was contradictory, even seemed scoffing at the law and tradition. In some ways his critics were right ,but on a deeper level ,they were wrong .He fulfilled all things making many rules and traditions dissolve away , for he transcended them .We look too much to works, formulas, because our flesh wants something righteous to do , and God won’t allow it, hence he spoke in parables and impossibilities -“sell all you have” ,“be more righteous than pharisees”,even “eat my flesh” ,or else people might believe and be saved (without repentance and by their own striving).Jesus saves you , not your baptism, confirmation ,confessing Him etc .Yet we may do the sacraments and works and confessing , but only after he gives us a new heart and the will and strength to do them. Hence , it is like the wind , when God does it, He does it. You put god in a box ,and the wind dies ,you quench the spirit and you have a lot happy religious people ,but dead in spirit .The Jews had their sacraments and traditions comparable to baptism , confirmation ,communion etc. yet they were not effectual , but signs to show God’s work. Jesus addressed being born again , of the spirit , and said nothing of circumcision ,bharmitzva etc. ,just like you can not always tell today simply by "sacraments we have done. We may or may not be born again , despite our religiosity, to the Lord’s frustration.

 

[david_ruiz]

So do you think Catholics are going to hell, like we are the ones of Satan? Some people do that look at the Bible similar to yours…Just wondering.

Should I say in hell will be many supposed good, bad and ugly Catholics and Protestants. As far as heaven , beyond a shadow of a doubt ,it is like the pilgrim who sees the Pearly Gates from afar and shouts to St.Peter, “Are there any Catholics up there ?” and Peter anwsers , “No” . "Are there any Lutherans up there? " Again Peter answers , “No.” “Any Episcoples ?” “No” "Any Orthodox ? “. “No, we don’t go by any of those names up here” “Well then who is up there ?”, the Pilgrim asks. St.Peter shouts back , " Just those souls who have been washed by the Blood of the Lamb”. Halleluiah

 

[hn160]

Should I say in hell will be many supposed good, bad and ugly Catholics and Protestants. As far as heaven , beyond a shadow of a doubt ,it is like the pilgrim who sees the Pearly Gates from afar and shouts to St.Peter, “Are there any Catholics up there ?” and Peter anwsers , “No” . "Are there any Lutherans up there? " Again Peter answers , “No.” “Any Episcoples ?” “No” "Any Orthodox ? “. “No, we don’t go by any of those names up here” “Well then who is up there ?”, the Pilgrim asks. St.Peter shouts back , " Just those souls who have been washed by the Blood of the Lamb”. Halleluiah

That is what it boils down to, I don’t think that Lutherans or Catholics or any others will get any special merits. It is enough to be washed by the Blood of the Lamb.
We have a Communion hymn:

At the Lamb’s High Feast We Sing

At the Lamb’s high feast we sing
Praise to our victorious king,
Who has washed us in the tide
Flowing from his pierced side.
Alleluia!

Praise we him, whose love divine
Gives his sacred blood for wine,
Gives his body for the feast
Christ the victim, Christ the priest.
Alleluia!

Where the paschal blood is poured,
Death’s dread angel sheathes the sword;
Israel’s hosts triumphant go
Through the wave that drowns the foe.
Alleluia!

Praise we Christ, whose blood was shed,
Paschal victim, paschal bread;
With sincerity and love
Eat we manna from above.
Alleluia!

Mighty Victim from the sky,
Hell’s fierce powers beneath you lie;
You have conquered in the fight
You have brought us life and light.
Alleluia!

Now no more can death appall,
Now no more the grave enthrall;
You have opened paradise,
And your saints in you shall rise.
Alleluia!

Easter triumph, Easter joy!
This alone can sin destroy;
From sin’s power, Lord, set us free,
Newborn souls in you to be.
Alleluia!

Father, who the crown shall give,
Savior, by whose death we live,
Spirit, guide through all our days;
Three in One, Your name we praise.
Alleluia!

 

[shaky]

well, it has been asked with a good bit of frequency (and often with the tone of, how could you be such a spiritual idiot so as to not believe in the real bodily presence)…but for a fellow Canuck I’ll be happy to respond. My reasons are:

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles (and therefore, obviously not back to Christ)…if you are interested I’ll be happy to provide the Titles of some scholarly works that support my position;

b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; and

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

If this thread takes the normal course, a number of conservative Catholics will:

a) post a bunch of snippets from the ECFs in response to #1 above…typically with no accompanying analysis and as if the scholars that I can marshall in support of my view somehow forgot to read those snippets;

b) claim that I am calling Jesus a liar for not disbelieving my eyes and believing “is” means “is” or claim that I must be saying that God isn’t powerful enough to make bread into his body whilst still leaving the “accidents” of the bread in place; and/or

c) claim that various passages (the 3 institution passages, John 6 and 1 Cor 10 and 11) must be interpreted to verify a real bodily presence even though extremely learned scholars do not agree with that assertion.

That said, if you want to undertsand why I believe what I believe, I am happy to answer your questions

I understand what you are saying because in the natural you will always believe it is really bread and wine because it looks smells and taste like that.
But i think our faith should be in the supernatural where we Just simply choose to believe it truly to be the body and blood of christ.

 

[lyrikal]

I have a lengthy response which may take some posts to fit it all into. Augustine’s quotes will be in red and mine will be in black.

THIS IS PART ONE:

I would like to go back to the topic at hand, which is the Real Presence. The following response is directed towards Radical but if anyone who believes that St. Augustine did not believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, you are more than welcomed to respond.

We will be examining a few of St. Augustine’s works. The first one (which was previously examined) is Augustine’s commentary on Psalms 98/99. This is the work where he talks about eating and worshiping the flesh of Christ.

Here is what Augustine says:

I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, the earth is My footstool. In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and 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.

Radical mentioned earlier that St. Augustine is NOT talking about the Eucharist or Transubstantiation here. I disagree and will show why in a bit. But first, it is clear from the text that Augustine is telling us to worship something. What is that something? It is the flesh of Christ. But that’s not all; he tells us that Christ walked on earth with this flesh and also gave us this flesh to EAT for our salvation. Notice there is a breakdown of the two. Augustine is not only talking about the flesh that walked the earth, but he mentions the flesh that we eat and that flesh that walked the earth is the SAME as the one we eat. Now, how can we prove that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist here? Let’s take a look at what he says in context and it will be clear that Augustine is indeed speaking of the Eucharist here and of Transubstantiation.

Augustine says:

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. (John 6:54) 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.

Augustine does something very telling. Right after he talks about worshipping the flesh that we EAT, he immediately quotes from John 6 (the famous Eucharistic chapter for us Catholics).

But wait…How do we know that Augustine believes John 6 is in regards to the Eucharist? We can examine his commentary in John 6 and see if he attributes it to the Eucharist. If so, that means the context of EATING AND WORSHIPPING THE FLESH is in regards to the Eucharist because he immediately quotes John 6 after talking about EATING and WORSHIPPING that flesh. So, if we can establish that Augustine attributes John 6 to the Eucharist, then we can establish that the part about eating and worshipping flesh is about the Eucharist because he immediately quotes John 6.

Continued in PART TWO…

 

[lyrikal]

Continued…

PART TWO:

So here we go…Commentary on John 6, Augustine says the following:

Tractate 26:11 he says:

I am, says He, the bread of life. And what was the source of their pride? Your fathers, says He, did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. What is it whereof you are proud? They ate manna, and are dead. Why they ate and are dead? Because they believed that which they saw; what they saw not, they did not understand. Therefore were they your fathers, because you are like them. For so far, my brethren, as relates to this visible corporeal death, do not we too die who eat the bread that comes down from heaven? They died just as we shall die, so far, as I said, as relates to the visible and carnal death of this body. But so far as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. 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 says, Eats and drinks judgment to himself. 1 Corinthians 11:29 For it was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar.

It is obvious that Augustine is attributing John 6 to the Eucharist. Please note, I am NOT trying to prove from John 6 that Augustine believes in Transubstantiation. I am only showing that when Augustine talks about worshipping and eating the Flesh of Christ, he is talking about the Eucharist.

It is interesting to note that Augustine quotes from 1 Corinthians 11:29 which is a passage where St. Paul is talking about the Eucharist.

Let’s continue examining the commentary on John 6.

Tractate 26:15 he says

But that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you. How, indeed, it may be eaten, and what may be the mode of eating this bread, you are ignorant of; nevertheless, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will not have life in you.

He continues commenting on the above stated and says:

The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof.

Notice how Augustine takes the verse about eating the flesh of the Son of man and drinking His blood and relates it to the Sacrament on the Lord’s table (Eucharist) that is prepared in some places daily and in other places at certain intervals of days. He is clearly talking about the Eucharist here.

But wait, there’s more!

Tractate 26:18 he says:

In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8

Again, it is clear as day that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist here.

Tractate 27:1 he says:

We have just heard out of the Gospel the words of the Lord which follow the former discourse. From these a discourse is due to your ears and minds, and it is not unseasonable today; for it is concerning the body of the Lord which He said that He gave to be eaten for eternal life. And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him."

Again, he is clearly speaking about the Eucharist here in the beginning of Tractate 27. The beginning of 27 is a summarization of what we read in 26.

Continued in PART THREE…

 

[lyrikal]

Continued…

PART THREE:

So to review and sum it all up:

• A.) Augustine commenting on Psalms 98/99, talks about eating and worshipping the flesh of Christ.
• B.) Radical (or anyone who agrees with Radical in regards to this issue), you say that Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist when commenting on Psalms 98/99.
• C.) But, Augustine, immediately after talking about eating and worshipping the flesh of Christ, quotes John 6:54 which talks about if we don’t eat the flesh of Christ, we have no life in us.
• D.) From Tractate 26 and beginning of 27, we see that Augustine attributes John 6 to the Eucharist (granted he attributes it to other things as well but that’s beside the point. Also, one can argue that the things he attributes John 6, to can be understood in a Eucharistic context).
• E.) Therefore, we can be sure that when Augustine talks about worshipping the flesh we eat, he is talking about the Eucharist

So what? So what if St. Augustine is talking about worshipping the flesh that we eat? How does that prove Transubstantiation? If Augustine only believed in a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, then he would be committing idolatry by worshipping it and would be committing a bigger sin by telling people to worship the bread. The ONLY way Augustine would tell anyone to worship “flesh that we eat” is if that flesh that we eat (bread) somehow turns into GOD Himself (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ). Augustine would not tell anyone to worship anything other than God. That is the whole context and point of Psalms 98/99 when it talks about “worshipping the footstool of God.”

Now, is there anything that suggests or hints at the fact that Augustine believed that the bread and wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ? Yes there is. It is something that I have quoted before and Radical gave (in my opinion…with all due respect) a half-hearted response to it (for a lack of better terms). First of all, I would like to present the quote from St. Augustine.

In Sermon 229:3, Augustine says:

"…We come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word and it’s now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament."

Augustine could not have been any more clear.

Radical, for the sake of the argument, let’s say that Augustine did believe in Transubstantiation, can you please tell us how he would describe it in words without using the word Transubstantiation? Better yet, let’s say YOU believed in it. Can you please describe it in words for us without using the word Transubstantiation?

I searched the word Transubstantiation in Wikipedia and this is what it says:

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change, in the Eucharist, of the substance (what the thing is in itself - see “Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation”, below) of wheat bread and grape wine into the substance of the Body and Blood (respectively) of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the species or appearances) remains as before.

Again, Augustine, in Sermon 229:3 says:

"…We come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word and it’s now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament."

Please tell me how else Augustine would have to describe it in order for you to believe that he believed in Transubstantiation? Notice he says that WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE WORD WE MAY HAVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. In other words, without the “word” it’s just bread and wine. In fact, he says that right after. He says “Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; ADD THE WORD AND IT’S NOW SOMETHING ELSE.” He goes on to tell us what that something else is. He says “And what is that something else? THE BODY OF CHRIST, AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” He repeats it again…what happens when you take away the words? He says “So take away the word, IT’S BREAD AND WINE…” What happens when you add the word? “ADD THE WORD AND IT WILL BECOME THE SACRAMENT.”

Continued in PART FOUR

 

[lyrikal]

Continued…

PART FOUR (final part):

Radical, you can quote other passages where Augustine seems to suggest that the Eucharist is not the physical Body and Blood of Christ but all of those verses can be reconciled with the ones I showed you. Also, if you’re going to do that, it is no different than when Jehova Witnesses, Muslims, and other groups who don’t believe in the Divinity of Christ downplay verses that talk about Christ’s Divinity and exalt the verses that talk about Christ’s humanity. In reality, Christ is both man and God. There is no contradiction there. The two can be reconciled mysteriously. Same way with the Eucharist. When you think that Augustine is talking about a spiritual presence or a symbolic presence, simply think of it this way: We do not believe that we are physically eating Christ’s body parts. Like we are not eating a finger of Christ in one church and in another church they’re eating his ribcage. No. We believe we are SACRAMENTALLY eating the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVNITY of Christ. This is a mystery. It is difficult and almost improbable to comprehend (like the Trinity and Jesus’ Divinity/Humanity). THAT is what Augustine is talking about when he says things like:

"And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.”

Just because he says “in a certain way”, it doesn’t mean he believes it to be symbolic. I can say the same thing today and still believe in Transubstantiation. What I would mean by “in a certain way” is that Christ carried Himself under the appearance of bread. That IS in a certain way. He did not literally clone Himself and carried His body and literally had a chest, stomach, legs, etc. He carried Himself in a CERTAIN way under the appearance of bread. This does NOT contradict Catholic teachings and it certainly does not mean Augustine did not believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I am looking forward to your response. I know I said that I wouldn’t respond but I felt the need to respond now and my mind would not rest until I did so.

God bless you, brother!

 

[KathleenGee]

Interesting response…good…

 

[PJM]

=david ruiz;8167972]Water is NOT baptism here. Jesus healed many, and forgave many, and said folks were “saved” , and He told none of them to be water baptized.

And this is the will of the Father -“believe on Him whoHhe sent”

David, you have certainly made one thing clear. When you ONLY rely on your own understanding ya gatta be right ALL OF THE TIME.

 

[JonNC]

=david ruiz;8167972]Water is NOT baptism here. Jesus healed many, and forgave many, and said folks were “saved” , and He told none of them to be water baptized.

Well, certainly it isn’t recorded in each of these that He said to be Baptized, but He does say to His disciples:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Continued…

PART FOUR (final part):

Radical, you can quote other passages where Augustine seems to suggest that the Eucharist is not the physical Body and Blood of Christ but all of those verses can be reconciled with the ones I showed you. Also, if you’re going to do that, it is no different than when Jehova Witnesses, Muslims, and other groups who don’t believe in the Divinity of Christ downplay verses that talk about Christ’s Divinity and exalt the verses that talk about Christ’s humanity. In reality, Christ is both man and God. There is no contradiction there. The two can be reconciled mysteriously. Same way with the Eucharist. When you think that Augustine is talking about a spiritual presence or a symbolic presence, simply think of it this way: We do not believe that we are physically eating Christ’s body parts. Like we are not eating a finger of Christ in one church and in another church they’re eating his ribcage. No. We believe we are SACRAMENTALLY eating the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVNITY of Christ. This is a mystery. It is difficult and almost improbable to comprehend (like the Trinity and Jesus’ Divinity/Humanity). THAT is what Augustine is talking about when he says things like:

Just because he says “in a certain way”, it doesn’t mean he believes it to be symbolic. I can say the same thing today and still believe in Transubstantiation. What I would mean by “in a certain way” is that Christ carried Himself under the appearance of bread. That IS in a certain way. He did not literally clone Himself and carried His body and literally had a chest, stomach, legs, etc. He carried Himself in a CERTAIN way under the appearance of bread. This does NOT contradict Catholic teachings and it certainly does not mean Augustine did not believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I am looking forward to your response. I know I said that I wouldn’t respond but I felt the need to respond now and my mind would not rest until I did so.

God bless you, brother!

Actually one does not need to go to great extremes to prove Augsutine believed in the RP. If Augustine was practicing and following a heretical teaching (Real Presence) then I am curious to know why not ONE church father rebukes him? Why doesn’t Jerome or Ambrose tell Augustine he is practicing a heretical teaching and great usurpation against Jesus? Why don’t other ECF’s tell Augustine that the Eucharist is merely symbolic and the RP is unorthodox and not an Apostolic teaching? Here is where Radical and his so-called distinguished scholars fail miserably.

 

[jlhargus]

Water is NOT baptism here. Jesus healed many, and forgave many, and said folks were "saved" , and He told none of them to be water baptized.

JL: Christ did say in Jn3:5 EXCEPT a man is **born of water AND of the Spirit **he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Could you post the scripture were Christ said, folks were “saved”, I don’t recall every reading it?

And this is the will of the Father -“believe on Him whoHhe sent”

JL: Are you implying this means we are saved and receive the Holy Spirit., the instance we BELIEVE. Could you show me some scripturre for this tradition?