The Real Presence

[Radical]

Part 1…
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.

yes, Augustine believes that eating flesh and drinking blood relates to the Eucharist, but he clearly explained HOW one eats that flesh and drimks that blood and it is not at all something that is done only at the Eucharist. In fact, most of the eating of “Christ’s flesh” would be done apart from the Eucharist…like praying continuously, we should “eat Christ’s flesh” (as that action is defined by Augustine) continuously

OCD III is NOT dealing with the Eucharist. It is dealing with how we are to interpret Scripture figuratively sometimes instead of literally.

right, and so to make his point he selected a passage that one must obviously understand figuratively (and not literally). If there was any doubt in that regard (ie if some believed that Christ’s flesh was literally eaten at the Eucharist), then his audience would have a “Hey, wait a minute, we DO believe in a literal interpretation!” response.

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?”

Augustine was explaining how that command (to eat flesh etc.) was to be understood by him and his congregation…chopping off a bit of Christ wasn’t even an option for them.

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.

the Eucharist is not another way…it is part of retaining a “sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us”.

It isn’t a matter of either/or but a both/and.

Do you interpret “eat my flesh” literally? If so, you and Augustine disagree and do not have the same view. Do you interpret the passage figuratively? If so, then you and Augustine share that approach and you agree with Augustine (as long as your 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). You want to assert a both/and approach and also assert compatibility with Augustine. So your interpretation is figurative plus what? I note that you said:

A figurative way of interpretation is the Eucharist. Figurative interpretation for Augustine does NOT mean symbolic.

I have never seen any one suggest that the Catholic Eucharist is a figurative interpretation. I advocate a figurative eating and now I find out that you also claim to advocate a figurative eating too. Perhaps that eliminates the issue between us…but I suspect that if you started a thread on this forum claiming that the Catholic Eucharist is merely a figurative eating and not a literal eating of Christ’s flesh, then every other conservative Catholic would adamantly disagree with you. I don’t think that you can fairly call your interpretation a figurative one…it is no where close b/c you claim that there is a real bodily presence and not just a “figurative presence”. So I think that you must admit that yours is a third way of interpreting the passage…but what should we call it? “Transubstantially” perhaps? Whatever you want to call it, the existence of a third approach would kill Augustine’s argument. He stated that b/c a literal intrepretation enjoined a crime, it is to be interpreted figuratively. If, however, a third way (transubstantially) of interpreting the passage existed (in Augustine’s mind), then he could not have said “it is therefore a figure”. Instead, he would had to have said, “it is maybe a figure”…b/c it could have been a reference to just a transubstantial eating.

 

[Radical]

Part3:
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.

yes, but he has selected a verse that epitomizes when to avoid literal and when to go figurative…and then he gives the figurative interpretation. It explains, in no uncertain terms, HOW exactly Christ’s flesh is eaten…where in your John 6 quotes does Augustine give an express explanation of the HOW?

Notice how I have not been taken small quotes from Augustine and exalted them over other quotes.

giving greater weight to a statement that specifically addresses the question over general statements that do not specifically address the question is a common practice of interpretation. In other words, if you want to know how “eating Christ’s flesh” was done according to Augustine, you look first at the passages where he said this is HOW “eating Christ’s flesh” is done and you rarely alter those express statements b/c of inferences that you draw from less explicit statements.

As aforementioned above, Augustine uses more than just one example to show what he (Christ) meant when giving commands that sound bizarre.
Tractate 51:10:
10. 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…
…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.

Augustine more fully explained the figurative understanding that he took away from the idea that one shouldn’t love their life (as opposed to the literal interpretation that would have us hating our earthly existence)…both fall under a figurative understanding…in contrast, IMHO your intrepretation of eating Christ’s flesh by way of eating a transubstantiated body is simply not another figurative interpretation (notswithstanding your claim that it is).

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?

I am not saying that the passage explains HOW we worship…it explains HOW we eat that flesh.

 

[Radical]

lyrikal:

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.

well, here are some other quotes where Augustine also addresses the HOW of how we eat Christ’s flesh (I thank SyCarl for compiling the quotes from Tractates on another thread…saved me a good bit of time):
…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…Sermon 227

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)…notice how Augustine equates dispensing Christ’s body to dispensing grace

And thus** He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church **in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers…For my flesh, says He, is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. For while by meat and drink men seek to attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints, where will be peace and unity, full and perfect… In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. **Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], **but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraphs 15, 17, &18)

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him.** For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, **because invisibly is he born again.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)

You can’t just ignore other passages from Augustine that sound literal and exalt the ones that APPEAR to sound symbolic.

What do you mean by “sound literal”…how does that reconcile with your statement that the Eucharist was a figurative eating…Augustine espressly rejected a literal eating. I have explained the Platonistic and Neoplatonistic use of realistic language and it is not as if the quotes that I porivide merely sound symbolic…they provide Augustine’s words where he a) declares the eating of Christ’s flesh to be something done figuratively and not literally, and (b) denies that Christ’s body is actually consumed or that anything is achieved by tooth-biting

(ooops!..I had hoped that I would manage this in about a post and a half)

 

[david_ruiz]

Exactly! As it was to drink Blood. Precisely why those Jews left and no longer followed Jesus when he said: EAT My flesh and DRINK my Blood or else you have no life.

If it is merely symbolic,why be offended and leave? They knew exactly what Jesus meant.

Don’t follow .No, if it was symbolic, they would NOT leave . What they took Jesus to mean , was unlawful .Any good Jew would leave. Who did not leave ? What was their (the apostles) anemic reply ? “To whom shall we go ?You have the WORDS of eternal life " . Peter did not say, " You are the flesh of eternal life.” I thought even Catholics agree that the apostles ,at this time, did NOT take it literally. Nor did they at the Last Supper. Their plate was quite full, with no room for being dogmatic…Again ,the only people who took it literally for sure ,were the departing unbelievers.They wanted something to eat ,but not His flesh for they wanted a Now ,Undead Savior .The apostles wanted a Savior period.

 

[david_ruiz]

It seems that you’re taking “spiritual” to refer to what is “figurative” or “symbolic”. To use the hermeneutical principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture, however, St. Paul appears to regard “spirit” quite differently–as pertaining to being “godly”:

Galatians 5:13-26: [13] For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.
[14] For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
[15] But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another.
[16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.
[17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
[18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
[20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
[21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
[23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
[24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
[25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
[26] Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

If St. Augustine is employing “spiritual” to mean “godly”, as St. Paul does in the above passage, it would seem that the former would have in mind that partaking unworthily in communion is actually harmful to the individual doing so–a sinful act of the “flesh”.

O.K. I guess you could read it that way , that he meant do it properly and not take communion "carnally’ ,unworthily .It is just this is usually addressed point blank by Paul and church fathers .Why would Augustine veil it ? Furthermore, some of your passages convey more than “godliness” or just a fruits of the spirit. Being spiritual is more than righteousness. Spirit is a life source , entity, dimension, of existence. It is opposed to fleshly existence ,dimension. So I guess I would say Augustine meant to take the Eucharist, not in fruit of the spirit (godliness) primarily (but yes secondarily ), but from the dimension , entity, of the spirit, primarily. Another words , animals can not benefit from partaking of the Eucharist (even St.Bernards), because they have no spiritual life ,entity ,dimension. …1 Cor 5:5 “Turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (one entity), that the spirit(another entity) may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” “Adam was made a quickening spirit” -1Cor-15:45…Anyways .I appreciate your "if ". Thanks for reading mine.

 

[david_ruiz]

well, here are some other quotes where Augustine also addresses the HOW of how we eat Christ’s flesh (I thank SyCarl for compiling the quotes from Tractates on another thread…saved me a good bit of time):
…
“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)…notice how Augustine equates dispensing Christ’s body to dispensing grace

And thus** He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church **in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers…For my flesh, says He, is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. For while by meat and drink men seek to attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints, where will be peace and unity, full and perfect… In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. **Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth], **but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraphs 15, 17, &18)

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him.** For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, **because invisibly is he born again.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.-(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)

What do you mean by “sound literal”…how does that reconcile with your statement that the Eucharist was a figurative eating…Augustine espressly rejected a literal eating. I have explained the Platonistic and Neoplatonistic use of realistic language and it is not as if the quotes that I porivide merely sound symbolic…they provide Augustine’s words where he a) declares the eating of Christ’s flesh to be something done figuratively and not literally, and (b) denies that Christ’s body is actually consumed or that anything is achieved by tooth-biting

(ooops!..I had hoped that I would manage this in about a post and a half)

Wow .Just read the quotes .The Spirit taught him , as the Spirit still teaches anyone the same thing today -quite “universal” .I have never heard that explanation ,though ,that He spoke of His ascension, bodily, and how that contradicts His “dispensing” himself (those monks sure have a way of speaking graphically). I still think it also deals with the Jews wanting their Messiah NOW, not knowing the program called for a Crucifixion , AND a Resurrection AND and an Ascension,hence Jesus said, “Like man, you can’t even get past my Crucifixion in veiled terms, much less my Ascension.” No earthly Davidic throne sitting yet , and get comfortable Rome ,you are sticking around awhile…Anyways ,thanks. Are you like a trial lawyer ,saving the best testimony till last ?

 

[Radical]

Part 5:
You’re assuming that all of the scholars are on your side.

no…I am aware that there are scholars on the other side…I don’t know that I have said it on this thread, but I surely have on others.

So the question you presented to me…Can easily be turned around on you.

understood…In this set of posts I intend to deal with the “footstool” argument. Let’s have a good look at it and see what one or both of us might be missing. Fortunately it is short enough that we can easily look at all of it.

Part 7:
I showed you a few scholars above who agree that the footstool that must be worshipped is Christ’s flesh in the Incarnation…

and I agree with that much of it, but you provided this:
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."

…and I don’t see how that amounts to a claim that Augustine advocates worshipping Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist. Perhaps there was something else that the scholar said, but that you omitted?

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.

no that is not the difference, b/c I agree that he is saying the footstool is the flesh of Christ. (To be very precise I would say that his argument is that: a) we must worship God’s footstool, b) the footstool is identified in scripture as the earth, c) worshipping the earth is not idolatry b/c flesh came from earth and Christ took on flesh, and therefore, we worship that part of the earth(of the footstool) that was taken on by God.

The flesh of Christ on earth that walked and the flesh of Christ that we now eat (the Eucharist).

where we differ is that you single out the Eucharist as the occasion in which Christ’s flesh is eaten and therefore you identify the flesh that we eat as the Eucharistic bread…from there you say that Augustine advocated worshipping Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist (which in turn would require a RBP)

Again, footstool is in reference to the flesh of Christ (Incarnation and Eucharist).

I can easily see the reference to Christ’s flesh WRT the incarnation with this: “For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary.” I don’t see the reference to Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist…as such, I am with you wrt your analysis until you get to here:

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.

he has told us that we eat that flesh 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.”…and that is something that can be done with or w/o the Eucharist…so I don’t see it as a move to the Eucharist

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.

really? If so, then (with respect), why haven’t you answered your “what else” question by reference to his express statement as to what eating Christ’s flesh meant?

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…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.

no, not at all. Augustine said quite a few things were necessary for salvation. You have picked the one that suits your argument and then declared that the thing and it only must be the “flesh Christ gave us to eat for our salvation”. Why do you make such inferences when Augustine expressly stated what eating Christ’s flesh meant (see just above)? Why do you make such inferences when Augustine expressly stated “He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church…” or “For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly…”?

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 don’t get where you get the “and Eucharist flesh” from…other than it being your preconception that we eat Christ’s flesh at the Eucharist and only at the Euhcarist

 

[Radical]

But besides the scholars that I presented above who believe Augustine is talking about the Eucharist here,…

yes, but since we have looked at the entire passage and seen no express statement that the Eucharist is contemplated…we must conclude that these scholars were making an inference…one that doesn’t seem particularly strong to me

…besides the fact that Augustine believes the Eucharist is necessary for salvation,

but you haven’t shown it to be the exclusive thing 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),

I don’t see where you have ever managed to show where Augustine, in that passage connected the flesh that we eat for our salvation to the Eucharist (it seems to me that such is a presumption that comes from your inclination at the cost of ignoring what Augustine identified as HOW that flesh is eaten).

…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.
…The way Augustine begins talking about the story of Nicodemus is he brings up the story of Moses leading the people through the Red Sea. What does he believe the Red Sea symbolizes? Baptism. He says the Red Sea is a figure of Baptism. What happens after they crossed the Red Sea? They received Manna from heaven to eat. What happens when we are Baptized? We receive the Eucharist to eat. That is the whole point of Augustine. He is making the connection between Red Sea and Manna to Baptism and Eucharist.

again I don’t see the Eucharist being mentioned…he connects the manna to the bread of life

This is VERY telling here. This says it all in regards to what Augustine means by LITERALLY eating Christ’s flesh. He is not talking about “we do NOT eat Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist” but he is talking about the Jews at the time were NOT to eat His flesh right then and there. He was speaking about something sacramental. This is what Augustine means by figurative. He is not taking away from the RP, he is taking away from the understanding of the Jews AT THAT TIME they were with Jesus. They understood him carnally and not spiritually. The reason why Augustine brings this up is because Nicodemus is understanding Jesus carnally by thinking of the flesh and thinking “being born again” being returning to your mother’s womb and being born a second time. Jesus is not talking about that, He is talking about conversion and Baptism (at least according to what Saint Augustine is saying and according to what the Catholic Church teaches).

It seems that you have missed something that Augustine said about eating Christ’s flesh later on in that passage (at the very end of paragraph 5 and start of paragraph 6):
Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”** Pleasantly savored the Lord’s flesh in his mouth. **The Lord, however, expounded to them, and said, It is the Spirit that quickens. After He had said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him, lest they should understand it carnally, He said, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing: the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.
6. This Nicodemus, who had come to Jesus by night, did not savor of this spirit and this life. Says Jesus to him, Unless a man be born again, he shall not see the kingdom of God. And he, savoring of his own flesh, while as yet he savored not of the flesh of Christ in his mouth, says, How can a man be born a second time, when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Please note that according to Augustine, Peter savored the flesh of Christ right there and right then w/o any cannibalism or Eucharist involved…the eating is achieved by believing in Christ…and it seems to me that if Nicodemus would have answered correctly by recognizing Christ’s spiritual meaning, then Nicodemus would have eaten Christ’s flesh that day too (instead he only savored his own flesh). That is Augustine’s spiritual understanding of HOW Christ’s flesh is eaten…no need for the Sacrament of the Eucharist (it didn’t even exist when Peter first gnawed on Christ’s flesh)

May God bless you greatly.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Don’t follow .No, if it was symbolic, they would NOT leave . What they took Jesus to mean , was unlawful .Any good Jew would leave. Who did not leave ? What was their (the apostles) anemic reply ? “To whom shall we go ?You have the WORDS of eternal life " . Peter did not say, " You are the flesh of eternal life.” I thought even Catholics agree that the apostles ,at this time, did NOT take it literally. Nor did they at the Last Supper. Their plate was quite full, with no room for being dogmatic…Again ,the only people who took it literally for sure ,were the departing unbelievers.They wanted something to eat ,but not His flesh for they wanted a Now ,Undead Savior .The apostles wanted a Savior period.

Are you calling the Apostles not good Jews? They stayed because they BELIEVED what Jesus was saying, even though it was a hard saying!!

If Jesus was speaking not literally… why did he not explain himself as such? Why allow thousands to desert him over a simple misunderstanding?

 

[Radical]

Also, whether you accept this fact or not, it is not a stretch for early Christians at the time to take the words of Christ “This is my body” to be taken literally.

agreed, Greek philosophy is not needed for that step

That does not have to come from Greek philosophy but it can easily come from the Scriptures (granted you don’t accept that interpretation but my point is that it is not a stretch to believe that someone CAN take those words of Christ literally without any influence of Greek philosophy).

the greek philosophy comes in when one starts to explain the HOW the bread becomes Christ’s body/HOW Christ is present…the ECFs relied heavily on Platonism, Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism and that reliance IMHO calls their explanations into question (that and the fact that I don’t view their efforts as guided by the Holy Spirit, but rather guided by their logic and philosophy). It also creates a disconnection between moderns who no longer hold to those philosophies.

 

[jlhargus]

Posted this on Real Presence forum- ties in a little…"James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-

JL: The Church of 325 had none of these either, sola scriptura, baptism a confession, receive the Holy Spirit when we first believe, Gentiles saved differently than Jews, OSAS, faith alone, secret rapture, dispensationalism, invisible church, body of Christ made up of thousands of contentious independent denominations, infants can’t be baptized.

All those beliefs mentioned by White were part of the deposit of faith. Although the terms with which they were defined may have been unknown earlier. They had yet to be developed, defined and named. Christians prayed for the dead as seen in the catacombs. It may not have yet been named purgatory. Yet the concept was there in scripture AND practice (Tradition). The Church in 325 also had no defined canon of the bible. The Trinity was defined with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, promulgated by the Council of Constantinople in 381AD. Does that mean the Church before that time wasn’t the same Church, because they didn’t use the word Trinity or have a canon of the bible? Wasn’t the undeveloped concept of TRINITY found in scripture AND practice (Tradition) already?

Which one of the thousands of contentious faith groups or denominations walked into today would they recognize? If not Catholic or Orthodox then name your faith group, with evidence, which has continued in that one VISIBLE apostolic fellowship from Christ to present, in apostolic succession?

 

[david_ruiz]

Are you calling the Apostles not good Jews?

They were good Jews .Jews do not practice cannibalism.There is no evidence that they took Jesus words literally .

They stayed because they BELIEVED what Jesus was saying,

Thanks , you partly make my point They Believed. Believed what ? You infer they believed in what He had just said (eating Him literally ). Well, it doesn’t say that at all. Peter is very explicit, “We believe FOR SURE , you are the Christ, AND you have the WORDS (not flesh) of eternal life”. That is what scripture says they believed .It has nothing to do with your future RP dogma.In several posts above, Augustine comments , that with this confession of belief (that Jesus is Christ)",that" Peter pleasantly savored the Lord in his mouth", “He that believes eats”, “and to what purpose do you make your teeth and stomach ready.Believe and you have eaten ALREADY”. So thanks for agreeing the apostles believed, the bridge to figurative eating.

even though it was a hard saying!

The inference is that for sure the disbelieving disciples thought it was a hard saying .The twelve are not credited for saying this.

If Jesus was speaking not literally… why did he not explain himself as such? Why allow thousands to desert him over a simple misunderstanding?

Why did he speak in parables ? Why did he tell the rich man to sell all and follow Him ? Why did he tell the people they had to be more righteous than the pharisees ? Why did He remind the Samaritan woman she was a "dog’ and he a Jew ? Why did he wait three days to see a dying Lazarus ? His words (to eat him) were a stroke of genius (well, He is God).His ways are unfathominable,and higher than ours .Like Job says, who can turn the heart of a man,and search a thing out ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Re: The Baptist Church and it’s policy on baptism

JL:

The Church of 325 had none of these either, sola scriptura

 

[mwok]

Are there some in here who deny that Jesus was the Lamb of God?

 

[Radical]

Wow .Just read the quotes .The Spirit taught him , as the Spirit still teaches anyone the same thing today -quite “universal” .

yes, and to its credit, the CC of today recognizes that the Spirit will move where he wills to move.

Anyways ,thanks.

you are welcome…given the number of posts that you are responding to, I am surprised that you have found the time to read any of my stuff…I have enjoyed the few posts of yours that I have found the time to read.

Are you like a trial lawyer ,saving the best testimony till last ?

perhaps more like a trial lawyer who keeps saying the same thing over and over and over again until he is forced to shut up.

Cheers and may God bless you.

 

[fred_conty]

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.

Hi,
First, if only more christians would experience what you experience!

I apoligize for being a little late with this question.
But for the sake of discussing the real presence, I would like to propose
this for the sake of discussion only:

Suppose there are five churches branching from ONE stem, the original
stem of christianity, and they ALL preach the real presence.

1. A christian church someone started from their own calling.
2. The Anglican church
3. The Lutheran church
4. The Orthodox church
5. The Catholic church

My question is, which would have the real presence? And why.

 

[david_ruiz]

Are there some in here who deny that Jesus was the Lamb of God?

Hopefully they will neither deny that Jesus was:The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, The Bright and Morning Star, The First- born of All Creation, The Alpha and Omega, The Second Adam, The Son of David, The Branch, The Light of the World, The Good Shepherd.

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

You know you may have a point .I have been reading some of this stuff and it is very detailed and expansive.I love debate ,but sometimes I wonder if it is vain disputation .There is a time to just do it .There was a guy named Peter Blessit and all he did was go around the world carrying a real wooden cross ,and bring attention to what Jesus did at Calvary 2000 years ago .Someone once asked him some theological ,dogmatic question ,and he didn’t touch it with a ten foot pole .He was to busy "doing it’, and humbly left the question to theologians . Isn’t interesting that much of this church dialogue started AFTER the persecution period(4th century). Maybe a little like King David ,who when it was springtime and generals go out to battle ,he stayed behind ,in the luxury of his palace and had a big fall from grace (Bethsheba),that effected the rest of his reign. Our beloved Church went from persecution to having wonderful palaces, from whence flowed “developing dogmas”. Nevertheless, there is a time and place for everything(debating ,defending ,correcting) ,and may we be all things to all men… I like your point of personal experience ,and your emotional response ,based on spiritual truths. Sometimes I am moved also ,yes because He loves me and proved it , but also because He set me free from an institutional, dogmatic-error ridden sacrament to a personal ,one on one,experience of remembrance , with no one between me and Him . No middleman priest, and the entire congregation are equal in participation, and roles, and thanksgiving. No thoughts of transubstantiation,consubstantiation etc.etc. , just thoughts of His sacrifice for us-being still ,and thus knowing Him in truth and spirit .Blessings

 

[Slinger]

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.

I prefer to look at the culture of the times back when Jesus was teaching and the context of how this all started referring to bread as his “body” and wine as his “blood”. Food, as you can guess, was very valuable and difficult to come by. Even simple bread was valuable to people to eat. To start everything, Jesus had performed a miracle of feeding the crowd with only a few loaves and fishes. Can you imagine the amazement of the crowd? Creating food for so many with so little? Jesus was, to put it mildly, the star of the crowd! What a perfect opportunity to teach those who were asking for more food after this…those who were physically not satisfied and wanted another miracle. Jesus seized this opportunity to teach in a radical way (Jesus had to be radical, don’t you think? How else would a man attract thousands to hear him speak…awesome!). He knew that telling people that they needed to “consume” him…not literally…in order to have eternal life. It’s not simply eating actual flesh and drinking blood that gets you eternal life but accepting HIM in their life would satisfy them spiritually. Using food, something extremely valuable because of it’s scarcity but something they NEEDED TO LIVE, was the best way to explain this to people who had no concept of salvation because Jesus had not died on the cross yet.

Why did the disciples have to be called back multiple times by Jesus? Because they were shocked! As I said, Jesus was radical with this message and the apostles were probably like rock stars to the crowd before then. From this time, many of his disciples, turned back and no longer wanted to follow him…this was the end of Jesus popularity and it was about to get difficult. Some could not take it. Jesus knew their hearts…the disciples were busted! It was easy to follow him but now they realized it wasn’t going to be to their advantage and it would be difficult. Later, during the last supper, the disciples GOT IT! Following Jesus was not going to be the easy life but if they “consumed” him they would be satisfied in their soul.

Don’t mean to sound preachy but that’s my interpretation! Jesus is so amazing, isn’t He? I wish I could have been so privileged to hear Him speak in person!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You know you may have a point .I have been reading some of this stuff and it is very detailed and expansive.I love debate ,but sometimes I wonder if it is vain disputation.

Vain disputation comes from those who think that truth comes from what they believe rather than conforming themselves and what they ought to believe to the Truth. I still have many friends who are still atheists and no matter how solid my positions are; no matter how true my premises are, no matter how valid my arguments, no matter how the conclusions follow from my premises, they still refuse to believe. Being a fomer atheist myself I sympathize with them.

But the bottom line is that if someone is blinded by conceitedness or pride, then even in the face of overwhelming proof, that one will still rather believe what he wants rather than be proved that he’s wrong.
david ruiz:

There is a time to just do it .There was a guy named Peter Blessit and all he did was go around the world carrying a real wooden cross ,and bring attention to what Jesus did at Calvary 2000 years ago .Someone once asked him some theological ,dogmatic question ,and he didn’t touch it with a ten foot pole .He was to busy "doing it’, and humbly left the question to theologians .

God calls us all to be faithful and obedient, He does not call us all to be theologians.
david ruiz:

Isn’t interesting that much of this church dialogue started AFTER the persecution period(4th century).

Its staements like this that make me really wonder about the intellectual honesty of protestantism. You want so badly for protestantism to be true you’ll ignore the volumes written before 313 or explain them away as aberrations of some Romanized minority without any real evidence to back up your theory.
david ruiz:

Maybe a little like King David ,who when it was springtime and generals go out to battle ,he stayed behind ,in the luxury of his palace and had a big fall from grace (Bethsheba),that effected the rest of his reign.

Explain to me how it is even close to analogous to compare David, an OT Jewish king living under the perscription of the Law(Acts 15:10), to Christ’s Church(Eph 1:22-23; 1 Tim 3:15).
david ruiz:

Our beloved Church went from persecution to having wonderful palaces, from whence flowed “developing dogmas”.

The corollary being that true dogma only comes from people like you? Never mind those whom the Holy Spirit appoints above us to be our shepherds in the Church, its the people who decide what is to be believed(that is as long as it is “based on the Bible”)?

Opinions on dogma can be as numerous as the stars in the heavens, just as long as they “call on Jesus” they’re saved?

Is it no wonder why so many of my atheist friends were, like me, former protestants…