The Real Presence

[Nicea325]

No. I provided, in point form, what Augustine said in section 13…something you haven’t even attempted
where would you get the idea that Augustine or Augustine as protrayed by me would think that a useful sign could not or would not really do anything?
this is merely your opinion…and what you have entirely failed to do is to then explain what Augustine meant (in your opinion) by mentioning the OT patriarchs and prophets. The issue is what was meant by Augustine and not what (you think) would result from Augustine’s meaning.
You just don’t get it…Augustine (as I clearly stated), in section 13 is talking about Christians and how they should view their signs…so a pagan, Nazi and atheist are irrelevant…and then again, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion in thinking that Augustine or Augustine as protrayed by me would think that a useful sign could not or would not really do anything (besides serve as a sign).

Radical,

I am going to make this easy for you and all us. Do you really believe you are going to change our convictions about the RP? Honestly? This is not the first time this topic has appeared and no Catholic here has stopped in believing in the RP in favor of your position on the RP,so why even bother? No Catholic here accepts your interpretation of Augustine,so why bother? This is said in all honesty and respect.

Peace

 

[Radical]

Radical,

I am going to make this easy for you and all us. Do you really believe you are going to change our convictions about the RP?

no…the possibility never entered my head

Honestly?

I had assumed that everyone here spoke honestly w/o need of specific request

This is not the first time this topic has appeared and no Catholic here has stopped in believing in the RP in favor of your position on the RP,so why even bother?

B/c the Oposter wanted to know why I would believe as I do…and, as always, the conservative Catholics, could not leave me to explain my position, but had to chime in with their opinions as to why my belief(s) could not possibly be valid. From there, for the benefit of the Oposter (and any one else who is legitimately interested in why I believe as I do), I have explained why I don’t think the opinions of the conservative Catholics have any merit. The Oposter, asked nicely and that is why I bother.

No Catholic here accepts your interpretation of Augustine,so why bother? This is said in all honesty and respect.

fair enough…but the Augustine thing is part of my reasons for believing as I do…and I hope (perhaps futilely) that the Catholic, who is trying to understand why I believe as I do, might come to realize that my view is actually supported by some very respected theologians and historians (I don’t expect a change of view, but if I can garner a little more respect for the non-conservative Catholic POV, then great)

 

[Defender1]

no…the possibility never entered my head

I had assumed that everyone here spoke honestly w/o need of specific request

B/c the Oposter wanted to know why I would believe as I do…and, as always, the conservative Catholics, could not leave me to explain my position, but had to chime in with their opinions as to why my belief(s) could not possibly be valid. From there, for the benefit of the Oposter (and any one else who is legitimately interested in why I believe as I do), I have explained why I don’t think the opinions of the conservative Catholics have any merit. The Oposter, asked nicely and that is why I bother.

fair enough…but the Augustine thing is part of my reasons for believing as I do…and I hope (perhaps futilely) that the Catholic, who is trying to understand why I believe as I do, might come to realize that my view is actually supported by some very respected theologians and historians (I don’t expect a change of view, but if I can garner a little more respect for the non-conservative Catholic POV, then great)

I gave you a pretty good case you never responded back in the end . You do know that the Greek word changing from Phagon(to eat) to Trogon(munch and naw) was to put greater emphasis on actual eating . You replied with “been there done that” Well let me see your response then .

 

[PJM]

=Radical;8111838]well, it has been asked with a good bit of frequency (and often with the tone of, how could you be such a spiritual idiot so as to not believe in the real bodily presence)…but for a fellow Canuck I’ll be happy to respond. My reasons are:

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

My dear friend in Christ;

There is abundant evidence in the bible itself [which is historically proveable to have been completed by the end of the First Century: no more than 65 years after the Death of Christ.

Followers of “The Way” [the name of Christians which in 110 AD became “Catholics” did not use the terms of “MAss, Eucharist or Holy Communion,” ALL of which would come later. The FIRST TERM applied to this Practice was “Breaking of the Bread”.

**Acts.2: 42 "And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the ***breaking of bread ***and the prayers. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together ***and breaking bread in their homes, ***they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

There also exist HARD physical evidence of the practice and belief: 1st. Cor. 11: 23-29 "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

NOW it ought to be evident to ALL that just eating ordinary bread, drinking ordinary wime CANNOT bring damnation onto a person. NO! Paul here is speaking specifically of the Holy Eucharist, AS ARE MT. 26:26-28, MK. 14:22-24, LK. 22:19-21 AND JOHN CHAPTER SIX.

From the early Church Fathers:St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. .

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN 374 to 397 AD
“You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.” The Sacraments" Book 4, Ch.4:14. **

**1345 **As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent."

So friend it was Know, was TAUGHT by the Apostles themselves, and WAS PRACTICED even when the Apostles were alive.

We trust friend that these are schollarly enough for you?

If you’d like to hear it I can explain Jihn chapter six to you so that you understand Gods point of view to compare to your own.

God Bless you,
Pat**

 

[lyrikal]

Regarding the Eucharist being some form of a sign…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The **signs **of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to **signify **the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

The Council of Trent (on the Eucharist) states:

COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session 13, On the Eucharist, Chapters I, II, III
“…regarding the doctrine, use and worship of the Sacred Eucharist, which our Savior left in His Church as a SYMBOL of that UNITY and CHARITY with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united…”

“…He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls [Matt 26:26f], whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: ‘He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me’ [John 6:58], and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins. He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a SYMBOL of that one body of which He is the Head [1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23] and to which He wished us to be UNITED as members by the closest bond of FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY, that we might ‘all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us’ [1 Cor 1:10].”

"The most Holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the other sacraments, that **IT IS A SYMBOL OF A SACRED THING **[REALITY] and a visible form of an invisible grace...."

Just because something is a sign, does not mean it ends there; it also does not mean it has no spiritual benefits. It also does not mean that it does not point to something real (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ).

Now, what does Augustine say about the Eucharist? Does he believe it is only a sign, a mere symbol and nothing more?

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 2…

Let’s take a look at some quotes from St. Augustine:

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

Notice the very last quote when St. Augustine says “AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.”

Do you really think that St. Augustine is encouraging Christians at the time to adore a mere sign? Don’t you think that Augustine believed that we are to adore God and God alone? Therefore, he DID believe it to be Christ Himself and not just a sign. Granted, he did believe it to be a sign (but not the same way you do), just as the Catholic Church believes it to be a sign, but it goes deeper than that. It is not JUST a sign.

God bless you

 

[hn160]

And a validly ordained priest may be one ordained by a validly consecrated bishop, be he heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated. See (as I occasionally say) Ott, p. 458.

GKC

This is the same for the Lutheran Church:

16 “Secondly, they hold that it is the institution of this sacrament, performed by Christ, that makes it valid in Christendom, and that it does not depend on the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister who distributes the sacrament or of him who receives it, since, as St. Paul says, the unworthy receive the sacrament too. Therefore they hold that, where Christ’s institution and command are observed, the body and blood of Christ are truly distributed to the unworthy, too, and that they truly receive it. But they receive it for judgment, as St. Paul says, for they misuse the holy sacrament since they receive it without true repentance and without faith. For it was instituted to testify that those who truly repent and comfort themselves through faith in Christ there receive the grace and merits of Christ, are incorporated into Christ, and are washed by the blood of Christ.”
Tappert, Theodore G.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 572

 

[lyrikal]

You have it exactly backwards. Augustine wasn’t worried that someone would worship the Eucharist as bread. That would be worshipping the sign…taking the signified thing for the sign (Christ for bread). Augustine’s concern was regarding taking “signs for the things that are signified by them”. Since bread is the sign, it would be taking bread for what it signifies (Christ’s body).

Augustine states:

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

Nice try.

 

[patricius79]

Augustine states:

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

what a beautiful statement of the Sacramental Principle!

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
philvaz.com/apologetics/num30.htm

 

[Curious_Seed]

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

In describing the Kingdom of God, did Jesus ever use parables?

Yes *, of course, He did.

So, not eveything Jesus said was meant to be taken literally.

Was the Last Supper an exception?

So, when Jesus said " this is my flesh " in reference to the table bread that day - did He mean only that literal piece of bread, on that table, at that point in history?

Probably, not *.

S*o, at the least of it, there is a margin of ambiguity, with respect to Real Presence, would you not allow?

*

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
This is not the first time this topic has appeared and no Catholic here has stopped in believing in the RP in favor of your position on the RP,so why even bother?

B/c the Oposter wanted to know why I would believe as I do…and, as always, the conservative Catholics, could not leave me to explain my position, but had to chime in with their opinions as to why my belief(s) could not possibly be valid. From there, for the benefit of the Oposter (and any one else who is legitimately interested in why I believe as I do), I have explained why I don’t think the opinions of the conservative Catholics have any merit. The Oposter, asked nicely and that is why I bother.

Merit? You mean the ECF’s writings on the Eucharist hold no merit? According to who? Opponents of the RP? Well the views and beliefs of conservative Catholics are not considered opinions,if especially ample evidence by many ECF’s has been presented. Modern opinions about the RP have no detrimental impact on doctrine or dogma. It is no different than today where many so-called Christians deny the reality of Hell. Does not matter-it exist despite denials.

Quote:
No Catholic here accepts your interpretation of Augustine,so why bother? This is said in all honesty and respect.

fair enough…but the Augustine thing is part of my reasons for believing as I do…and I hope (perhaps futilely) that the Catholic, who is trying to understand why I believe as I do, might come to realize that my view is actually supported by some very respected theologians and historians (I don’t expect a change of view, but if I can garner a little more respect for the non-conservative Catholic POV, then great)

Okay,but what % of theologians and historians from the first 1,500 years has your back? 5%? 10% You have sources? Are your respected historians and theologians more than 1500 years old? I can bet all of my retirement $$$ you are small % who actually hold to your position. Your view is relatively “new” because as I once said,if the RP were heretical,pagan,unoorthodox, false or merely symbolic,then history would be on your side. But guess what? It is not!

Anyone can misinterpret any ECF to make it appear to support their views or agendas. I have had discussions with Protestants claiming many of the ECF’s supported,believed and taught Sola Scriptura. Really? Wow! Funny how not one advocate of such a view has shown me ONE single canon from the past 21 ecumenical councils defending or ratifying Sola Scriptura since 325 A.D.? I find that very odd?

Peace

 

[Radical]

Let’s take a look at some quotes from St. Augustine:

why not…and I’ll tell you why your snippets don’t impress me much

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

have you read the rest of Sermon 227? Here is some more of it for you:

…Therefore, the Holy Spirit draws near, the fire after the water, and you become bread, what is the Body of Christ. That’s the way in which unity is symbolized…What is “receiving unworthily”? To receive in contempt, to receive in mockery. Do not let [the sacrament] seem of little value to you just because you can see it. What you see passes away, but the invisible reality it is a sign of, does not pass away, but endures. Look: it is received, it is eaten, it is consumed. ** Is the body of Christ really consumed? **Is the Church of Christ really consumed? Are the members of Christ really consumed? **Hardly. ** Here they are cleansed; there they will be crowned. The “what” that it is a sign of will endure even though the sign seems to pass away…

…reading the whole sermon kinda calls into question the impression that is given from your little snippet. For Augustine the body of Christ was the Church…that is primarily how he used the “body of Christ” when speaking about the Eucharist. The Body of Christ (aka the Church) is on the altar, neither is really consumed and neither is bodily present

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

look at his other sermons (see discussion of sermon 272 below) and you should realize that by “becomes the body of Christ” Augustine meant becomes the Church by way of similtude.

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

In the first paragraph of the Sermon, Augustine said:

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

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

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

Please note that Augustine’s answer to “HOW” has nothing to do with a real bodily presence. Please note that what is entirely absent from Augustine’s explanation of the “how” is anything about a conversion of the elements. Instead, the “how” for Augustine has to do with the similarity between bread (which is produced by many grains coming together) and the church (which is produced by many people coming together)

 

[Radical]

Let’s take a look at some quotes from St. Augustine:

FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

This is from his first sermon on Psalm 33 (34) where Augustine said:

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

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

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I am providing, it is the metaphorical that makes sense (see also Augustine’s use of “certain way” in Letter 98 below).

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

In his letter to Bonafice (Lettter 98) letter Augustine said:

*Frequently we speak in such a way as to say, [for example] when Easter draws near, “Tomorrow or the next day will be the Passion of the Lord”, and we say this although he suffered many years ago and although the Passion occurred once and for all. Likewise on a Sunday we say, “The Lord rose today” – even though very many years have passed since he rose. Now no one is so inept as to call us liars when we speak this way, because we are referring to these days according to the similitude they bear to those in which such events happened…Was not Christ immolated in himself once and for all? Nevertheless is he not immolated for the people in the Sacrament not only at the Paschal solemnities but every day, so that anyone who replies to a questioner that he is immolated does not lie? For if the sacraments did not bear a certain similarity [Lat. quondam similitudinem] to those things for which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith. *

In his letter to Bonafice, Augustine again uses “certain way” when he states: “Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord” Allow me to set the context in point form.

a) Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord rose on every Easter Sunday (year after year) b/c of the similitude those subsequent Easter Sundays bear to the first…Christ doesn’t actually rise from the dead year after year.

b) Again b/c of the similtudes, Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord is immolated every day, even though he was immolated once and for all (and isn’t actually immolated week after week).

c) Again b/c of the similtudes, the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord

the certain way described by Augustine is by the way of similtude, or symbolically if you prefer.
.

 

[Radical]

Let’s take a look at some quotes from St. Augustine:

.

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

Here is a bit more of that passage:

And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place.

Note a few things. First, the Eucharist is a sign of Christ’s sacrifice…and nothing “deeper” along the lines of a real bodily presence is stated. Second, the Church is his body and it is that body that offers herself.

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

Please note that Augustine doesn’t mention the Eucharist in the passage. Someone predisposed to it might assume that Augustine must be talking of the Eucharist b/c he mentions eating Christ’s flesh, but that is merely projecting one’s own understanding onto Augustine. Augustine gave us his understanding of what eating the flesh of Jesus meant (in On Christian Doctrine bk 3) :

*…If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. *

Here, in considering the “gnawing” passage Augustine doesn’t say the eating is done through the Eucharist. Instead, Augustine makes it clear that eating the flesh of the Son of Man is achieved by sharing in the sufferings of our Lord, and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Insert Augustine’s actual understanding of flesh eating into the Psalms 98/99 passage and we have:

And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave (in a figure of speech) that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one shares in the sufferings of our Lord, and retains a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us, 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.

Understand eating Christ’s flesh as Augustine would have understood that requirement and that passage doesn’t suggest a real bodily presence.

God bless you

and you

 

[Radical]

Augustine states:

“…I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

Nice try.

your quote doesn’t actually address my point…you have made no connection between the two.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

Thank you for your response. Before I began responding to your thread, I decided to search for other topics that had the same discussions on Augustine and the Eucharist. I came across this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=267774&highlight=Did+Augustine+believe+in+the+Real+Presence) and have read it in its entirety. I would not give you a different reply than what Pneuma07 gave you on all the issues at hand. Instead of going in circles with the same issue that has been previously discussed in depth, I wanted to present a quote from St. Augustine that I did not see discussed in that previous thread…

“…We come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word and it’s not something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.” (sermon 229.3)

I got the quote from here: christian-coder.com/theology/flashpaper/Augustine%20and%20the%20Sacrament.swf

My question to you is, what does the bread and wine become? What does St. Augustine mean by “the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ”? Doesn’t that support Transubstantiation? Since he believes them to be bread and wine and with the “holy prayers” they become the Body and Blood of Christ, isn’t that the same as Transubstantiation?

Also, I was wondering if you had the full text so we can examine it in its context. I have the 3 volumes of Jurgens’ “The Faith of the Early Fathers” series and I do not see that sermon on there at all.

Although I disagree with a lot of your points when interpreting St. Augustine, I do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and knowledge. It’s nice to see a Protestant having knowledge of the Fathers.

Thanks!

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Jim_Roberts:
Grasscutter,

As I wrote you previously, I was of get contrited with a different answer.

It make it simple. yes,. I was studying for the Catholic priesthood and I do believe in the Real Presence as I make daily visits to the Blessed Sacrament.

Be at peace BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE

God bless you

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Conor7
I’m not sure if I believe transubstantiation, in fact, I’m not sure I even think about it much. Am moved to the point of a sobbing blubbering mess each time I take communion? Yes. Is that God working? Certainly. I don’t need the doctrine, I need the experience. And that is good enough for me.

***Conner, my friend is Christ,

The reality of Christ Real Presence is FAR, FAR more important and MORE SIGNIFIANT that what any individual “feels.” Grace flows FROM BELIEF NOT FEELINGS

I’m continually amazed that anyone who is honest can objectively [by passings ones own subjective opinions] cannot accept what FIVE differnt opinions state in the clearest and most precise language available to us, and still deny the rality. I DO UNDERSTAND WHY AND HOW THIS HAPPENS I just can’t help but be amazed by it. ***

For the elements changed places with one another, as on a harp the notes vary the nature of the rhythm, while each note remains the same. This may be clearly inferred from the sight of what took place. For land animals were transformed into water creatures, and creatures that swim moved over to the land. Fire even in water retained its normal power, and water forgot its fire-quenching nature. Flames, on the contrary, failed to consume the flesh of perishable creatures that walked among them, nor did they melt the crystalline, easily melted kind of heavenly food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)

www.AgapeBibleStudy.com

In the literal Hebrew translation the eating of the meat of the sacrificed animal(s) in the ritual meal is referred to as eating the “bread” (lechem) twice in verse 54. In the Bible “bread” often signifies food in general, as in “to eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Lk 14:15) which refers to the Messianic banquet: Blessed is anyone who will share the meal (eat bread)* in the kingdom of God! * = literal translation. In the Bread of Life Discourse Jesus referred to Himself as the true living bread come down from heaven (**Jn 6:32ff), **and St. Paul spoke of Christians receiving the Eucharist as one bread and one body in Christ (1 Cor 10:17).

Matthew 26: 26-28

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

MARK 14: 22-24

And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22: 19-21

And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

AND JESUS OUR PERFECT GOD: QUOTE! John from Chapter 6: 47-57

Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.

***What language could God or Man use to be more precise; more specific:***shrug:

 

[KathleenGee]

If people don’t believe in the EC Fathers teachings from beginning times that coincided with the religious beliefs of the people, and these practices carried down for 2000 years, I do not understand what merit is there in new ideas and lack of practice…

It looks more like a crisis of faith in how God reveals Himself through mankind…why them and not me?..

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

Thank you for your response. Before I began responding to your thread, I decided to search for other topics that had the same discussions on Augustine and the Eucharist. I came across this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=267774&highlight=Did+Augustine+believe+in+the+Real+Presence) and have read it in its entirety. I would not give you a different reply than what Pneuma07 gave you on all the issues at hand. Instead of going in circles with the same issue that has been previously discussed in depth, I wanted to present a quote from St. Augustine that I did not see discussed in that previous thread…

“…We come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word and it’s now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.” (sermon 229.3)

I got the quote from here: christian-coder.com/theology/flashpaper/Augustine%20and%20the%20Sacrament.swf

My question to you is, what does the bread and wine become? What does St. Augustine mean by “the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ”? Doesn’t that support Transubstantiation? Since he believes them to be bread and wine and with the “holy prayers” they become the Body and Blood of Christ, isn’t that the same as Transubstantiation?

Also, I was wondering if you had the full text so we can examine it in its context. I have the 3 volumes of Jurgens’ “The Faith of the Early Fathers” series and I do not see that sermon on there at all.

Although I disagree with a lot of your points when interpreting St. Augustine, I do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and knowledge. It’s nice to see a Protestant having knowledge of the Fathers.

Thanks!

Had to correct the quote. It previously said “add the word it’s NOT something else.” It should read “add the word and it’s NOW something else.”

Thank you!