The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

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.

Thanks .Good stuff.

 

[david_ruiz]

JL:

Christ did say in Jn3:5 EXCEPT a man is **born of water AND of the Spirit **

 

[Radical]

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

I’ll have a look at your logic first.

Your argument must be that:

1. Augustine would agree that only God merits worship
2. Augustine advocates the worship of Christ’s flesh in Psalms 98/99,

3)** If he is advocating the worship of Christ’s flesh as it is present(ed) in the element of the bread at the Eucharist,**

1. then he must believe that Christ’s flesh is present in/at the bread, otherwise it would be idolatry.

If you do not establish that Augustine clearly had the “if” of #3 in mind, then #4 does not follow and your attempt to show that Augustine held to a RBP fails. Your A-E is an effort to establish the “If” of #3. W/o going into detail with respect to the actual words of Augustine, here are the problems that I see with respect to the logic of your proof:

a) God does not need to be bodily present in a room to be worshipped. One can contemplate Christ’s flesh and what it endured on our behalf and adore that flesh w/o it needing to be in the room. As such, you would need to do more than just demonstrate that Augustine had the Eucharist in mind when he thought Christ’s flesh would be worshipped. You would have to demonstrate that Augustine didn’t just contemplate the worship Christ’s flesh on the occasion of a Eucharistic celebration, but that he advocated the direction of that worship to exactly what was in/under the bread of the Eucharist. In other words, you need Augustine to have said: “And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation (by way of eating the Eucharistic element of bread); and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped (that flesh, which is bodily present in the Eucharistic bread)”…and of course, he didn’t write the emboldened bits. B/c those emboldened bits are missing, one is free to interpret that passage from Augustine as "And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation (by way of sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us); and no one eats that flesh**(by way of sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us)** , unless he has first worshipped (that flesh0,…and, of course Augustine did say exactly that bold bit in OCD III.

b) Your proof acknowledges that Augustine attributed John 6 to other things as well as the Eucharist and so your effort to necessarily tie the adoration contemplated in Psalms 98/99 to the Eucharist fails. Although Augustine may have thought the eating of Christ’s flesh could have been done on the occasion of the Eucharist, his attribution of other things to John 6 opens up the possibility that eating the flesh of Christ could also be done on other occasions. (This is where, if we look at what Augustine said “eating the flesh of Christ” actually meant, as quoted above, we can know beyond a doubt that Augustine understood that the eating of Christ flesh could occur at numerous and quite varied actions…). You say, “Also, one can argue that the things he attributes John 6, to can be understood in a Eucharistic context”…and you might be right at that, but “can argue” means that it is far from settled as a necessity…and you need that necessity to establish the “if” of #3, otherwise your proof falls flat.

 

[david_ruiz]

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

The thief on the cross came to believe ,and believe that he could be saved and confessed it . Jesus told him “yes, you are saved” - “The Spirit beareth witness in us”. Christ did not say ,now that you bore witness you are saved ,but more “you bore witness because your heart knew you were because of Me”.What comes first ,the confession or belief ? Do you confess then God gives you faith ? Or does God give you faith ,that you are saved and out of the abundance of the heart it speaketh of his salvation . Romans 10:14 "How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed ? " Faith comes first ,to ask for salvation ."And whoso calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Rom.10:11) I would say you are saved if you sincerely believe and confess the Lord as your savior .That is verse 9 paraphrased.and with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation…Peter and Cornelius They heard the gospel and believed and the Holy Ghost fell on them ,they even spoke in tongues just like pentecost sunday .They were regenerated with the preachers words. They were baptized in the Holy Ghost. They were born again .The LAST thing they did was to be water baptized.The credentials for water baptizing gentiles was that they were already saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism was not effectual (regenerating) for them ,other than being obedient and having a clear conscience for said obedience…Is there scripture to show an instance where someone did not believe , then were baptized then came to believe ?.. Perhaps we are missing the fundamental that we can do nothing good , even our efforts of righteousness is stench in his nostrils .To believe that He is the messiah and a rewarder of those who seek Him is a good thing , that certainly came not form our Adamic nature -a dead spirit, a soul at enmity with God. Only a rekindled ,regenerated ,born-again spirit can retain saving faith .

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll have a look at your logic first.

Your argument must be that:

1. Augustine would agree that only God merits worship
2. Augustine advocates the worship of Christ’s flesh in Psalms 98/99,

3)** If he is advocating the worship of Christ’s flesh as it is present(ed) in the element of the bread at the Eucharist,**

1. then he must believe that Christ’s flesh is present in/at the bread, otherwise it would be idolatry.

If you do not establish that Augustine clearly had the “if” of #3 in mind, then #4 does not follow and your attempt to show that Augustine held to a RBP fails. Your A-E is an effort to establish the “If” of #3. W/o going into detail with respect to the actual words of Augustine, here are the problems that I see with respect to the logic of your proof:

a) God does not need to be bodily present in a room to be worshipped. One can contemplate Christ’s flesh and what it endured on our behalf and adore that flesh w/o it needing to be in the room. As such, you would need to do more than just demonstrate that Augustine had the Eucharist in mind when he thought Christ’s flesh would be worshipped. You would have to demonstrate that Augustine didn’t just contemplate the worship Christ’s flesh on the occasion of a Eucharistic celebration, but that he advocated the direction of that worship to exactly what was in/under the bread of the Eucharist. In other words, you need Augustine to have said: “And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation (by way of eating the Eucharistic element of bread); and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped (that flesh, which is bodily present in the Eucharistic bread)”…and of course, he didn’t write the emboldened bits. B/c those emboldened bits are missing, one is free to interpret that passage from Augustine as "And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation (by way of sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us); and no one eats that flesh**(by way of sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us)** , unless he has first worshipped (that flesh0,…and, of course Augustine did say exactly that bold bit in OCD III.

b) Your proof acknowledges that Augustine attributed John 6 to other things as well as the Eucharist and so your effort to necessarily tie the adoration contemplated in Psalms 98/99 to the Eucharist fails. Although Augustine may have thought the eating of Christ’s flesh could have been done on the occasion of the Eucharist, his attribution of other things to John 6 opens up the possibility that eating the flesh of Christ could also be done on other occasions. (This is where, if we look at what Augustine said “eating the flesh of Christ” actually meant, as quoted above, we can know beyond a doubt that Augustine understood that the eating of Christ flesh could occur at numerous and quite varied actions…). You say, “Also, one can argue that the things he attributes John 6, to can be understood in a Eucharistic context”…and you might be right at that, but “can argue” means that it is far from settled as a necessity…and you need that necessity to establish the “if” of #3, otherwise your proof falls flat.

And yet NO WHERE does Augustine ONCE state the RP is heretical or false. Where are those famous sentences from Augustine Radical? Where are the rebukes by countless other ECF’s claiming the belief in the RP is bogus and insane?

 

[david_ruiz]

.

Your on the right track here, because Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The “Do this in rememberance of me” is the same Hebrew expression Jesus used from the Old Testament Jewish passover which “rememberance” translated to the Hebrew is “Zakar” which means to “be made present”. Jesus was fulfilling the Sedar meal in himself by making himself present as the True sacrificial Lamb of God who will save them from their guilt and sins.

.

This thanks that Jesus is fulfilling from the law which includes the “Todah” sacrifce offering. Do you know what the Hebrew “Todah” sacrafice offering entails? in short “Eucharist” fits the bill.

 

[david_ruiz]

Gabriel of 12;8158861:

.

.

This thanks that Jesus is fulfilling from the law which includes the “Todah” sacrifce offering. Do you know what the Hebrew “Todah” sacrafice offering entails? in short “Eucharist” fits the bill.

Still don’t understand how this differs from protestant practice.Eucharist means “thanksgiving”

Did you know Jesus is slain since the foundation of the world? Revelations 13:8…the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world

Yes ,in his foreknowledge,as He had foreknowledge of me being formed in my mothers womb before the world was made.

You are wrong to think that Jesus is re-sacrificed or re-offered daily.

This blog (a Catholic brother) said He is “re-presented” , which to me is re-offerred

The Last supper event revealed in time what is from all eternity that John sees in heaven from eternity the “lamb standing as though slain”

…Yes ,that what He did for us will ever be remembered . Don’t need real presence for that.

Hebrews 10:19
9 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20
10 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,

Yyet at times He is veiled on the altar(consecrated Host),or put behind a veil ,that only the priest or a select delegate can go into,and or bring out…The bible says He does not reside in holy places made with hands,though a figure of the true

The daily Mass offering is biblical and conducted in every nation world wide daily and Jesus fulfills the prophets in the “do this in rememberance of me” when His sacrifice and offering truly present in His body and blood celebrated in the Eucharist.

Just don’t believe you need RP for that fulfillment.
Malachi 11
**I understand how this ‘sacrifice’ is the mass for Catholics.It still could be for protetstants the sacrifice of praise and the incense of prayers .A good scripture to study for both sides.

But you behave profanely toward me by thinking the LORD’S table and its offering may be polluted, and its food slighted.

**

Yes ,the Jews rejected the table(Messiah) the Father prepared for them .

No one can go before the Father in heaven without the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity. The Mass sacramentally makes this happen in time from all of eternity.

This a stretch of the simple truth. Yes ,"no one goes to the Father ,except thru the Son. " Do NOT see real presence in that scripture.
John 14:6

 

[lyrikal]

I’ll have a look at your logic first.

Your argument must be that:

1. Augustine would agree that only God merits worship
2. Augustine advocates the worship of Christ’s flesh in Psalms 98/99,

3)** If he is advocating the worship of Christ’s flesh as it is present(ed) in the element of the bread at the Eucharist,**

1. then he must believe that Christ’s flesh is present in/at the bread, otherwise it would be idolatry.

If you do not establish that Augustine clearly had the “if” of #3 in mind, then #4 does not follow and your attempt to show that Augustine held to a RBP fails. Your A-E is an effort to establish the “If” of #3. W/o going into detail with respect to the actual words of Augustine, here are the problems that I see with respect to the logic of your proof:

a) God does not need to be bodily present in a room to be worshipped. One can contemplate Christ’s flesh and what it endured on our behalf and adore that flesh w/o it needing to be in the room. As such, you would need to do more than just demonstrate that Augustine had the Eucharist in mind when he thought Christ’s flesh would be worshipped. You would have to demonstrate that Augustine didn’t just contemplate the worship Christ’s flesh on the occasion of a Eucharistic celebration, but that he advocated the direction of that worship to exactly what was in/under the bread of the Eucharist. In other words, you need Augustine to have said: “And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation (by way of eating the Eucharistic element of bread); and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped (that flesh, which is bodily present in the Eucharistic bread)”…and of course, he didn’t write the emboldened bits. B/c those emboldened bits are missing, one is free to interpret that passage from Augustine as "And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation (by way of sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us); and no one eats that flesh**(by way of sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us)** , unless he has first worshipped (that flesh0,…and, of course Augustine did say exactly that bold bit in OCD III.

b) Your proof acknowledges that Augustine attributed John 6 to other things as well as the Eucharist and so your effort to necessarily tie the adoration contemplated in Psalms 98/99 to the Eucharist fails. Although Augustine may have thought the eating of Christ’s flesh could have been done on the occasion of the Eucharist, his attribution of other things to John 6 opens up the possibility that eating the flesh of Christ could also be done on other occasions. (This is where, if we look at what Augustine said “eating the flesh of Christ” actually meant, as quoted above, we can know beyond a doubt that Augustine understood that the eating of Christ flesh could occur at numerous and quite varied actions…). You say, “Also, one can argue that the things he attributes John 6, to can be understood in a Eucharistic context”…and you might be right at that, but “can argue” means that it is far from settled as a necessity…and you need that necessity to establish the “if” of #3, otherwise your proof falls flat.

Hi Radical,

Thank you for your response.

I actually have shown that Augustine is talking about worshiping the FLESH that we EAT. I have shown that FLESH that we EAT is the Eucharist. Therefore, Augustine is talking about WORSHIPING the FLESH of Christ in the Eucharist. That is the whole point of Augustine’s argument. He 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.

What is the IT that he is talking about? Read what he says before that. The “IT” is the Flesh that we eat for our salvation. Is that flesh that we eat the Eucharist?

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

Continued…

First of all, I have shown that it is the Eucharist. Augustine quotes from John 6:54 and I have shown that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist in his Tractate on John 6. Therefore, there is no denying that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist when he talks about worshiping the flesh that we eat. For you to argue that is equivalent to an atheist saying “there is no God” because God has never come down and told me “I EXIST.” That’s an atheistic way of arguing things. If you can’t see Augustine believing in the RBP of Christ with what he says, then don’t expect an atheist to believe in God from any evidence you give him/her. You require PROOF, not evidence (which I believe I have provided for you).

Second of all, don’t you think the early church would have understood Augustine in referring to the Eucharist when he says somethings like “you must worship the flesh that you eat”? You accuse us Catholics of reading too much into Augustine’s writings by bringing our biases into his writing and yet you are doing the same exact thing. The early church understood what eating the flesh of Christ was about. The early church had a belief in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist.

Third of all, with all due respect, your whole response is basically summed up in this:

“Nope, Augustine did not say that. That’s not what he meant. Sorry, but if he meant that he would have said (insert whatever it is you think he should have said).”

That’s hardly a response to what I provided. That’s just saying “no, I don’t agree sorry…”

It is clear that when Augustine talks about worshiping “IT”, he is talking about worshiping the flesh that we eat. Again, that is the whole point of his argument.

You said:

a) God does not need to be bodily present in a room to be worshipped. One can contemplate Christ’s flesh and what it endured on our behalf and adore that flesh w/o it needing to be in the room. As such, you would need to do more than just demonstrate that Augustine had the Eucharist in mind when he thought Christ’s flesh would be worshipped. You would have to demonstrate that Augustine didn’t just contemplate the worship Christ’s flesh on the occasion of a Eucharistic celebration, but that he advocated the direction of that worship to exactly what was in/under the bread of the Eucharist.

Let me ask you a question about that: If Augustine meant what you think he meant about the worship of the flesh, why would he say the following words:

and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping.

Why would Augustine need to say those words? It is obvious enough that no one sins by worshiping God. Why would Augustine have to tell his audience “don’t worry, you won’t sin by worshiping God. In fact, if you don’t worship God, you DO sin.” That is obvious and does not need to be reiterated. But the fact is, he does mention it. Because that is the whole point of his argument. It is ok to worship the FLESH of Christ under the appearance of bread because it is no longer bread, but the Body of Christ and since Christ is God, you MUST worship that Body which is under the appearance of bread. That flesh that he is speaking of is the same flesh that we EAT FOR OUR SALVATION. If Augustine would have just said “Worship the flesh of Christ”, you would have had a valid point; however, since he mentions worshiping that flesh that we EAT, your point fails because eating flesh is attributed to the Eucharist as I have shown you from Augustine’s works and also can show you from other writings of other early Church Fathers.

So no, I’m sorry, but Augustine was not talking about worshiping God THROUGH the Eucharist (as you seem to have suggested), but he is talking about worshipping God IN the Eucharist. He explicitly says “we do not sin by worshipping IT”, not “we do not sin by worshipping THROUGH IT.” That is just what you are trying to make it say. I am just using the writings of Augustine without taken away any words or adding any words to them to show you that he believed in the RBP. You are trying to add the words “Worshipping the flesh THROUGH it” to make your point.

Looking forward to your response. God bless you, brother!

 

[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:

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:

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

Also, I did not see a response to this section of the post. Keep in mind, Sermon 229 and 229A are both sermons in regards to the Eucharist.

In 229A,2 Augustine says:

“What you can see on the Lord’s table, as far as appearance of the things goes, you are also used to seeing on your own tables; they have the same aspect, but not the same value. I mean, you yourselves are the same people as you used to be; you haven’t brought us along new faces, after all. And yet you’re new; the same old people in bodily appearance, completely new ones by the grace of holiness – just as this too is new. It’s still, indeed, as you can see it, bread and wine; come the consecration, that bread will be the Body of Christ, and that wine will be the Blood of Christ. This is brought about by the name of Christ, brought about by the grace of Christ, that it should continue to look exactly like what it used to look like, and yet should not have the same value as it used to. You see, if it was eaten before, it would fill the belly; but now when it’s eaten it nourishes the spirit.”

Again, clear as day.

The last part about belly and spirit suggests that something happens to the bread and wine for it to have spiritual benefits for us. Before the consecration, it is just bread and wine and has no spiritual benefits for us, it would just fill our stomachs. After the consecration, all of a sudden it has spiritual benefits. Why? Because the consecration does something to the bread and wine. It turns it into the Body and Blood of Christ (by the Grace of Christ). If nothing happens to it, then how could it have any benefits for our souls?

God Bless you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8172584]

.

Still don’t understand how this differs from protestant practice.Eucharist means “thanksgiving”

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical, Thank you for your response.

you are welcome…however, you do know that I’ll never catch up if you keep responding at a pace of 3 posts per my one.

I actually have shown that Augustine is talking about worshiping the FLESH that we EAT.

agreed

I have shown that FLESH that we EAT is the Eucharist.

no you haven’t…the reference to eating Christ’s flesh is obviously from John 6. You have gone into a rather long explanation to show that Augustine connected John 6 to the Eucharist ( but then acknowledge that he also connected that passage to other things, so that John 6 is not connected exclusively to the Eucharist). Therefore, you haven’t established that Augustine connected the eating of Christ’s flesh to ** only** the Eucharist. Further, I have provided Augustine’s description of what that passage in John 6 (which requires us to eat Christ’s flesh) actually means…and it is not tied to the Eucharist. Augustine’s explanation of flesh eating in OCD III absolutely kills your argument. In that passage he provided a rule as to when passages should be understood figuratively. As to eating flesh, he stated that a literal interpretation would be a crime and, therefore, the eating of Christ’s flesh is to be understood figuratively. He then provided the meaning of that figure and clarified that the eating of Christ’s flesh was done by “sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” There is no indication that this can only be done at the occasion of the Eucharist celebration. There is no indication that Augustine thought that a third manner of interpretation of the passage existed (in addition to the incorrect literal and the correct figurative) which would see the eating achieved by the consumption of transubstantiated bread at the Eucharist…in fact, if that third possibility existed (in Augustine’s mind) then it defeats his rule, b/c he is trying to show when things should be interpreted figuratively and not literally, but the passage would then have that confusing third possible interpretation that is outside of his supplied rule. You need to deal with that passage from Augustine.

 

[Radical]

Second of all, don’t you think the early church would have understood Augustine in referring to the Eucharist when he says somethings like “you must worship the flesh that you eat”?

no, you are projecting back into ancient Carthage the current Catholic practise of adoring the Eucharistic elements.

You accuse us Catholics of reading too much into Augustine’s writings by bringing our biases into his writing and yet you are doing the same exact thing. The early church understood what eating the flesh of Christ was about.

well if Augustine’s Church paid any attention to him, then they would have understood that eating Christ’s flesh was done by “sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” …your assertion here entirely brushes over that clear explanation by Augustine.

The early church had a belief in the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist.

that is merely begging the question…the evidence shows that there existed quite a variation in beliefs and that the belief in a real somatic presence came out of the 4th century Antiochene school (at least that is what the scholars that I listed understand). What I fail to understand is why are you not asking yourself, “What must I be missing? How is it that these renowned scholars (that Radical has quoted) do not see a RBP in Augustine’s works when I think that it is so obvious? They are better educated than I, they will have read more of Augustine than I will have read, they are likely smarter than I and they are presenting their views for peer review (where their views would not stand up, if they were weak). As such, if it is either them or I that is missing something, then it must be me. So, what must I be missing?”

Third of all, with all due respect, your whole response is basically summed up in this:
“Nope, Augustine did not say that. That’s not what he meant. Sorry, but if he meant that he would have said (insert whatever it is you think he should have said).”
That’s hardly a response to what I provided. That’s just saying “no, I don’t agree sorry…”

well if you want a response to your bits from sermon 229a and Tractates on John, you’ll have to wait, as I chose to deal with your logic first.

Let me ask you a question about that: If Augustine meant what you think he meant about the worship of the flesh, why would he say the following words:
*and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. *

Why would Augustine need to say those words? It is obvious enough that no one sins by worshiping God. Why would Augustine have to tell his audience "don’t worry, you won’t sin by worshiping God.

that’s easy…it is b/c Augustine is actually explaining why it isn’t a sin to worship God’s footstool (as he thought the Psalms required). The problem that Augustine confronted was summarized as, “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…” The full sentence that you are quoting reads: “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.”

That is obvious and does not need to be reiterated. But the fact is, he does mention it. Because that is the whole point of his argument. It is ok to worship the FLESH of Christ under the appearance of bread because it is no longer bread, but the Body of Christ and since Christ is God, you MUST worship that Body which is under the appearance of bread. That flesh that he is speaking of is the same flesh that we EAT FOR OUR SALVATION. If Augustine would have just said “Worship the flesh of Christ”, you would have had a valid point; however, since he mentions worshiping that flesh that we EAT, your point fails because eating flesh is attributed to the Eucharist as I have shown you from Augustine’s works and also can show you from other writings of other early Church Fathers.

all of this falls flat b/c you have failed to note that he is justifying the worship of God’s footstool.

So no, I’m sorry, but Augustine was not talking about worshiping God THROUGH the Eucharist (as you seem to have suggested), but he is talking about worshipping God IN the Eucharist. He explicitly says “we do not sin by worshipping IT”, not “we do not sin by worshipping THROUGH IT.” That is just what you are trying to make it say. I am just using the writings of Augustine without taken away any words or adding any words to them to show you that he believed in the RBP. You are trying to add the words “Worshipping the flesh THROUGH it” to make your point.

you say that you aren’t taking away any words, but “footstool” somehow was missed. You say that you aren’t adding any words, but there is no mention of “worshipping God IN the Eucharist”

Looking forward to your response. God bless you, brother!

…and back at you.

 

[jlhargus]

I understand many believe this to be water baptism (born of water ). Some say the Word cleanses us, hence “born of water”. I believe the the context leads me to say it is fleshly birth ,born of water as in amniotic fluid .Nicodemus introduces this context with , "Shall I enter into my mothers womb and come out again ? " -which usually begins with the mothers’ water breaking . Jesus is saying no, you are only physically born once (of water) , then you must be born once spiritually .

JL: I notice you didn’t post the context as evidence just your interpretation.

[Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **EXCEPT a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, HOW can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN OF water AND of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

Are you really trying to tell us Christ had to first explain ,a person must first be born naturally, before they can be born spiritually? Do you suppose that wouldn’t be obvious, to anyone? Would it need to be explained? Especially since Necodemus just indicated how one was born naturally. Sorry but that’s silly and the text doesn’t even imply such an interpretation. I can see why you didn’t post the scriptures.

Can you even post ONE scripture saying baptism is a CONFESSION of faith only?

We are not born spiritually alive at the fleshly, water birth (original sin). They are two separate births.

JL: You are correct babies are NOT BORN SPIRITUALLY ALIVE. They are born of flesh therefore are flesh (carnal). They lack the indwelling Holy Spirit lost by Adam. Baptism restores the indwelling Holy Spirit, Act2:38. Why then do you neglect the baptism of your children. Why deny them SPIRITUAL BIRTH thru water AND of the Spirit, as Christ tells us in Jn3 and Acts 2:38 tell us the PROMISE is for adult AND for their CHILDREN.

Luke 7:50 .To the possible prostitute who washed with tears and annointed the feet of Jesus-“Thy faith has saved you:go in peace”.Luke 18:42 -“Receive thy sight :they faith has saved you”.

JL: Lk 18:42 most translations use, healed, well, whole. Lk7:50 The woman had faith before she arrived. Now she is acting on that faith in love. Showing repentance thru her tears and acts of love. The faith that comes by an actual (not indwelling) grace of the Holy Spirit. [Lk7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, HER SINS, which are many, are FORGIVEN; for she LOVED much: …… 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.] Yes her faith saved her because she acted on that faith in love. Faith alone is dead, Jms2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

According to your tradition she was saved when she first BELIEVED and had the indwelling Holy Spirit. Even before Christ forgave her sins. Why would she have done those things if she didn’t already have faith in Christ?

Christ is God and can save anyway, anywhere, any time He wills. The normal way Christ left his Church to birth children was the sacrament of baptism. The best example would be the first time the gospel was preached after Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.

[Acts28:37 Now when **THEY HEARD this, they were PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, and SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For THE PROMISE is unto you, AND to YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

The word used for children would include infant up. The PROMISE is for adults and infants. Did Peter get it wrong? Is scripture in error? According to your tradition they have to be in error. Notice first they HEARD the Word, it periced their HEART, they BELIEVED. Told to REPENT, be BAPTIZED FOR remission of sins, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit.

With your tradition when they heard, believed and asked what must we do. Peter should have said, Since you believe you are saved and have received the Holy Spirit. No need to repent. You can now be baptized as a confession of faith.

[Col2:12 Buried with him **IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of THE OPERATION OF GOD, who hath RAISED him FROM THE DEAD.] Thru the operation (action) of God in baptism we are raised from the dead the soul is regenerated receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is Jesus (God) who acts thru the Holy Spirit in baptism.
[Gal 3:26 For **YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

 

[Nicea325]

no, you are projecting back into ancient Carthage the current Catholic practise of adoring the Eucharistic elements.
well if Augustine’s Church paid any attention to him, then they would have understood that eating Christ’s flesh was done by “sharing in his suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” …your assertion here entirely brushes over that clear explanation by Augustine.

that is merely begging the question…the evidence shows that there existed quite a variation in beliefs and that the belief in a real somatic presence came out of the 4th century Antiochene school (at least that is what the scholars that I listed understand). What I fail to understand is why are you not asking yourself, “What must I be missing? How is it that these renowned scholars (that Radical has quoted) do not see a RBP in Augustine’s works when I think that it is so obvious? They are better educated than I, they will have read more of Augustine than I will have read, they are likely smarter than I and they are presenting their views for peer review (where their views would not stand up, if they were weak). As such, if it is either them or I that is missing something, then it must be me. So, what must I be missing?”
well if you want a response to your bits from sermon 229a and Tractates on John, you’ll have to wait, as I chose to deal with your logic first.
that’s easy…it is b/c Augustine is actually explaining why it isn’t a sin to worship God’s footstool (as he thought the Psalms required). The problem that Augustine confronted was summarized as, “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…” The full sentence that you are quoting reads: “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.”

all of this falls flat b/c you have failed to note that he is justifying the worship of God’s footstool.
you say that you aren’t taking away any words, but “footstool” somehow was missed. You say that you aren’t adding any words, but there is no mention of “worshipping God IN the Eucharist”
…and back at you.

Where are the rebukes by countless other ECF’s claiming the belief in the RP is bogus and insane? Feel free at any time to post the overwhelming evidence by other ECF’s teaching the RP was heretical,heterodox and a great usuraption from Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

JL: I notice you didn’t post the context as evidence just your interpretation.

Sorry ,wasn’t try to hide anything .I did quote the part you used to rebut with .Actually having trouble with my computer or website .Lost quotes,even had to open another web to copy and paste all the quotes on the next reply cause they erased .Sorry.

Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, HOW can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN OF water AND of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

Are you really trying to tell us Christ had to first explain ,a person must first be born naturally, before they can be born spiritually?

Yes.

Do you suppose that wouldn’t be obvious, ]to anyone? Would it need to be explained?

Obvious things certainly did need to be explained to Nicodemus, a spiritual leader who did not understand the basics of spiritual life and regeneration.

Especially since Nicodemus just indicated how one was born naturally.

Actually this Is done quite often when teaching someone .You reiterate what the student has right , then go on to the “new” material . It is a way of reaffirming to the student his basics with which to build on .He is being nice ,reassuring , yet prodding Nicodemus to another basic truth.It really could have been a natural conversation .If it’s silly ,just look at some of the stuff we say to make our point.Do we need to interpret scripture so stiffly ? Again that is my and others opinion on this matter.I understand I am not in a majority at all.

Can you even post ONE scripture saying baptism is a CONFESSION of faith only?

One scripture says if anyone believes and is baptized,they shall be saved. Another says if anyone believes and confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus, they shall be saved. Rom 10:9 The two do NOT contradict .Baptism is that confession. Do you think baptism does not show the intent of the heart , a confession of faith ?

"REPENT and be baptized, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost "

.Why do you exclude"
repent" and focus in on “baptism” for the receiving of the Holy Ghost? What is repentance ? Was not their sin disbelief ,in their Messiah ? (Faith is what is pleasing to God). So ,repentance would be turning around and believe in their Messiah. Scripture and Peter are very clear .Repent - “believe-” they gladly received the gospel, (vs 41) then they were baptized .

Why then do you neglect the baptism of your children.

We believe in child baptism . If they believe and want to be baptized they can.

Why deny them SPIRITUAL BIRTH thru water AND of the Spirit, as Christ tells us in Jn3 and Acts 2:38 tell us the PROMISE is for adult AND for their CHILDREN.

Why do so many put off baptism in Catholic history, and enter a catechumen class for months , many for yeas r? They could be enjoying spiritual life as you say .How do you teach a spiritually dead person (not yet baptized) ? Jesus said you can not even “see” the kingdom without rebirth .Up to then all you can be shown is the vanity and end of Satan’s kingdom (whom the unbaptized are citizens of ).(You are drawn by the father and convicted by the Holy Spirit-that you are a sinner and need to be saved ,born again ). Why do historians say the unbaptized believers took catechumen classes ? They even built the first churches with two chambers , one for the believing baptized ,the other for believing unbaptized ? Quite strange . How does one believe ,say that Jesus is their Lord and are not born again ,or have the holy spirit ? Is not there a scripture that says we can NOT do this except by the Spirit ?..part1

 

[david_ruiz]

part2…

JL: Lk 18:42 most translations use, healed, well, whole. Lk7:50 The woman had faith before she arrived. Now she is acting on that faith in love. Showing repentance thru her tears and acts of love. The faith that comes by an actual (not indwelling) grace of the Holy Spirit. [Lk7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, HER SINS, which are many, are FORGIVEN; for she LOVED much: …… 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.] Yes her faith saved her because she acted on that faith in love. Faith alone is dead, Jms2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

She had saving faith .She was regenerated -a very real old testament doctrine.She was at “peace” with God .She then acted on it as a new spiritual child. No rituals ,sacraments needed by her for that rebirth

.According to your tradition she was saved when she first BELIEVED and had the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Be careful ,the indwelling we have been referring to is new testament .They still had regeneration,that is where a dead spirit is quickened and can now commune with God.

Even before Christ forgave her sins.

Was she forgiven only after Christ’s absolution ? Did not Christ forgive her when she repented sometime before the recorded incident ? Did she not approach Him knowing Him and what He was all about ?

Christ is God and can save anyway, anywhere, any time He wills. The normal way Christ left his Church to birth children was the sacrament of baptism.

No, it is the normal way to show what has already occurred -new life. Well, that is our debate.

The best example would be the first time the gospel was preached after Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.

Still shows conviction,then repentance -believing ,as a new spiritual babe-(can carnal man believe ?) then baptism.

With your tradition when they heard, believed and asked what must we do.

You misquote scripture .They heard conviction, then asked what they must do,then Peter said repent (believe) and be baptized,the final step.From vs 41 we get the full process -conviction ,what must we do they repented and GLADLY received his many other words ,then they were baptized .How can you gladly recieve gospel words unless you are a spiritual child , for the carnal man flees the “light” like a cockroach ?

aPeter should have said, Since you believe you are saved and have received the Holy Spirit. No need to repent.

You miss the meaning or connection of repentance and belief. When you say they came to believe , where once they did not ,THEY HAVE REPENTED. To show it they were baptized. Faith with works (we are not saved by works-baptism ,but show our faith. ).

The word used for children would include infant up.

This is an assumption. The context however may exclude infants. Jewish culture and tradition ,did not include infants in regeneration .Circumcision was not regenerative.You would also have to negate Peters words ,namely .repent,or I would say believe. What does an infant have to repent of ? .Can an infant “believe” ? No, infant baptism when taught as regenerative is quite damaging ,adult also .How many villages and mass baptism of barbarians proved to be faulty .To tell someone he is born again because of a work is false assurance .You create a tradition that God then has to overcome,as Jesus had to overcome many Jewish traditions that were faulty. But yes we agree that baptism is a new testament sacrament ,ordinance.Halleluiah

 

[lyrikal]

Where are the rebukes by countless other ECF’s claiming the belief in the RP is bogus and insane? Feel free at any time to post the overwhelming evidence by other ECF’s teaching the RP was heretical,heterodox and a great usuraption from Christ.

Nicea,

You can wait forever and you probably won’t get anything because St. Augustine never wrote any rebukes in regards to the RBP of Christ in the Eucharist. He was a firm believer in the RBP. In my opinion, Augustine’s beliefs in the RBP is more explicit than the Bible is on the teaching of the Trinity. Yet, we all agree on the Trinity but not all of us agree on Augustine’s beliefs in the RBP. I find that kind of odd. But again, that’s just my opinion.

Radical,

First of all, thank you for your response.

Second of all, I am going to be a leader at a Retreat from Friday to Sunday so I won’t be able to respond to your post. I already have a response in my head but it will take me a while to type it all out. I wish my computer knew how to type what I think, that would make things easier.

Anyway, I’ll probably type it all out on Monday or Tuesday. God bless you brother and have a great weekend, sir!

 

[shaky]

part2…She had saving faith .She was regenerated -a very real old testament doctrine.She was at “peace” with God .She then acted on it as a new spiritual child. No rituals ,sacraments needed by her for that rebirth Be careful ,the indwelling we have been referring to is new testament .They still had regeneration,that is where a dead spirit is quickened and can now commune with God. Was she forgiven only after Christ’s absolution ? Did not Christ forgive her when she repented sometime before the recorded incident ? Did she not approach Him knowing Him and what He was all about ?

No, it is the normal way to show what has already occurred -new life. Well, that is our debate. Still shows conviction,then repentance -believing ,as a new spiritual babe-(can carnal man believe ?) then baptism.

You misquote scripture .They heard conviction, then asked what they must do,then Peter said repent (believe) and be baptized,the final step.From vs 41 we get the full process -conviction ,what must we do they repented and GLADLY received his many other words ,then they were baptized .How can you gladly recieve gospel words unless you are a spiritual child , for the carnal man flees the “light” like a cockroach ? You miss the meaning or connection of repentance and belief. When you say they came to believe , where once they did not ,THEY HAVE REPENTED. To show it they were baptized. Faith with works (we are not saved by works-baptism ,but show our faith. ).
This is an assumption. The context however may exclude infants. Jewish culture and tradition ,did not include infants in regeneration .Circumcision was not regenerative.You would also have to negate Peters words ,namely .repent,or I would say believe. What does an infant have to repent of ? .Can an infant “believe” ? No, infant baptism when taught as regenerative is quite damaging ,adult also .How many villages and mass baptism of barbarians proved to be faulty .To tell someone he is born again because of a work is false assurance .You create a tradition that God then has to overcome,as Jesus had to overcome many Jewish traditions that were faulty. But yes we agree that baptism is a new testament sacrament ,ordinance.Halleluiah

From how i see it the holy spirit come down on 3,000 souls before they were baptised. The Apostle said who can forbid water to these. Adults who believe naturally receive the holy spirit and would want to get baptised. I have never heard of a unbeliever wanting to get baptised. Also if a baby was baptised when they grow up they still have to believe to have the holy spirit. God gives his holy spirit to those who obey him. Believing is faith in action.

 

[achildofGod]

Dear Grasscutter

This is truly a good question. I have been asking this question for many years too.
Right. Short answer. Protestants, a name derived form the word protest. At some point some Christians protested against the churches decadence, double standard rules and dogmas. So the decided to split off the church, protest against it and redefine what it means to be Christian and a follower of Christ. Martin Luther etc.
So they turned direction and threw out all Catholic teachings, went back to the bible and took it word for word.
This is where I feel believe the protestants have fallen short of the mark. While they have decided to take every word in the bible as a literal interpretation, like the earth created in six days etc, they have picked and chosen. Because Jesus did say explicitly that “This is my body, take it and eat it.” The same with drinking His blood. But because Protestants are protesting I truly believe they have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
But having said that. The apostles when receiving the bread would have not received it as anything other than bread and wine the sharing of a meal together with Christ.
But the classic verses in the bible John 6 “I am the bread of life” shows us that this has been a controversial dispute right from the start.
Don’t forget that this doctrine of Transubstantiation only came much, much later in the Christian faith . It was introduced by Thomas Aquinas.
There are some protestants who also believe in the real presence, and there are some who don’t I can’t explain their reasons for their choices.
What do you believe GC?