The Real Presence

[Nicea325]

Now to care to show me where anyone in the first 1500 years martyred for believing a symbolic eucharist as part of their faith? Got a name?

So, your counterpart would be to show me where anyone in the first 1500 years (who was)martyred for believing that the eucharist contained a RBP as part of their faith? Got a name?

Yep! Ignatius! Unless you want to believe in your nonsense that he believed a symbolic Eucharist? Oh I yeah I forgot,you have your impressive 3 scholars to back you up? :yawn:

Quote:
Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest defenders of the faith, who was martyred in the Colosseum around the year 107, warned his fellow Christians in a letter written while in route to Rome that:

“[h]eretics abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess the Eucharist to be that very flesh of Jesus Christ which suffered for us.”

so what? You don’t know the HOW of it. You don’t know whether Ignatius believed that the Eucharist was the flesh of Jesus by way of being a symbol, by way of a platonistic presence, or by way of a RBP etc…it is just another grand assumption on your part. BTW, who is the translator that inserted “very” into the text? Further, his view on the Eucharist was not the reason for his death.

Assumption? As opposed to your Protestant grand delusions of a symbolic Eucharist? Ooohhhh…now St,Ignatius also believed in your novel beliefs? Really Radical? Oh I forgot,Radical and his list of “experts” got it right now and even know the ECF’s were Protestant and believed in your novelties? So what? Yeah the common Protestant reply with everything. Protestanism at its best: SELF-CENTERED because it is what I say and believe. Geeeee…how many thousands of man-made churches and no end in sight?

Quote:
One of the early rumors circulated about Christians was that they were eating human flesh. Any other secular records claiming a “symbolic” flesh was being eaten by Christians?

they also accused Christians of incestuous orgies…have you got any secular records claiming that “symbolic” sex was being conducted? If not…I guess you want to agree that some sort of actual incestuous orgy was part of the early Church?

Cannot answer,so let us turn the tables around? Hey maybe you should try out for Dancing with the Stars? The issue is consumption of eating human flesh,not orgies.Duh!

Quote:
Now to care to show me where anyone in the first 1500 years martyred for believing a symbolic eucharist as part of their faith? Got a name?

Remember it is who claims a symbolic Eucharist,thus I am sure someone died believing a symbolic eucharist and mentions it as being symbolic.

maybe you should look at who the Roman Catholics killed after 1100 but before 1500…you know, someone who didn’t bow to threat like Berengar

More stepping Radical? Oh silly me, I forgot. Radical who is 2,000 years separated from Jesus and the Apostles and many of the ECF’s knows better. Silly Catholic Church…in the dark until the notorious Protesters came around and got it right? What hogwash!

BTW: I eventually gave up on you to present ONE ECF attacking St.Augustine for believing in the RP,since the Eucharist was taught as being only symbolic? So by all means,go on believing your Protestant novelties.

 

[david_ruiz]

Catholic dogma is “Johny-come-lately” traditions and novelties? Serious David?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8287877:

Spurios? Amazing what Protestants will say or do to justify their rebellion.

So what letter is it ,and long form or short form ? Then I can tell you what catholic historian s say about their validity . What , the Catholic Church has not uprooted and admitted earlier spurious works, that at the time enhanced Catholic views, even if it took centuries to admit ? Look ,it is my limited understanding that the letters of Ignatius were about 14 ,and only 7 are treated with any validity by both sides of the aisle . Of the seven, there are still problems, because they came in two versions. One is called the short ,the other "long’ for obvious reasons. There are some scholars that may accept all 14 (not sure ,but for your sake i say that) ,but i know for sure , a few think that all are spurious…Hence the question , of your source .Other wise one would have to read his best seven letters , and I am not sure if your statement is in them by my weak recollection.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Nicea325;8289940]

No David, it is who has the slighest clue about doctrinal development and you repeatedly display it. If it is not found in the earliest writings,then it to be developed? Okay David, then why haven’t you answered my question:

Show me ONE verse discussing the 27 NT FIXED canon or one writing mentioning it 50 years after Jesus death?

Favorite catch phrase for much Catholic dogma? Much? You display your ignorance more and more and I’ll keep on exposing it. Is the doctrine of the Trinity a Catholic phrase “catch” for you?

You should be happy I did not say "all "Catholic Dogma “developed” or was not found in earliest writings .I said “much” (that could be 30%, 51 % ,62%) not “all”(100%).
Catch phrase was "developed’ ,and again ,not necesarily indicating truth or lack of it .You keep bringing up Trinity ,cause you know it "developed " and we both agree (halleluia) from truth(Scripture), as if everything "developed’ by Catholicism follows suite (stems from truth). Like thes ethreads ,they take one dogma ,idea at a time.

Does not matter. Many deny Hell and claim it is false? Do you really believe that changes its reality? Do you think God really is concerned with our opinions and views?

Yes and no. He is concerned that we have opinions ,that are opposed to His ,hence His Word came forth and He revives our spirit to catch His interpretation of things,including His own previous Words.He gave us Absolute Truth ,through His Written Word and our revived spirit. Nothing is more absolute than getting it in writing , but I stray off topic.Yes ,we agree , truth is truth ,and He is judge(and truth) ,regardless of our opinions.

 

[david_ruiz]

:ehh:

David, in case you did not know, the ECF’s works are available for anyone to read. I have no need to enlighten anyone nor have I ever needed to enlighten anyone because it is there to study. David, no offense but you have a lot to learn about history. I suggest you take a college course or two.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8289940:

:ehh: Yes I do need a lot to learn .I learn very little by our bantering ,but much when facts and insight are provided .I just thought you might share some with us ,all about this topic of RP .My questions of the priests and tabernacle etc. are very relevant .I really meant it that it would great for someone ,or you, to share , putting aside the "hooray for my side " stance.

Yes ,and have you heard of the N.T fulfilling AND doing away with old ? Have you heard the veil was torn in two ? have you heard we are gold ,much treasured and are his Monstrance( ECF) said that.? Who but Satan would sew that veil back up , but ever so slowly (developing) ,so as not to be noticed. He hates that torn curtain ,availing us as believers to enter in ,as only the high priest could do ,and only once a year.

You good question was answered. He was not silent .Either view on RP was not heretical yet .Wasn’t he a Presbyterian ?

So you agree , you have the mind of Christ as a believer ? Fantastic. Is that like having your own inner "magisterium , or is He limited in our tabernacle ?

So you don’t know if it became official dogma in1200, s ? You are more concerned about my opinion and debunking me ,and not sharing truth .Would you have me get off here and Google it ? I have bowed to your masters degree, please don’t hit me over the head with it.

Yahoo, love your passion (emotion -FEELINGS). So, the Trinity is not also ,beside a true doctrine, dogma ,a viewpoint also , as in how to “see” the Godhead ? You had asked for any differing writings against RP .Sorry ,I should have said ,“are there not differing writings on a topic before it is dogmatized ?” Is that better ? No views ,even feelings,only "writings)

The only thing i will admit is your failure to read me plainly as written .How many times do I have to correct your reading .You may have majored in history ,but definitely minored in english(please let us brawl Mr .moderator ,we are both on a roll ).Again ,developing a doctrine may or may not have anything to do with it’s righteousness.A true doctrine is irrelevant to it’s formation .However ,in determining the truth of a doctrine,it’s oroigin is everything.
.
.
. As to the definition of “Church” and it’s infallibility , is a whole other thread. But so is us having the mind of Christ ,as in you ,and me.

False on your second sentence .Three times I will say truth is irrelevant to it’s formation ,only it’s source is crucial. Studying formation can cut both ways .It can show falsehood or it can show authenticity.Don,t you agree ?

David…my brother in Christ,unfortunately I do not think this is going anywhere. All I can do is pray for both of us and hopefully through the graces of God we can meet each other in His Kingdom?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8292238:

David…my brother in Christ,unfortunately I do not think this is going anywhere. All I can do is pray for both of us and hopefully through the graces of God we can meet each other in His Kingdom?

O.K. ditto-Did Google1200’s and RP. Apparently in1215 there was the Fourth Lateran Council which required Catholics to receive the Eucharist once a year during Easter and approved a new creed -Transubstantiation. In 1585 at the Council of Trent a ton of creeds came out on the Eucharist , reiterating Transusbstantiation and denying symbolism ,and declaring anathema anyone with a differing view.

 

[david_ruiz]

Clement wrote , “Eat my flesh and drink my blood He says.Such is suitable food for the Lord’s ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. Oh amazing mystery .We are to cast of the old and carnal corruption as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange a new regimen, that of Christ receiving him if we can, to hide him within, that enshrining the savoir in our souls, we may correct the affections of the flesh.”

 

[david_ruiz]

Clement wrote , “Eat my flesh and drink my blood He says.Such is suitable food for the Lord’s ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. Oh amazing mystery .We are to cast of the old and carnal corruption as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange a new regimen, that of Christ receiving him if we can, to hide him within, that enshrining the savoir in our souls, we may correct the affections of the flesh.”

The part that follows is this :“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way.The flesh figuratively represents the Holy Spirit for the flesh was created by Him.The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life, and the union of both is the Lord the food of babes, the lord who is Spirit and Word, that is the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh,the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

 

[david_ruiz]

The part that follows is this :“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way.The flesh figuratively represents the Holy Spirit for the flesh was created by Him.The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life, and the union of both is the Lord the food of babes, the lord who is Spirit and Word, that is the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh,the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

Clemen t(paedagogus-book1 ch6)- …are we not to regard the lord as preserving the consistency of figurative speech,when he speaks also of the milk of the flock.Elsewhere,the lord in the gospel of john brought this out by symbols when he said :“Eat my flesh and drink my blood”, describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the church,like a human consisting of many members,is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both, of faith ,which is the body, and hope which is the soul, as also the lord of flesh and blood . For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle"…“For Christ to do the will of the father was food” and to us who drink the milk of the word,Christ himself is food" “Thus in many ways, the Word is figuratively describes as meat, and flesh and food and bread ,blood and milk. The lord is all of these”…“Accordingly as the wine is mixed with water ,so is the Spirit with man… and the mixture of both, of the water and the Word (blood of the grape) is called the eucharist” Got from “onefold ministries”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8295017]Clemen t(paedagogus-book1 ch6)- …are we not to regard the lord as preserving the consistency of figurative speech,when he speaks also of the milk of the flock.Elsewhere,the lord in the gospel of john brought this out by symbols when he said :“Eat my flesh and drink my blood”, describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the church,like a human consisting of many members,is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both, of faith ,which is the body, and hope which is the soul, as also the lord of flesh and blood . For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle"…“For Christ to do the will of the father was food” and to us who drink the milk of the word,Christ himself is food" “Thus in many ways, the Word is figuratively describes as meat, and flesh and food and bread ,blood and milk. The lord is all of these”…“Accordingly as the wine is mixed with water ,so is the Spirit with man… and the mixture of both, of the water and the Word (blood of the grape) is called the eucharist” Got from "onefold ministries"

Hello david ruiz, to which Clement does your source “ONE FOLD MINISTERIES” is attaching this commentary?

There are two St.Clements, one is Pope St. Clement of Rome who never wrote a commentary on your “paedagogus-book1 ch6” which your source provides, which leaves St. Clement of Alexandria who records a disertation on the Eucharist from his book titled “Christ the Educator”, Bk 2 Chap.2 not the one you provided or mentioned above.

I don’t find any such commentary as you provided by either of these two Catholic Saints named “Clement”. Unless you can provide a more reliable source, your “Clement” commentary does not exist among the Catholic saints lending your commentary to false pretenses or twisting of Clements commentaries.

Can you clear this matter up which I call into question here? I will mention although there have been other Clements with Agathangelus, Clement Hofbauer and Clement of Okhrida, but I do not find these other Clement Catholic saints writing your “paedagogus-book1 ch6”.

Here is the Real ST.Clement of Alexandria on the mystical true presence of Jesus truly presence in His Eucharist under the species of bread and wine;

To read this Catholic saint’s writing on the Eucharist with a 20th century protestant view removes the mysticsm which the Saint provides, and waters down the revelation to mere carnal understanding.

“Now the blood of the Lord is twofold; one is corporeal, redeeming us from corruption; the other is spiritual, and it is with that we are anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to participate in His incorruption.****Yet, the Spirit is the strength of the Word in the same way that the blood is of the body. Similarily, wine is mixed wih water and the Spirit is joined to man; the first, the mixture , provides feasting that faith may be increased; the other, the Spirit, leads us to incorruption. The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist, a gift worthy of praise and surpassingly fair; those who partake of it are sanctified in body and soul, for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically.”

Peace be with you

 

[Trebor135]

.Thank-you for being gentle in that statement of effecting profoundly .

Well, sometimes I can be very blunt, other times too gentle. I’ve got to find the happy medium.

They did. They saw themselves as changing it as it came to them ,in the 1200,s 1300, 1400,s .They did not think they changed it profoundly form say the first or second centuries.Remember ,they had scripture of the early Church ,and 1st and 2nd century writings for which to make a judgement.But they definitely changed it from what handed to them 1000 or more years later .

Well, they “thought” and “judged” wrongly. Protestants should really do away with their head-in-the-sand willful blindness once and for all about the Early Church. Visible, hierarchical authority. Sacramentalism. Penance. Those ideas are anathema to Protestants. But the Early Church was supposed to be Protestant. So how do you square this circle? Well… you can’t. So you pretend the Early Church was really Protestant even though this denies historical reality.

Perhaps ,but even St Paul said ,"Don’t take my word for it ,but search it out for yourselves ,in scripture "(paraphrase). He wrote that remember ? (was it the Bereans ?) He did not write that to elders and deacons ,as if there were a magisterium ,but to the body as a whole

The case of the Bereans in Acts seems like a great proof text for Protestants–until you look at it more closely. The Bereans were “more noble than the Thessalonians” because they listened to St. Paul, the authority God had sent them to bring the Gospel to their ears. If they were really Protestant, they would’ve all dismissed St. Paul’s message as in conflict with the Old Testament Scriptures in their possession. “So Christ was crucified for our salvation? I thought ‘cursed is the man that hangs on a tree’ as we read in Deuteronomy. Well, Mr. Paul, my mind’s made up. I take the Word of God over the word of men, so we’re done listening to your pagan speeches.”

and I believe to every member ,for every member is crucial, and must be convinced in his heart that these things are so -the gospel.

Of course: who wants to encourage insincere professions of faith?

Anarchy no,division yes.

Show me anywhere in his letters that St. Paul encouraged divisions and I’ll eat my hat.

Please don’t miscalculate though (say 50,000 denominations and growing ! propaganda)

Not fifty thousand. But five thousand–which is bad enough, frankly. I’ll have to go find the list.

Creedless ? It is tossup ,but it may be that protestants that used catechisms first ,but whatever ,both sides used them,and still do.

I really doubt Protestants used catechisms first. Everything Protestants have is taken from Catholicism or their own imaginations.

As far as creeds ,were the first few pretty much "scriptural’ that is there main authority was the true rendering of scripture ?

Their “main authority” was orthodox Christianity, passed down in written and oral form from one generation to the next.

I thought most PC strongly believe in the first creed and possibly others .Creeds are o.k. After all, we are to live by every Word of God, and long live any creed so fashioned.

So, many Protestants choose the little of what suits them from the early centuries of Christianity and throw out the rest. No surprises there.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

This is what is so untenable for protestants, as far as I see it there is only these two possibilities:

That Jesus meant every word that He said which was recorded in John 6, in all 3 synoptic accounts, & in 1 Cor 10 & 11. That Christ, during those 40 days after His resurrection, did exactly what the Bible says He did when He spoke with the Apostles about the kingdom(Acts 1:3), and these talks included His directions on the Eucharist and the Real Presence. And that these teachings were faithfully handed on within the Church down to our time. That the Church later Christianized-or baptized-Hellenic thought in order to expand upon and clarify what they had received in the face of Roman accusations and Gnostic heresy and slander. That all of the bishops, martyrs, & apologists wrote about the Real Presence as having been believed universally from the beginning.

Or that on the night of the Passover, during the Passover dinner, and mere hours before Jesus Himself would be tried and executed, when Jesus was basically giving His “last will and testament”, that the moment He should be the most clear and unambiguous, that Jesus, the God-man, was given over to figurative language and deceptive and unheard-of metaphors. That He knew that the Apostles would not get it and bungle it immediately, or that those whom they ordained would either misunderstand completely or because of the ambiguousness open the possibility of idolatry of bread and wine. That the sub-apostolic, the third generation, and on didn’t really mean what they wrote, or that it was “lost in translation”(which is just as absurd an argument as when I used it as an atheist to argue againts the Bible), despite how many extant documents we have.

So that if the Church wrongfully interprets and worships mere bread and wine that the blame for such idolatry could be laid at the feet of Jesus Himself.

“If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially [will I do this ] if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”(St Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, chpt 20).

How can mere bread, a symbol, be “the medicine of immortality”?

"Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Bk IV, chpt 18, p 5).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

"2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.( 1 Corinthians 10:16) For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” (Colossians 1:14) And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills) (Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

1. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” (Ephesians 5:30) He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; (Luke 24:39) but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, (1 Corinthians 15:53)
   Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, bk V, chpt 2, p 2 & 3).

 

[Trebor135]

Interesting ,for it goes against an earlier thread that said it is for heaven ,like of course we still hunger and thirst and will have to die once here on earth.When you say literal do you mean "spiritual 'which some consider then it is symbolic(of the spiritual reality) ? Another words you still literally get hungry ,thirsty , and will die ,even though you eat this “Bread” ? But spiritually you will not hunger ,thirst ,or die ,and therefore I say ,and do you , the Bread is also spiritual.

I say the “bread” is “spiritual” in the sense that it has a significance pertaining to the supernatural realm. To say that anything “spiritual” is “symbolic” or “figurative” would be to deny the reality of God’s activity in the world–it would be all up to our own imaginations.

And this “bread” can be “for now” and “for heaven” at the same time. Catholics view justification as a process, not a one-time event. So the “bread” is of divine assistance “from now (earth) on into the future (heaven)”.

 

[Trebor135]

.Did you have the whole sermon in front of you when you said Augustine was speaking in away that fit your interpretation and not mine ?

I was simply proposing a plausible interpretation consistent with who St. Augustine was: a bishop in a fully sacramental (visible) church. Not a Zwinglian.

This is funny, thanks for the much needed humor. It is still a teachable moment though .

I’m glad my unintentionally amusing statement brightened your day.

I am sure some would say we have a link , in the Church /magisteruim .Others would say we have a link to Augustine and what he meant thru the Spirit .The same Spirit that taught him , he would say is eternal .and unchangeable, and can teach us.(Confessions)

Well, we could ask the Holy Spirit to tell us what St. Augustine meant, but how could the Holy Spirit have told the good bishop to be fully sacramental but David not to be?

I thought it was simple enough for a child - “Adam was made a quickening spirit”. That we are spiritual beings , as well as fleshly creatures (from first passage - “deliver his flesh to Satan so that his spirit may be saved”) .That is what both scriptures seem to explicitly imply .

I misspoke: what I meant was that the verse didn’t seem to shed light on our discussion.

So if Augustine says we participate spiritually , it is as opposed to fleshly .He says forget your" teeth and bellies". Quite simple.

But that doesn’t exclude a “real bodily presence” in his worldview–it just means he saw communion as having multiple layers of meaning: a “both/and” mentality rather than an “either/or” one.

Correct ,I think.Spiritual is spiritual . Jesus does use symbolism ,and figure of speech , and quite literally anything (a seed, a stone ), to convey spiritual realities.

But he never emphasizes the vital nature of seeds and stones to salvation like he does the necessity of eating his body and drinking his blood in the form of bread and wine.

And aren’t you here conceding the whole argument–that Christ’s use of “spirit” didn’t, and couldn’t, mean “symbol”?

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

This is a good example to show (what I see to be) the problem. The HOW question in this case is: How can one thing (the blood of Christ) be another thing (the blood of all martyrs)? Augustine’s answer was: In a figurative way. You are right that the figurative answer does not prevent Augustine from believing that Christ’s blood is still Christ’s blood (a thing is still the thing itself even though it can be viewed figuraively). If we relate this back to question #1, we get that Augustine’s figurative answer to, “How can the bread be his body?” does not prevent Augustine from believing that the bread is still bread (a thing is still the thing itself even though it can be viewed figuraively). As you can see, that helps me, but it doesn’t help you.

This here seems to summarize your counter argument rather nicely. I will deal with this part here and will show the inconsistency of your counter argument.

We both agree that Augustine has a two-fold way of looking at the Eucharist. You believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Augustine believed in a figurative understanding of the Eucharist and also a literal. In other words, Augustine believed that the Eucharist:

1.) Is figuratively the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body: The members of the Church).
2.) Is in a literal way just bread and wine.

Those are your two-fold interpretations of Augustine’s view of the Eucharist on Sermons 227 and 272 (again, correct me if I’m wrong).

Now, we cannot pick and choose what we want Augustine to believe the Eucharist to be but we have to read it the way Augustine is presenting it. My beliefs of what Augustine believed in regards to the Eucharist in Sermons 227 and 272 are as follows:

1.) It is the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body: The members of the Church) in a figurative way (we both agree on this).
2.) Is in a literal way the Body and Blood of Christ (this is where our understanding disagrees with one another).

I will now show why the latter is true and the former is false. The five examples that I provided from Augustine is key in understanding why I believe this. When Augustine equates the Body of Christ (the one on earth) with the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body), you have to understand that he is not talking about just any body or any flesh. He is talking about the Body of Christ. His points emphasize unity when the Body of Christ (the physical one) is discussed and is related and connected to the Body of Christ (the Church). With that said, thinking a piece of bread or a chalice of wine does not equal unity UNLESS that bread and wine are Christ. The point that I have been making is, when Augustine talks about the BODY OF CHRIST (Physical one), he relates it back to the BODY OF CHRIST (the Church). He doesn’t equate a piece of bread to the ecclesiastical Body of Christ, he equates the physical BODY of CHRIST to the ecclesiastical Body of Christ. So with that said, Augustine believes the Resurrected Body of Christ to be:

1.) A physical Body that has been resurrected in a literal way.
2.) The Body of Christ (the Church) in a figurative way.

He also believes the following with the Body of Christ on the cross:

1.) A physical Body of Christ on the cross in a literal way.
2.) The Body of Christ (the Church) being hung on the cross with Christ in a figurative.

He believes the following in regards to Christ sweating blood during prayer:

1.) A physical sweating of blood with regards to the Body of Christ in a literal way.
2.) The blood of Christ represents the martyrs of the Church while the Body of Christ represents the Church and the whole act is figuratively understood as the blood of the martyrs in the Church.

With all that said, we see a pattern that when the PHYSICAL BODY OF CHRIST is mentioned, it is related back to the Church (ecclesiastical Body of Christ). With that logic, we can be confident and say that:

1.) The bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ in a literal way.
2.) The Body of Christ and Blood of Christ are the members of the Church in a figurative way (ecclesiastical Body of Christ).

It seems to me that my understanding is more consistent with Augustine’s views on the Body of Christ. It is related back to the Church. Not bread and wine, but the Body of Christ.

Now, for you to say that Augustine believed the following with regards to the Eucharist:

1.) It is figuratively the Body of Christ (the ecclesiastical Body: The members of the Church).
2.) It is in a literal way just bread and wine.

What you are saying is that the Eucharist to Augustine is not even the Body and Blood of Christ in a symbolic way nor in a spiritual way. There is nothing about those two things that even suggests that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ (in any way at all). I don’t think there is a scholar out there that would agree with this.

My whole point in showing the way Augustine relates the physical Body of Christ in a literal way with the Church is to give evidence that:

Just because there is a figurative interpretation of what is literal, does not mean that the literal ceases to be true. In other words, just because Augustine relates the physical resurrected Body of Christ, the Body of Christ on the Cross, and the Body of Christ sweating blood to the ecclesiastical Body of Christ, does not mean that Augustine is saying that the former is no longer the Body of Christ.

 

[lyrikal]

When Augustine writes about the Body of Christ, it is related to the Church. The whole emphasis is on unity, not on downplaying the Eucharist. You are proving too much when you claim that Augustine believed the Eucharist is nothing but bread and wine and also the people of the Church in a figurative way. If that is the case, then he would not have regarded it essential for salvation. He believed Baptism to be essential to salvation because he believed that through it, your sins are washed AND at the same time you receive the Holy Spirit. With your understanding of Augustine’s Eucharist with regards to sermons 227 and 272, in what way can that be necessary for salvation? What does Augustine believe we receive when we eat the Eucharist? In baptism, he believes we receive the Holy Spirit, we are crafted in as the Body of Christ, and our sins are washed…To Augustine, what happens when we receive the Eucharist? How does that give us salvation?

Grace and peace.

 

[Trebor135]

I thought it was fantastic .

I must beg to differ.

Countless times he says he is what he is by the grace of God .

Catholics and Orthodox agree completely! “Without me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

Counltees times he quotes scriptures to show a basis for standing.

I can do that quite easily too.

This is pride and arrogance ?

Well, acting like every Christian that had ever lived before Luther–that’s 1500 years of history to account for–got it totally wrong isn’t really very humble.

I thought it was rather tame compared to other stuff I have read on him .

Perhaps I shouldn’t read that material. I’d want to buy all the copies available at Amazon of Luther’s works cited within, and thus go broke, just so I can recycle them. The faster we all forget about his destructive notions, the better off we’ll all be. Just bring back his endearing view of Mary–which I admire and aspire to–for the benefit of modern-day Protestants.

Why don’t you show some of the stuff that was written by about him , by supposedly humble holy men of Rome ?

I don’t deny that the “men of Rome” weren’t ever prideful. They just had truth on their side in this instance; that can go to your head. Whether that happened to them I can’t comment until I see their writings.

What would you say of Paul when he confronted St Peter, “withstood him face to face” about his cowardice and two facedness with the gentiles ? Was he being brash and arrogant to the Vicar of Christ ??

St. Paul was an apostle, so had the standing to act as he did. And truth was on his side anyway. Just as it is when saints lambaste popes–Catherine of Siena is always mentioned along these lines. Unlike Luther though, St. Paul wasn’t proclaiming novel ideas centuries after Christ and dismissing all previous Christian teaching.

I don’t have a problem with confronting religious (or political) figures who are acting stupid or sinful. I have a soft spot for that Iraqi journalist who threw shoes at George Bush, and wouldn’t mind following his example where a lot of people are concerned.

But really ,can you even possibly put yourself in Luther’s shoes .As you said earlier , you need the whole story , all the writings and proceedings that led to this given discourse .Apparently this is the third time he made his case .Why don’t you quote the first two ? I am sure they were much more humble and respectful …But as another said on a different thread , there is a time to shake the dust off your feet…Many historians say they (Rome) mishandled Luther and should have placated him from the get go ,over minor issues ,that the church later corrected anyway.He could have been a saint.Luther was right ,you almost made a martyr out of him ,made him bigger than he had to be…Did you get the part where
the Holy Catholics cursed ,him ? Where they slandered him-made up lies ? where they condemned him and wanted to burn him ? Is this one of those doctrines that “developed”, where you did this to a fallen brother , even an “heretick” ? Is this apostolic , even early church father ??? And this began over what , a guy named Tetzel, pretty much selling salvation to Luther’s Catholic flock ?? You and I would both deplore such abuses.Are we being arrogant and proud .Yes ,maybe of our heritage ,and beloved Church ,and of the Truth placed in your heart.

If Luther were just protesting the moral degradation of his day–the Tätzel scandal being a case in point–and met with the response he did, I wouldn’t be nearly as irked by his approach as I am. But he was indeed propounding heresy, and that just isn’t acceptable. Even worse, he was expecting everyone to adopt his novel doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide without a second thought about the historical facts.

I don’t approve of burning heretics–that’s a cruel way to end someone’s life. But back then the value of truth was still self-evident to vast swathes of society, unlike in the relativist and postmodernist West today. If I were alive during Luther’s day, I would’ve desired the civil authorities to take action and bring him to trial–without death by fire as a possible outcome.

 

[lyrikal]

Two things: a) Augustine’s use of realistic words for a figurative matter nicely supports my argument that realistic words do not establish a literal understanding; and b) a mystical reality is very consistent with a neoplatonistic view.

Yes, but we know that there was no one in the early church and no one today who believed/s that the Church is the Body of Christ in a LITERAL way; however, there were people back then and people today who believed/s that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in a LITERAL way. So you’re really comparing apples to oranges here. Some things do sound literal when they are in fact figurative (granted). But it’s not like there was no belief in the RBP in the days of Augustine. One can be understood to be taken literally and it would not be illogical and inconsistent with early church beliefs while the other would be absurd and false if it were taken literal by anyone. I don’t see how that supports your argument nicely.