The Real Presence

[david_ruiz]

“offer this in memory of me”

“Do this in memory of me” . Early Christians coined it Eucharist, which means thanksgiving , because the sacrifice had already been offered at Calvary in 33 A.D.,and they offered their thanks - hence Eucharist.

 

[Presence]

speaking of Augustine, here is a link to many of Augustine’s statements on the Real Presence and Sacrifice

“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)
philvaz.com/apologetics/num30.htm

Just crossed this link earlier today, covers the topic well enough…much of what Radical, Nicea and Lyrikal were discussing.

 

[regression]

“Do this in memory of me” . Early Christians coined it Eucharist, which means thanksgiving , because the sacrifice had already been offered at Calvary in 33 A.D.,and they offered their thanks - hence Eucharist.

How do you know early Christians didn’t think of it as a sacrifice also? For example, in chapter 14 of the Didache:

1 But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2 But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

How about St. Justin Martry who speaks of Malachi’s prophecy of an offering from when the sun rises to when the sun sets? In every place incense is offered. St. Justin Martyr connects that with the sacrifice of the Mass.

So in the above examples, it is more than just being thankful.

 

[david_ruiz]

]1 But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

Well he says thanksgiving and sacrifice .Our sacrifice is one of thanksgiving , as opposed to old sacrifices that were a sin offering. People say it is a sacrifice of praise .Didache says give thanks for cup and give thanks for bread. It says the tabernacle is in our hearts (no monstarnce ) Another father-letter to Ephesians#13-twice talks of coming together to give" thanks"(not to offer sacrifice).

But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

Same reasoning.

In every place incense is offered.

Barnabus #2 talks against sacrifices and incense.The Lord ablolished these things, he says (old testament -Jewish) "The bread which our Christ gave us to eat , in remembrance of his being made flesh, for the sake of his believers, for whom he also suffered, and the cup which he gave us to drink , in remembranceof his own blood ,with giving thanks.-“the giving of thanks is the only well pleasing sacrifice to God”. Not sure if that is Martyr.One of the Fathers up to 130 A.D…Sorry .I’d have to look up forum on early fathers where i had all the quotes.Have notes but foolishly did not put author headings .

 

[regression]

Well he says thanksgiving and sacrifice .Our sacrifice is one of thanksgiving , as opposed to old sacrifices that were a sin offering. People say it is a sacrifice of praise .Didache says give thanks for cup and give thanks for bread. It says the tabernacle is in our hearts (no monstarnce ) Another father-letter to Ephesians#13-twice talks of coming together to give" thanks"(not to offer sacrifice). Same reasoning.
Barnabus #2 talks against sacrifices and incense.The Lord ablolished these things, he says (old testament -Jewish) "The bread which our Christ gave us to eat , in remembrance of his being made flesh, for the sake of his believers, for whom he also suffered, and the cup which he gave us to drink , in remembranceof his own blood ,with giving thanks.-“the giving of thanks is the only well pleasing sacrifice to God”. Not sure if that is Martyr.One of the Fathers up to 130 A.D…Sorry .I’d have to look up forum on early fathers where i had all the quotes.Have notes but foolishly did not put author headings .

Just to be clear, I am not saying it is not thanksgiving but instead is a sacrifice. The more I learn about the Catholic Church, the more I see the “both / and” instead of the “either / or” of matters.

The Mass is both thanksgiving and a sacrifice. So I don’t see what you wrote from the Didache denies the Mass is a sacrifice as opposed to thanksgiving. Is supports it being both.

I am not very familiar with Barnabus, but it sounds like the sacrifices in the temple are not necessary because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (which is the same sacrifice celebrated at Mass).

What about St. John Chrisysostom in Homilies on Hebrews? He specifically says the sacrifice of the Mass is not many but the same sacrifice on the cross. What happened on the cross was not thanksgiving, it was a sacrifice.

 

[david_ruiz]

Just to be clear, I am not saying it is not thanksgiving but instead is a sacrifice. The more I learn about the Catholic Church, the more I see the “both / and” instead of the “either / or” of matters.

The Mass is both thanksgiving and a sacrifice. So I don’t see what you wrote from the Didache denies the Mass is a sacrifice as opposed to thanksgiving. Is supports it being both.

I am not very familiar with Barnabus, but it sounds like the sacrifices in the temple are not necessary because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (which is the same sacrifice celebrated at Mass).

What about St. John Chrisysostom in Homilies on Hebrews? He specifically says the sacrifice of the Mass is not many but the same sacrifice on the cross. What happened on the cross was not thanksgiving, it was a sacrifice.

Thank-you .I think a subtle difference is big .I find it in scripture and the early fathers ,before 130 Ad. It is so engrained in me that a sacrifice ,in the old testament was ok .it is something they offered to God for sin or righteousness sake ,thru a priest .It is a way to approach a Holy God , being sinners. In essence Jesus, the perfect man and God, did the same, for us , so we don’t have that attitude of sacrifice anymore. It is s subtle change but big. I don’t have to offer God anything anymore to approach Him .I am one in Him and He in me. I can enter the holy of holies ,like the high priest .For that I give thanks. It is very explicit in the fathers, this thanksgiving (for awhile it was called a love feast -a party). BUT , I remember how and why I can do that , because of His sacrifice. I can not offer to God Jesus , because He offered (gave) Jesus to me. Furthermore , the new testament has new words for old testament “priests”,(presbyters /bishops) .Why ? I believe because of a subtle new function ,of ministering to the saints ,helping them to remember, but certainly no more intercessors as in the o.t, .for we are all priests ,and can intercede for each other ,confess one to another ,teach one another (Every man shall teach his neighbor-ot prophecy).The best I can do with our two powerful words is that we give thanks for the Calvary sacrifice, and that is aided by remembering it thru and or imitating the Last Supper. So yes thanksgiving and sacrifice are there.

 

[regression]

I don’t have to offer God anything anymore to approach Him

Just to make sure we are on the same page, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not something additional that is offered. So we (being the Church / priest / people at Mass) are not giving anything more to approach Him. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the one time sacrifice of Christ. It is made present to us even though we are in a different place and time. Can we agree to that?

 

[david_ruiz]

Just to make sure we are on the same page, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not something additional that is offered. So we (being the Church / priest / people at Mass) are not giving anything more to approach Him. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the one time sacrifice of Christ. It is made present to us even though we are in a different place and time. Can we agree to that?

I know ,I think .It is a re-presenting, as said on this forum thread.Again ,I still see it as me offering up Calvary to the father, and that is subtly close to being ok ,but the attitude is still different from my newer experience. But yes ,you are not re-sacrificing ,re-crucifying Him etc , as discussed or stated on earlier thread.Yes ,remembering as in re-enacting the Last Supper. But alas we are full circle. Was the Lord the first to transubstantiate at 33 a.d. ? Or was it figurative of what was about to happen , His real shedding and death.?

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

Peace be with you, brother. Just want to acknowledge that I have enjoyed this discussion with you and have enjoyed researching such a intelligent saint in Saint Augustine.

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.

Understandable and my apologies.

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.

I agree with you here. You are absolutely, right. Augustine’s Tractate on John 6 shows that he attributed the chapter to more than just the Eucharist; however, the primary interpretation of John 6 from Augustine is the Eucharist. He spends a lot more time talking about the Eucharist in John 6 (specifically when John 6 talks about “eating flesh and drinking blood”) than any other topic.

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.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OCD III and where can I find this from Augustine? I would like to examine it.

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.

I deal with this in detail in my reply here. My reply will be posted tonight. Putting the finishing touches to it.

 

[lyrikal]

Nevermind, I know what OCD III is now. Thank you

 

[fred_conty]

Thank-you .I think a subtle difference is big .I find it in scripture and the early fathers ,before 130 Ad. It is so engrained in me that a sacrifice ,in the old testament was ok .it is something they offered to God for sin or righteousness sake ,thru a priest .It is a way to approach a Holy God , being sinners. In essence Jesus, the perfect man and God, did the same, for us , so we don’t have that attitude of sacrifice anymore. It is s subtle change but big. I don’t have to offer God anything anymore to approach Him .I am one in Him and He in me. I can enter the holy of holies ,like the high priest .For that I give thanks. It is very explicit in the fathers, this thanksgiving (for awhile it was called a love feast -a party). BUT , I remember how and why I can do that , because of His sacrifice. I can not offer to God Jesus , because He offered (gave) Jesus to me. Furthermore , the new testament has new words for old testament “priests”,(presbyters /bishops) .Why ? I believe because of a subtle new function ,of ministering to the saints ,helping them to remember, but certainly no more intercessors as in the o.t, .for we are all priests ,and can intercede for each other ,confess one to another ,teach one another (Every man shall teach his neighbor-ot prophecy).The best I can do with our two powerful words is that we give thanks for the Calvary sacrifice, and that is aided by remembering it thru and or imitating the Last Supper. So yes thanksgiving and sacrifice are there.

Hi David Ruiz,
You mentioned:
but certainly no more intercessors as in the o.t, .for we are all priests,
and can intercede for each other​

You recognize that in the o.t. that there were 3 catagories of priests.
The High Priest, allowed only once a year to enter the Holy of Holies, had the fullness.
The Levites, who were priests designated to serve the temple and people in their offerings
of lambs, or doves, be they for sin, or otherwise.
The People, who were designated as a priestly people who took part in the sacrifices
the Livitical priests offered in their behalf.

Each one had duties, and responsibilites, and special functions.
These 3 catagories of priests were not at all equal. They were appointed and
annointed seperately and for different ends.

The majority of christians, based on what I’ve heard here at this site, understand
that the o.t. have figures or types that point to the n.t. For example, Christ is
the new Adam who gave us life by the wood of a tree, as Adam had lost life
by the wood of a tree. Abram’s sacrifice of his only son and the heavenly Father’s.
There are lots more. These were to help prepare us for what was to come.

The o.t. high priest prefigured n.t. Apostles and their successors the bishops.
The o.t. Livitical priests prefigured the n.t. priests annointed to this position to serve the church and the people in offering sacrifices.
The n.t. Christians are a priestly people who take part in the divine sacrifice offered in their behalf by the annointed priest which were prefigured by o.t. priestly people.

Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the old covenant but to fulfill it. In this instance, He did fulfill it and raised it to an even holier position. Just as St. Paul said in one of his letters that Circumcision in the old pointed to Baptism in the new.

The 3 levels of priesthood are still with us today in even a newer and better way.
For we now do not center our offerings and worship around natural animals,
but around the divine Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

 

[lyrikal]

Part 1…

Hi Radical,

I hope this reply finds you well. I was finally able to finish the reply. It is a very lengthy one and one that does not deal with your last two or three replies but I will be providing a reply to those as well (but nothing like this so don’t worry). Given that this reply is rather lengthy, I am not expecting you to reply anytime soon or even reply at all. It is obviously your choice to do what you please. The only thing I plead is that you read my reply with an open mind and an open heart. Blessings of the Lord be with you, brother.

My words will be in black and anything that I quote from Augustine, Scripture, another author, etc. will be in blue. Your words will also be in black but they will be quoted.

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

You misunderstood me here. My point is, don’t you think Augustine is referring to the Eucharist when he talks about “the flesh that we eat” not when he talks about “worshipping the Eucharist.” I take fault in this for I did not do a good job wording it.

The early church understood the words “eat my flesh and drink my blood” to be in reference to the Eucharist. Also, Augustine interpreted the words “eat my flesh and drink my blood” in a context of the Eucharist. So when he quotes that passage, the people will understand Augustine to mean “the Eucharist.”

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.

You can’t ignore the overwhelming evidence that St. Augustine believes “eating flesh and drinking blood” is in regards to the Eucharist just because of a small quote that you provided. The quote you provided is beautiful and can easily be reconciled with a Eucharistic understanding. I don’t think Augustine would want us to throw away his understanding of the Eucharist when Jesus talks about eating flesh and drinking blood by taking that one little line and venerating it above the many references to the Eucharist that Augustine makes when talking about John 6.
OCD III is NOT dealing with the Eucharist. It is dealing with how we are to interpret Scripture figuratively sometimes instead of literally. He quotes John 6 as an example and says:

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”(2) 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.

The key to understanding what Augustine is talking about is to examine his commentary on John 6. His point here is to interpret figuratively what Christ meant when He gave us a command to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Augustine’s point is that Christ did NOT mean that we are to go chop Him off, cook Him up and eat Him. Christ was speaking in spiritual matters and in a figurative way. Augustine’s concern is not “is the Eucharist literally the Body and Blood of Christ?” His Concern is more “Jesus did NOT mean that He is commanding us to eat Him as He is right then and there. There is a spiritual meaning to it.” He goes on to give us ONE way to look at that passage but no where does he say that, that it is the ONLY way we are to look at that passage. I bring this up because I have shown and will show even further that Augustine shows us ANOTHER way we are to look at that passage and that other way is the Eucharist. It isn’t a matter of either/or but a both/and. The fact that Augustine said:

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.

when talking about “eating flesh and drinking blood” Augustine does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church when it comes to the Eucharist, it affirms it. The Catholic Church has no problem with Augustine’s words and would actually agree with him there. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Continued in part 2…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 2:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

And…

1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body.233 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:"234
If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond “Amen” (“yes, it is true!”) and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, “the Body of Christ” and respond “Amen.” Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.235

Interesting enough, that is a quote from Saint Augustine Himself.

Also…

1402 In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: “O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us.” If the Eucharist is the memorial of the Passover of the Lord Jesus, if by our communion at the altar we are filled "with every heavenly blessing and grace,"242 then the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the heavenly glory.

And…

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.
1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:

• thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
• the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
• the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

Now, with all that said, let’s provide the whole passage from OCD III and see what Augustine’s point *REALLY *is…

Augustine on OCD III paragraph 24:

1. 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.”(2) 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. Scripture says: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;” and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, “for in so doing thou shall heap coals of fire on his head,”(3) one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,”(4) we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”–that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner.”(5) The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, “help not a sinner.” Understand, therefore, that “sinner” is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.

Continued in Part 3…

 

[lyrikal]

Part3:
Notice how Augustine does not only give us one example of how to interpret some verses figuratively. He does not only use the passage from John 6. He uses other passages that sound like they would be bizarre if they were to be understood carnally. From the context and from the fact that Augustine use 5 examples in what he means by figurative, we can see that what we are NOT supposed to do is interpret some passages LITERALLY. We are to interpret them FIGURATIVELY. This way of “figuratively interpreting Scripture” is not to be understood in a modern way the way Protestants understand John 6. It is to be understood this way: Jesus is NOT commanding us to chop of His arm and start eating it. This is the LITERAL way of interpretation. A figurative way of interpretation is the Eucharist. Figurative interpretation for Augustine does NOT mean symbolic. It means there is a great mystery there and Christ is talking about something else other than physically eating His flesh as He is speaking to the Jews in front of them. For Augustine, this mystery can mean a variety of different things, depending on the passage. In order to see what Augustine believes Jesus is talking about in John 6, we have to take a look at ALL of his writings regarding John 6, not just one little line from OCD III where Augustine is not so much concerned with the commentary of John 6 but is concerned with warning us to be careful not to interpret some verses literally.

Fortunately for us, Augustine left us a commentary on the Gospel of John and we can go to that commentary and look up his commentary on John 6 to further understand Augustine’s interpretation of it. Not only are we to interpret Augustine’s words based on the commentary of John 6 alone, but we have to take ALL of Augustine’s writings to see what his beliefs are (same idea with Scripture). Notice how I have not been taken small quotes from Augustine and exalted them over other quotes. I am showing the context of what Augustine is talking about by considering other writings from Augustine. In my reply to you on the bottom, you will find many, many, many writings from Augustine showing his understanding and view point in the light of the quotes that you and I have provided from Augustine.

As aforementioned above, Augustine uses more than just one example to show what he (Christ) meant when giving commands that sound bizarre. He uses 5 examples and one of these examples is:

In the same way, when our Lord says, “He who loveth his life shall lose it,”(4) we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, “Let him lose his life”–that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal.

With that said, let’s take a look at the commentary that Augustine has left us regarding that passage and see if he says the EXACT same thing or if he adds and builds on it…

Tractate 51:10:

1. And now, by way of exhortation to follow in the path of His own passion, He adds, “He that loveth his life shall lose it,” which may be understood in two ways: “He that loveth shall lose,” that is, If thou lovest, be ready to lose; if thou wouldst possess life in Christ, be not afraid of death for Christ. Or otherwise, “He that loveth his life shall lose it.” Do not love for fear of losing; love it not here, lest thou lose it in eternity. But what I have said last seems better to correspond with the meaning of the Gospel, for there follow the words, “And he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” So that when it is said in the previous clause, “He that loveth,” there is to be understood in this world, he it is that shall lose it. “But he that hateth,” that is, in this world, is he that shall keep it unto life eternal. Surely a profound and strange declaration as to the measure of a man’s love for his own life that leads to its destruction, and of his hatred to it that secures its preservation! If in a sinful way thou lovest it, then dost thou really hate it; if in a way accordant with what is good thou hast hated it, then hast thou really loved it. Happy they who have so hated their life while keeping it, that their love shall not cause them to lose it. But beware of harboring the notion that thou mayest court self-destruction by any such understanding of thy duty to hate thy life in this world. For on such grounds it is that certain wrong-minded and perverted people, who, with regard to themselves, are murderers of a specially cruel and impious character, commit themselves to the flames, suffocate themselves in water, dash themselves against a precipice, and perish. This was no teaching of Christ’s, who, on the other hand, met the devil’s suggestion of a precipice with the answer, “Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” [1039] To Peter also He said, signifying by what death he should glorify God, “When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not;” [1040] —where He made it sufficiently plain that it is not by himself but by another that one must be slain who follows in the footsteps of Christ. And so, when one’s case has reached the crisis that this condition is placed before him, either that he must act contrary to the divine commandment or quit this life, and that a man is compelled to choose one or other of the two by the persecutor who is threatening him with death, in such circumstances let him prefer dying in the love of God to living under His anger, in such circumstances let him hate his life in this world that he may keep it unto life eternal.

 

[lyrikal]

Part 4:

It appears that Saint Augustine builds on OCD III’s interpretation and gives us TWO ways of looking at the passage instead of just one. Which tells us that OCD III is not the ONLY way we are to look what Augustine is interpreting. There are numerous ways of looking at them that do not contradict each other but compliment each other.
That quote you provided from Augustine (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.) does not explain how “no one eats that flesh unless he first worships it.” Worships what? How does “sharing in His suffering and by retaining a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” explain what Augustine meant by worshipping the flesh that we eat? If you believe that is what Augustine’s understanding of what eating the flesh of Christ means ALONE, then I disagree with you because you are ignoring other quotes from Augustine that says more than just that. If you are saying that, that is PART of what Augustine believes, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. You can’t just ignore other passages from Augustine that sound literal and exalt the ones that APPEAR to sound symbolic. JND Kelly put it best when he wrote:

"There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM. Thus, preaching on ‘the sacrament of the Lord’s table’ to newly baptized persons, he remarked [Serm 227],
‘That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us.’
(Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, pg 446-447)

Reference: bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm

You said:

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).

That all depends on who you ask. JND Kelly writes:

“In the third century the early Christian identification of the eucharistic bread and wine with the Lord’s body and blood continued unchanged, although a difference of approach can be detected.”
(Early Christian Doctrine, p. 221.)

He also talks about the later doctrine of the Eucharist and says:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.”
( Early Christian Doctrine, p. 221.)

Also, Kelly is not alone in this. Other Protestant sources say the same things. Here are some that you can check out:

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.C. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, eds., Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983, pp. 475-476; and New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J.D. Douglas editor, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, revised edition 1078, pp. 244-245

(credit to: totustuus.com/TheRealPresence.pdf for the references).

Continued in Part 5…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 5:

You said:

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?”

You’re assuming that all of the scholars are on your side. Since the argument I am presenting is centered on Augustine’s commentary on Psalms 98, I will show a couple of scholars who saw the flesh to be worshipped to be the Eucharist.

Scholar #1:

"‘You know,’ he said in another sermon [Serm 9:14], ‘what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, WHOM you are EATING and WHOM you are DRINKING.’ Commenting on the Psalmist’s bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out [Enarr in Ps 98:9] that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the FLESH which Christ took from the earth and which He gave to us to EAT. Thus it was the EUCHARISTIC BODY WHICH DEMANDED ADORATION. (Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, pg 446-447)

Reference: (bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm).

Scholar #2:
Jurgens believes the passage to be in reference to the Eucharist for he has that passage listed under a Eucharistical category showing passages from the Early Church Fathers that proves their belief in a RP of Christ in the Eucharist.

Scholar #3:
There is a book called, “Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia” by Allan D Fitzgerald. It is a book filled with articles from various scholars. I am not sure who wrote this piece that I am about to quote but there is a bibliography on the bottom to everyone who contributed to the “Eucharist” part of the book. I will give you the link to the amazon page so you can check it out for yourself.

Anyway, a little context before giving you the quote. The scholar first starts off by showing all the passages from Augustine that show his Eucharistic beliefs to seem symbolic. Then, he defends the literal teaching of the Eucharist from Augustine by showing the passages where Augustine sounds literal. He is not picking sides, he is only presenting the two sides. When he presents the side of the literalists, he uses the psalms 98 argument as a belief that the footstool to be worshipped is the Eucharist. Here is what he says:

When commenting on the psalmist’s exhortation to adore the Lord’s footstool, the earth, Augustine explains that because Christ took flesh from the earth, this signifies Christ’s body, given to Christians to eat for their salvation, which no one eats unless he or she has first worshipped."

Reference: (Link: amazon.com/Augustine-through-Ages-Allan-Fitzgerald/dp/0802864791/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311888156&sr=8-1#reader_0802864791)

So the question you presented to me:

“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?”

Can easily be turned around on you. I say that with the utmost respect to you. We can both play the scholar card.

Continued in Part 6…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 7:

If you would like more works from Scholars who deal with Augustine and the Eucharist, go to Phil Phaz’s website and you will find many more quotes from different scholars. The website is: bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm

In reply to my

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.

you said:

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.”

I showed you a few scholars above who agree that the footstool that must be worshipped is Christ’s flesh in the Incarnation and in the Eucharist. Can you provide a scholar who agrees with you that Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist here?

You said:

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

Right, I agree with you here. He is justifying worshipping God’s footstool. The difference between our points is that I believe the footstool to be the flesh of Christ. The flesh of Christ on earth that walked and the flesh of Christ that we now eat (the Eucharist).

You said

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”

Again, footstool is in reference to the flesh of Christ (Incarnation and Eucharist). I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on that in my earlier posts. I’m pretty bad at clarifying my points and have a tendency of assuming the reader knows what I mean. My apologies.

I will post the commentary on the psalm so we can see the whole thing in context and I will provide my own commentary on it. I will do this one last time because it seems that we are going in circles with this. I take fault in this because I don’t think I have been very clear in my explanation. Again, I apologize sincerely.

Continued in Part 8…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 8:

…And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy. What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek ὑ ποπόδιον, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he
commands us to fall down before.

Here, Augustine presents the footstool as something we are commanded to adore/worship.

In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Isaiah 66:1 Does he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, You shall worship the Lord your God? Deuteronomy 6:13

Here, Augustine presents the problem at hand. How can we worship the footstool? We are only supposed to worship God alone.

Yet here it says, fall down before His footstool: and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, The earth is My footstool. I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, fall down before His footstool. I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, the earth is My footstool.

Here, Augustine keeps reiterating that he fears worshipping the footstool because he fears it to be idolatry. Continuing, he comes to a conclusion that the EARTH is the footstool. What does he mean by earth? Let’s continue with Augustine’s thoughts and we will see what he means by the earth being the 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.

In hesitation of worshipping the footstool (which he feels uncomfortable doing), he turns to Christ to make sense of all this. Not in a sense of “Hey Jesus I’m going to turn to you so you can tell me how to understand all this” but more like “I turn my attention to the person of Christ to make sense of worshipping this footstool.”

For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary.

This is the key here in understanding what the footstool is. He is arguing that the footstool is the earth. Here, he makes a point that Jesus “took upon Him earth from earth.” How did He do that? Augustine tells us: “because flesh is from earth.” Christ IS the footstool because the footstool is the earth and Christ took upon flesh and flesh comes from the earth. Therefore, it is safe to say that Christ is the footstool. Specifically, His flesh is the footstool since flesh comes from earth and the earth is the footstool.

Continued in Part 9

 

[lyrikal]

Part 9:

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:

This part is also key. Augustine argues the footstool to be the earth and Christ’s flesh is from earth. Since the footstool is to be worshipped and it is from earth, then Christ’s flesh IS the footstool because the footstool is of earth and flesh (flesh of Christ) is of earth. Augustine says something very telling; he says “and because He (Christ) walked here in very flesh…” Why does he say that? What does he mean by this? What does Augustine mean by “He walked here…?” Where is here? Here means earth. Since Christ (who is God) walked here on earth, the footstool can be understood as the flesh of Christ. Because He took upon flesh from flesh and flesh comes from earth.

He continues and says “and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation.” Here, Augustine moves on from Incarnation to the Eucharist. His first point was in regards to the incarnation of Christ where He took upon flesh from flesh (from Mary). After this, Augustine moves to the Eucharist and talks about the flesh (Body of Christ) that we eat for our salvation. What else can Augustine mean by “the flesh that we now eat for our salvation” other than the Eucharist? This is not me as a Catholic taking my traditions and applying them to Augustine. I am letting Augustine speak for himself here by dissecting the commentary piece by piece.

Notice how Augustine talks about eating that flesh for our salvation. He says “Christ gave that very flesh to us to eat for OUR SALVATION.” In order to show that Augustine is talking about the Eucharist here, I would have to prove that Augustine believed that eating the Eucharist saves us.

Augustine says:

It is an excellent thing that the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation, and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 3, Page 91).

Since Augustine believed that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, it is safe to say that what Augustine means by “Christ gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation” is in regards to the Eucharist.

we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped,

Here is the line you bolded to make a point that Augustine is not talking about the Eucharist being worshipped but the footstool. Notice what he says: “We have found out IN WHAT SENSE…” He doesn’t say that we are to worship the footstool and that’s it. But there is a meaning behind it. The footstool is not just a footstool that we are supposed to worship. The footstool is CHRIST (specifically His flesh). Augustine says “We have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped.”, meaning the footstool we are to worship is the flesh of Christ (incarnate and Eucharist flesh) and THAT is why we must worship it.

Again, I agree with you that Augustine’s point is that we must worship the footstool; however, his point is that the footstool is Christ and that we are to worship Christ and THAT is why we are permitted to worship it and THAT is why the Scriptures tells us to worship it. That is what he means by “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.

The “IT” here is the footstool, I agree with you; however, the footstool is Christ. Augustine breaks it down for us and tells us the footstool is the incarnation of Christ (flesh of Christ) which is the SAME flesh that He gave unto us to eat for our salvation ( Eucharist).

But besides the scholars that I presented above who believe Augustine is talking about the Eucharist here, besides the fact that Augustine believes the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, and besides all the points that I have made showing that Augustine is connecting the footstool with the Flesh of Christ (Incarnate and Eucharist flesh), what else can we point to, in order to show that Augustine is justifying the worship of the footstool BECAUSE the footstool is the flesh of Christ? We can continue with the commentary to see if the Eucharist was ever on his mind in this commentary and specifically in this context of the commentary.

Continued in Part 10…

 

[lyrikal]

Part 10:

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

Augustine begs the question and asks “But does the flesh give life?” Since he JUST told us that the flesh we eat is given to us for OUR salvation, he is trying to clarify something. Since the Scripture tells us “It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing…” it sounds like Scripture is contradicting Augustine’s point in the sense that he believes the flesh DOES profit something for our salvation and yet Scripture tells us it doesn’t. He will go on to clarify what he means by “the flesh is given for us to eat for our salvation” by explaining his point showing that there is no contradiction. That the only contradiction between him and Scripture is people’s understanding of what Scripture means and what he means.

Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is a 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:

Augustine is quoting from John 6 here as he continues to set up his argument about how people are misunderstanding what Christ meant.

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.

This is key here and me as a Catholic would agree with this. The people who heard what Christ said in regards to eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood understood it carnally. This is how John, the Gospel writer presents the conversations between Christ and the people.

We have the story of Nicodemus who misunderstood what Christ meant when He told him that “he must be born again of water and of spirit.” He understood it carnally and thought he had to be born again by entering into his mother’s womb a second time. In reality, Christ is talking about a mystery. What is that mystery? Baptism. Christ’s words were spiritual and Nicodemus’s understanding was carnal. How do we know that Christ was speaking of Baptism here? The context suggests it. RIGHT after Jesus finishes talking to Nicodemus about being born again of water and of spirit, he immediately starts talking about Baptism:

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. 23 John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized— 24 for John had not yet been thrown into prison.

Did Augustine believe the spiritual understanding to be Baptism? Let’s examine his commentary on it and see:

Continued in Part 11