The Real Presence

[Nicea325]

Hi, Nicea…just this thought came to me while reading this…we know that those martyred during the the early years of Christendon all believed in the Real Presence.

Is there anyone martyred for not believing in the Real Presence?

Exactly! I want to read of anyone in the first 1500 years martyred for believing a symbolic eucharist?

 

[Radical]

Part 1 Hi Radical, I hope this finds you well.

thanks…it does

I have spent numerous hours a day (4-5 hours at least) studying Augustine trying to understand his theology on the Body of Christ…

I hope you are going to school and can somehow utilize all that research and study…

Part 2…Continued in Part 3…

apart from not sharing Patout Burn’s view wrt Cyprian I really don’t have anything to say about this post

Part 3…Continued in part 4…

apart from not sharing Patout Burn’s view when he claimed:
“The eucharistic bread and wine were the sacramentum whose res was both the physical and the ecclesial body of Christ…”; and
" Although Augustine clearly asserted the bodily presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the eucharist…"
…I really don’t have anything to say about this post. I can’t help but be somewhat amused as to how you can produce a Catholic scholar who claims that Augustine clearly asserted a RBP and how I can produce a Catholic scholar who claims Augustine definitely did not assert a RBP.

Part 4…Part 5…Since we can quote Augustine holding to a RP of Christ in the Eucharist (which I will do in more detail later on) and we can also quote Augustine talking about the members of Christ being the Body of Christ, one can come to a conclusion that Augustine is NOT denying the RP JUST because he is emphasizing the people on the altar (which focuses on the unity of the church) the same way we can say that Christ is NOT denying the bodily resurrection of Christ JUST because he calls Christ’s body “the unity of the church”.

Well, I don’t think you can quote Augustine holding to a Real Bodily Presence in the Eucharist (but we’ll see how you do)…You should note that I distinguish between a real presence (which could be a real spiritual presence) and a RBP…I expect that you equate the two.

We can quote passages from Augustine that would show that he believed Christ TRULY rose BODILY. Once we are able to do that, we can easily reconcile his symbolic language of the resurrection with his literal language of the resurrection. Once we do that, one is not to choose which side Augustine seems to lean towards more, but the obvious thing to do is to understand the historical context and the reasons behind an emphasis on unity. Once we establish that, we can truly assure that Augustine believed in the Resurrection of Christ in a literal way and also believed in a RP of Christ in a literal way as well. If one is going to deny one, one must also be fair and consistent and deny the other. We cannot choose which ones suite our theology better and force Augustine to believe or not believe in something that we would not want him to believe in.

having read your analysis, I believe that you have missed the nature of the question. In sermon 272 Augustine asked and answered the question:

1. How can the bread be his body?

The form of that question is: How can one thing also be another thing? Augustine’s answer was: In a figurative way.

You say that Augustine’s answer of “In a figurative way.” doesn’t rule out the possibility that he also believed that the “HOW question” had a second answer, namely that the substance of the bread has been transformed into the substance of the body (or simply: In a transubstantial way.) To show that Augustine could view things in two ways you went into a rather long discussion of Jesus being the Head of the Church and the Church being the body of Christ. Here is what I think you missed:

To apply Augustine’s “Jesus = Head of the Church and Church = body of Christ theology” to question #1 above you should start by asking:

1. How can Jesus be the head of the Church? Augustine’s answer was: In a figurative way.
2. How can the Church be the body of Christ? Augustine’s answer was: In a figurative way.

You point out that Augustine believed in a bodily resurrection, but that belief in no way provides a second answer to question #2 or to question #3. Instead it provides an answer to a somewhat unrelated question: How (in what form) did Jesus rise from the dead? As such, your look at questions #2 and #3 does not show that Augustine believed that a second (non-figurative) answer existed for those questions (In fact, to answer either question #2 or #3 with “Also, in a transubstantial way.” only leads to an absurdity)…As a result, you can’t support your claim to a second answer for question #1 from your analysis of questions #2 and #3.

 

[Radical]

Part 6…Part 7…
Augustine is connecting the blood that dropped from Christ’s body to the “suffering of martyrs from the whole Church”. This is truly a beautiful understanding of the passage but one is not to take it literal. Notice how there are two things happening here (yet again). The literal (Christ literally bleeding while in prayer) and the figurative (the blood is really that of the martyrs). How can he make such a connection?

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

What does it sound like Augustine is saying? Well, since he has established that the Church is the Body of Christ, he can boldly proclaim that WE were crucified with Christ on the cross with Him. Obviously, this is not to be taken literally. Just because the Church is the Body of Christ, does NOT mean we were literally crucified on the cross with Christ. It does mean we CAN be (in a certain way) crucified on the cross as St. Paul talks about in Colossians 1:24. Again, there is the literal (Christ being crucified on the cross literally) and there is the figurative (since we are the Body, as a church, we were crucified with Him on the cross).

In this case the How question is: How is a thing (Christ’s crucifixion) also another thing (our crucifixion)? Answer: in a figurative way…and, of course, the answer: Also in a transubstantial way makes no sense.
In the case of feeding/clothing Christ by feeding and/or clothing a fellow believer the How question is: How is a thing (feeding a hungry believer) also another thing (feeding Christ)? Answer: in a figurative way…and, of course, the answer: Also in a transubstantial way makes no sense.

Part 8…Part 9…

I don’t think I need to go into much greater detail about this sermon because my theory here is the same as the above ones. Notice the emphasis on UNITY when speaking about the Body of Christ. Also, notice the REALISM of Augustine when speaking about Christ’s Body being the Church as if His Body is LITERALLY the Church. For Augustine (and should be for us as well), there is some sort of MYSTICAL REALITY to this whole notion which is taken right out of Scripture.

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

And so we come to the point of all of this which I am going to summarize now. My point is, we have to be consistent with interpreting Augustine. We cannot pick and choose what we want him to think was literal and what we want him to think was figurative based on our understanding of things in our day. We cannot let our biases get in the way. Again, one can accuse me of doing the same, but I will show why that is not the case here. So let me go ahead and summarize and you will see the consistency of my theory and belief that Augustine held to a RBP of Christ.

If we are to take Augustine’s symbolic explanation of Sermon 227 and 272 as the people being the Body of Christ, then we would need to be consistent and come up with the following conclusions on what Augustine believed:

1.) That Christ’s resurrected Body is really the Church
2.) That Christ’s Body did not physically ascend into heaven but only His Head did and His Body is still here on earth as the Church.
3.) That the drops of blood from Christ’s Body is really the blood of the Martyrs who were in the Church.
4.) That the Body of Christ (the Church) was crucified along with the Head of Christ on the cross.
5.) That when we help people, we are LITERALLY helping the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

as shown above, for each of items 1-5 you have not asked the right HOW question so as to make items 1-5 properly correlate with the HOW question of the sermons (being “How is the bread the body of Christ?”).

These theories were NOT mean to take away from the realistic and literal beliefs of what these 5 things represent. So if we are going to take those figurative understanding of what is REAL and apply them the 5 things mentioned above, then we would come to a conclusion that Augustine believed:

w/o making the proper correlation, you miss the mark.

1.) That Christ’s LITERAL Body was resurrected PHYSICALLY

make the proper correlation of this conclusion to the HOW of the sermons and you will get: The literal bread was baked physically (or something of that sort)…same sort of thing for your other literal interpretations…they all address what happened to the thing itself (eg Christ’s body) and do not address the question of how one thing can be another thing. The proper counterpart (wrt the Eucharist) to your conclusion that Augustine viewed the body of Christ in both a literal and a figurative way is: Augustine viewed the bread of the Eucharist in both a literal and a figurative way

(This is probably a good place to end for now as it appears that you go on to deal with the sermons directly at this point…Cheers)

 

[Radical]

Exactly! I want to read of anyone in the first 1500 years martyred for believing a symbolic eucharist?

and who was martyred for the sole reason that he believed in a real bodily presence?

 

[Nicea325]

and who was martyred for the sole reason that he believed in a real bodily presence?

Soley? Who mentioned soley? More like a big part of one’s belief and faith.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi, Nicea…just this thought came to me while reading this…we know that those martyred during the the early years of Christendon all believed in the Real Presence.

Is there anyone martyred for not believing in the Real Presence?

Not sure ,but the Catholic theologian Wycliffe had his bones exhumed, burned, and thrown in the river .They could not quite kill him so they did the next best thing I guess .One of his biggest beefs with his beloved church was the RP,and wrote against it, and the need for a priest to perform communion. As far as others , are you willing to state that the thousands killed during centuries of the inquisition that not one was for views on RP ? Not sure. I doubt any Christians were killed primarily for RP, for there were bigger issues, like just being a Christian ,believing that Jesus is the Christ ,son of the living God .Which by the way ,is what Peter confessed ,being the main thrust (not RP)in our much read John 6.

 

[david_ruiz]

All of these promised benefits are for “now” and “on Earth”, “literal[ly]”. As I understand the Catholic position, communion, the divine food and drink, is going to nourish the soul and strengthen the individual against the power of sin, which brings death–effects felt “now”, “on earth”, “literal[ly]”.

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

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David,

First of all, did you even read the discussion between Radical and me as a whole for you to actually make that comment?

 

[lyrikal]

I can’t help but be somewhat amused as to how you can produce a Catholic scholar who claims that Augustine clearly asserted a RBP and how I can produce a Catholic scholar who claims Augustine definitely did not assert a RBP.

I want to address this part for now. When you say that you “produce a Catholic scholar who claims Augustine definitely did not asser to a RBP” are you referring to Harmless? Assuming you are, I would like to first say that I have shown you that Harmless’s argument is parallel to mine, not yours. I have shown you the book in context and it is not saying what you want it to say.

In fact, I e-mailed Dr. Harmless last night and received an answer to the question this morning. He holds that Augustine believed in the RBP and AT THE SAME TIME to a symbolic Eucharist. He holds to a both/and just as I have been telling you I believe about Augustine. He holds that Augustine believed in a RBP of Christ and at the same time, the Eucharist symbolizes unity in the Church (sound familiar? ). This is a prime example how we can read into an author something that is not there. The reason why we do that is because we want them to agree with us on a whatever matter it is so that we can prove our point.

I will e-mail him back and ask him if I can share his e-mail on this message board. You will find in his e-mail that his beliefs are very close to my beliefs on Augustine. That he held to a RBP in a literal way and yet at the same time he held to a figurative presence (the unity of the Church). He even says the reason why he talks about unity is due to his battle with the Donatists ().

God bless.

 

[david_ruiz]

No David, it is you who has evaded my question. Now you are simply turning the tables around. If your interpretation is infallible and the doctrinally orthodox,then why have you failed to present ANY Catholic document or any canon from any ecumenical council supporting your interpretation?

 

[Nicea325]

David Ruiz:

Letus drop this .If you want we can simply discuss the several scriptures ,like i am with several others.

Here lies the issue at hand David. Failure to step outside the Bible. This is one aspect I have encountered with many Protestants,when early church history is presented or included in the dialogue, it is easily ignored, rejected,labeled false or falt out taken out-of-context. Why? Is it because it does not support their “Johnny-come-lately” traditions and novelties?

I have only read up to 130 A.D. and some Augustine. At some point I am sure there are lots of writings supporting RP .The first hundred years at best is a tossup ,but I believe lean more to a non-catholic RP, if any. No ,I am not joking (it was too much reading).

Well just because we do not have lots of writings on the RP the first let say 50 years does not mean it was “invented” later or was not believed. Where are the writings the first 50 years about the doctrine of the Incarnation? Does it mean it was invented later or not believed?

 

[Radical]

When you say that you “produce a Catholic scholar who claims Augustine definitely did not asser to a RBP” are you referring to Harmless?

No, Kilmartin, Wills and van der Meer…

Regarding Harmless, I would like to see his response…particularly as to how his comment that I referenced earlier:

A little after considering exactly the part of Sermon 229a that you quoted, Harmless (on page 319) wrote: "In other words, for Augustine, the Body of Christ appeared as sort of a diptych: at once as people and as “sanctified” bread…Augustine did not conceive of real presence in strictly ritual terms. His thinking admitted no sharp fissure between the real presence of Christ in the bread and the real presence of Christ within the community.

…would be reconciled with a RBP…does he advocate a RBP in the community as well? Sounds odd.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
WRONG! The SYMBOLIC position developed out of the Reformation. No offense David, but you are discussing historical matters to someone who has a Masters in History and I am telling you right now that your position is absurd and plainly bogus! If you want to get into deep historical matters,by all means,go for it.

Thank-you for your credentials ,I gave mine ,admitting reading only up to 130 AD and some Augustine.If it was not there 100 years after ,at most in skeletal form ,then it had to develop.

The pleasure is all mine and your about comment proves why I know you have a profound misunderstanding. Developed? So development is false or not plausible for doctrinal truth? David,please provide me ONE single verse out of the Bible mentioning a 27 NT canon?

What you have today ,with exact wording for consecration ,and only by a priests ,and all the rules of gold, and storage, and cleanup, and putting in a tabernacle ,behind a veil ,with /without fasting etc ,were definitely not there a century after Jesus ascended-the certainty is due to Scripture AND ECF to 130 AD.For sure,in my humble opinion.

David,opinions have no bearing on doctrinal truth. Using your own standard and words:

Name one Protestant church stemming from Protestanism that existed 100 years after Jesus? Scripture? Show me the NT fixed canon 50 years after Jesus?

Quote:
Good evidence-eh? Really? If there is good evidence he believed in a symbolic Eucharist,provide me ONE other ECF supporting Augustine’s belief in a symbolic Eucharist?

Nope .Don’t have one ,not even to combat Ambrose .I think Augustine had his own mind ,in fact he had the mind of Christ ,as we all do.I believe at this time in church history, it was not dogmatized AND there was a little more room for a difference of opinion on some topics.

Let me give you words of advice David. Opinions do not help anyone’s position when discussing doctrinal development and early church history. Likewise, silence is the weakest form of proof.

Quote:
And if Augustine truly believed in a symbolic Eucharist,how strange he never bothers to write AGAINST the Real Presence?

I think he does “Leave your bellies and teeh behind” or something like that .It is quite apparent he discussed the matter much like we do with,two viewpoints.Maybe you have problems admitting a unified church yet allowing difference of opinion -my gosh ,almost like the protestants. As far as historians ,they take both sides also ,not surprisingly ,even PHD’s

Really? Did Augustine “leave your bellies and teeth behind” with other orthodox doctrines? If he truly rejected the RP as many of you believe,how strange he totally remains silent attacking it as other heresies? No offense, but sounds like a cop-out to me David because there is very little to nothing to support your position. When one fails to have sufficient evidence the end results are usually mere opinions-thus who cares!

Quote:
AND? And the Arians and scores of others wrote against a lot of orthodox teachings? Do you really believe that debunks doctrinal truth? You have a lot to learn David

.

Gave you those examples merely to show RP was challenged ,because I was asked to show that .

So challenged equates into debunked and closed case? As stated before,the Arians challanged the Trinity,does that make it false and debunked? I am sure you have no qualms with the orthodox Christians debunking the Arians-do you?

 

[david_ruiz]

Here lies the issue at hand David. Failure to step outside the Bible.

 

[david_ruiz]

The pleasure is all mine and your about comment proves why I know you have a profound misunderstanding. Developed? So development is false or not plausible for doctrinal truth?

Maybe you have a profound misunderstanding of what I write.If it is not found in the earliest of writings ,it had to be further developed .You challenged to find them ,as if they were there .It does not mean they were false or invented , but may leave the door open to that. I simply state what many historians and Catholics refer to as "development " a favorite catch phrase for much Catholic dogma .Of course you know I believe many of them to be false , even invented ,BUT I am not using the "development " issue as “proof” .Nor did I state anything negative in my previous thread with “development”.

David,opinions have no bearing on doctrinal truth.

You said protestants sometimes don’t like to go where you go (tradition ,ECF etc). Why don’t you dare and enlighten us on when they first started requiring the priest for consecration ? Or when they first started putting Jesus in the tabernacle, or behind the veil, or even in a Monstrance ,to be adored ? When was it required to have the elements only in gold ? When did fasting come in ?.I am being a bit snippity with you ,tit for tat,but actually, regardless of our “debate” ,it would be an interesting study.

Let me give you words of advice David. Opinions do not help anyone’s position when discussing doctrinal development and early church history. Likewise, silence is the weakest form of proof.

So it is an opinion that: # 1 Augustine had the mind of Christ, #2- that is scriptural for all Christians also ,#3- that RP became official dogma in the 1200’s, #4 - before something becomes official , differing views are tolerated. That was my earlier statement and you call them opinions ? Funny ,but you challenged to find a ECF to collaborate Augustine,or even debunk RP for his time period. I did not find any ,nor did I look.Maybe silence is weak on proof.

Really? Did Augustine “leave your bellies and teeth behind” with other orthodox doctrines? If he truly rejected the RP as many of you believe,how strange he totally remains silent attacking it as other heresies? No offense, but sounds like a cop-out to me David because there is very little to nothing to support your position. When one fails to have sufficient evidence the end results are usually mere opinions-thus who cares!

Well, I thought the statement. “no teeth etc” attacks RP. Thanks for ignoring the possibility that two saints could have differing views during Augustine’s time and still be brothers in Christ. After all , it wasn’t official for another 800 years. Even your church does not declare me heretical for no RP , that indeed I am still under the Catholic umbrella.
.

So challenged equates into debunked and closed case?

No ,who said that ? I feel like asking if you are being paranoid . Again , challenged means it was not universal or accepted 100 %, maybe even 90%, at least not by the challenger .I hope I am being logical enough.Remember ,I believe the argument was put forth that everything Catholic was from the beginning, from day 1.

 

[david_ruiz]

Soley? Who mentioned soley? More like a big part of one’s belief and faith.

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

**"[h]eretics abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess the Eucharist to be that very flesh of Jesus Christ **

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Why? Is it because it does not support their “Johnny-come-lately” traditions and novelties?

Actually ,maybe some Catholic dogma is"Johnny-come-lately" traditions and novelties? .I prefer Paul’s warning as to fables on a few dogmas.Sorry i can not be more gracious towards them…Anyways .some of us do venture where no protestant dares to go ,and read ECF’s.You have a whole thread "Timeline"and ECF’S as I believe you posted there (I think) and protestants.

Catholic dogma is “Johny-come-lately” traditions and novelties? Serious David? Then I guess you must explain your contradiction? Then why do you adhere to a 27 NT canon canonized and ratified by the CC? David? Is that a “Johnny-come-lately” tradition or invention? By the way, you still have not answered my question:

David,please provide me ONE single verse out of the Bible mentioning a 27 NT canon?

Quote:
Well just because we do not have lots of writings on the RP the first let say 50 years does not mean it was “invented” later or was not believed.

Thank -you for admitting not much on RP first 50 years ,even though you cut my time span in half ,form a 100 years.Actually ,I’d have to reread , there may not be any the first 50 years. Right ,it doesn’t mean it was invented , but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t either .

And thank you for admitting your igorance on doctrinal development. It is okay,most Protestants share your ignorance. David, please provide the writings discussing NT **FIXED **canon during the 50 years?

Quote:
Where are the writings the first 50 years about the doctrine of the Incarnation?

Don’t know ,have to reread.I am sure when the incarnation doctrine came up ,Scripture was the main source of authority.

Oh you claim there is no writings supporting the RP,but you know that there exist writings on the DOCTRINE of the Incarnation during the first 50 years? Thanks for showing your double standards and biased beliefs.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8286002:

Soley? Who mentioned soley? More like a big part of one’s belief and faith.

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

What letter is this ,and is it from the long form or short form ? Do recall something about your second satement.I thought someone wrote saying they do not eat flesh …Remember some of Ignatius letters have been declared spurious ,hence the question.

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

 

[Nicea325]

Maybe you have a profound misunderstanding of what I write.If it is not found in the earliest of writings ,it had to be further developed .

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

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

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

Of course you know I believe many of them to be false , even invented ,BUT I am not using the "development " issue as “proof” .Nor did I state anything negative in my previous thread with “development”.

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

Quote:
David,opinions have no bearing on doctrinal truth.

You said protestants sometimes don’t like to go where you go (tradition ,ECF etc). Why don’t you dare and enlighten us on when they first started requiring the priest for consecration ?

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

Or when they first started putting Jesus in the tabernacle, or behind the veil, or even in a Monstrance ,to be adored ? When was it required to have the elements only in gold ? When did fasting come in ?.I am being a bit snippity with you ,tit for tat,but actually, regardless of our “debate” ,it would be an interesting study.

David…ever heard of the OT? Did the Jews use gold or not? Did the Jews have an entire TEMPLE for the Ark (gold covered),the Holy of Holies behind the veil? Did the Jews have a table with gold for showbread?

Quote:
Let me give you words of advice David. Opinions do not help anyone’s position when discussing doctrinal development and early church history. Likewise, silence is the weakest form of proof.

So it is an opinion that: # 1 Augustine had the mind of Christ,

Exactly! So where are Augustine’s protest against the RP? As I said, if he had an issue with the RP and was heretical,why remain silent on such a grave issue? Was Augustine Baptist Protestant? Methodist? Southern Baptist?

#2- that is scriptural for all Christians also

Yeah and it is also scripturally sound to OBEY Jesus Church,not just the Bible.

,#3- that RP became official dogma in the 1200’s,

Again,thanks for displaying your ignorance on doctrines. Yep and the doctrine of the Trinity was ratified nnd oficial in 325 A.D.

#4 - before something becomes official , differing views are tolerated.

Wrong David! Again,you know nothing about doctrines. Has nothing to do with views. That is a Protestant belief: MY VIEWS…OUR VIEWS;hence the thousands of endless divisions within its own circles. The Arians and countless of other heretical sects still had “their” views after ANY doctrine was made official. Who cares! Do you think the Church was concerned with the Arians “feelings” and “views” once the Trinitarian doctrine was ratified? Doctrines are ratified and made official when CHALLENGED. Another issue with Protestanism: Always concerned with one’s views and feelings. Geeee…do you think that had led to things such as openly gay ordained bishops in the Episcopal Church in the U.S.?

That was my earlier statement and you call them opinions ? Funny ,but you challenged to find a ECF to collaborate Augustine,or even debunk RP for his time period. I did not find any ,nor did I look.Maybe silence is weak on proof.

David,the problem I am encountering with you is your failure to admit you do not understand how doctrines come about. You are under the belief they had to be all layed out and have tons of writings to make it 'true" and not invented. But yet,you fail to answer my question: Who in the NT mentions a 27 NT fixed canon or any Christian within the first 50 years?

Well, I thought the statement. “no teeth etc” attacks RP. Thanks for ignoring the possibility that two saints could have differing views during Augustine’s time and still be brothers in Christ. After all , it wasn’t official for another 800 years. Even your church does not declare me heretical for no RP , that indeed I am still under the Catholic umbrella

.
.
There you go again with differing “views” on this and that and so on. Who cares! The only thing that matters is the Truth from God,not human views. Either Jesus promised to guide his Church into all Truth or he was just was pulling everyone’s leg?

No ,who said that ? I feel like asking if you are being paranoid . Again ,
challenged means it was not universal or accepted 100 %, maybe even 90%, at least not by the challenger .I hope I am being logical enough.Remember ,I believe the argument was put forth that everything Catholic was from the beginning, from day 1.

Yes David,even Satan challenged God,does it negate His Truth to us? You are expecting everything to be all laid out from the day one or else it is not true or invented. That is what I am pointing out to you.

 

[Radical]

Soley? Who mentioned soley? More like a big part of one’s belief and faith.

it is from your wording which was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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