To those who deny the true presence

[KathleenGee]

I think one of the issues as well regarding whether or not the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Christ, is the difficulty of people accepting the God given authority to our Church, and to the Pope, Bishops in unity…otherwise men like others.

If you can’t believe Peter was the rock upon whom Christ founded His church, with all of Peter’s humanity, you can’t believe God choosing certain men to become priests for His church who have God given authority.

Faith requires certitude.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

…when he said that he was the Lamb of God, does that mean that his flesh became mutton and his hair became wool?

Gabriel of 12;
Jesus never said himself he was the Lamb of God, others gave witness to his fact. And yes Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World.

John 1:35
The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36
and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God."

Rev.1:13
and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, 12 wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his chest.
14
**The hair of his head was as white as white wool **or as snow, 13 and his eyes were like a fiery flame.

I understand that a great divide of understanding and biblical interpretation exists of what is being presented here.

The reality is I accept Jesus words and believe them to be true when Jesus states “Eat my flesh” “drink my blood”, “This is my body, this is my blood in the new and everlasting covenant” because God has revealed these mysteries to me by the Holy Spirit, mans words or mans interpretations can only be seen from the flesh or whats in front of their eyes.

I understand at this point you deny Jesus at his Words here, to mean something other than what Jesus has revealed. So you must be greater than all the apostles, saints and martyrs who died for this Truth. So you can stand in judgement and face the Father in heaven and deny Jesus never meant “This is my body, This is my blood”?; You see it is not your will that is being done here; when Jesus institutes his Eucharist in his body and blood sacrafice, it is God’s will be done. This is the reality we all must face.

Radical;
When he said “it is finished” something physical actually happened…he died physically. I don’t require a puff of smoke…but if Jesus meant that the bread was literally his flesh, then I would expect some physical change to occur given that we are talking about two physical things; bread and body. Transubstantiation provides a philosophical explanation to account for the lack of a physical change…but (IMHO) it is really bad philosophy

Gabriel of 12;
Here is a case in point; “it is finished” has nothing to do with Jesus physically dieing as you proposed. The “it is finished” has greater fulfilled meaning which is connected to the Last Supper.
Again here is the disconnect because “YOU” would “EXPECT” some physical change to occur to the bread and wine after Jesus Just said “this is my body” “This is my blood” and the substance does change in the Spirit which gives life but to the flesh (from “YOUR” standards) to no avail which leads to death. Do you really think God is interested in your humble opinion to his revealed mysteries that have not changed for 2 millenium? think about it?

Radical;
there is no mention of a mass in Luke 24…you are reading into the text yet again…

Gabriel of 12;
The question is? do you know, understand or have ever attended the mysteries of the Mass from her liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist? Jesus just revealed these mysteries from Luke 24 and revealed “ALL” the scriptures to his disciples. No one mentions Mass when entered into the mysteries of God especially when Jesus is present. Trinity is not mentioned in the bible, but scripture reveals the Trinity, this holds true about the Mass foreshadowed in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. But one has to be living out the scriptures in their daily lives in order to see these Apostolic teachings revealed by Jesus, not reading it only.

Radical;
thanks for the correction…you are right, transubstantiation developed well before science…which of course, is why transubstantiation makes no scientific sense.

Gabriel of 12;
You might re-think your comment here about Transubstantiation outdating science? Now I will take your negative comment as your personal opinion, because it reveals your mis-understanding of the Church’s definition of Transubstantiation and the world of science.

I will leave you with the following scriptures that explains what I have been trying to clarify to you;

Luke 8:10 .”Knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been granted to you, but to the rest, they are made known through parables so that they may look but not see, and hear but not understand.

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ:

1Corinthians 2:9… But as it is written; “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” v10… This God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.14 Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[Radical]

• yes, we each see in the other a great divide between what the Bible actually says and what the other interprets it as saying

The reality is I accept Jesus words and believe them to be true when Jesus states “Eat my flesh” “drink my blood”,…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;
yes, we each see in the other a great divide between what the Bible actually says and what the other interprets it as saying

Gabriel of 12;
Greetings Radical; I agree with you, yet the fundamental difference here is that; My interpretations of the biblical text are not mine, they come from the Revelations of Jesus to his Apostles who handed them down to us written and oral Apostolic Tradition. Whereby you reveal your own interpretation here, which has no apostolic succession interpretation from antiquity. In other words your interpretation is new and no Christian before the reformation since the ascension ever disbelieved the True presence in the Eucharist including the Apostles themselves.

Radical;
The reality is I accept Jesus words and believe them to be true when Jesus states “Eat my flesh” “drink my blood”,…
yes i know you want to claim the pious high ground, but to understand a figurative statement in a literal fashion is a mistake (no matter how pious you seek to be)

Gabriel of 12;
The fact remains is that; “This is my body, This is my blood” are Jesus words, not mine, nor are they yours. I find no piety in accepting Jesus words, it is a matter of faith. Two camps have derived from Jesus teaching from the first century, those who accepted his teaching to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” and those who walked away in disbelief and not accepting his teaching to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”. So holds true today I am from the camp that believes and practice Jesus teachings to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”. I cannot deny my Lord before others “lest he denies me before his father and angels”.

Radical:
Your understanding here just strikes me as odd…very odd. Does the CC teach this view? His death is stated in the very next sentence and you can’t see the connection.

Gabriel of 12;
Let us be clear here; you quoted “When he said “it is finished” something physical actually happened…he died physically”. Jesus was not referring to his physical death when he stated “it is finished” He was still alive before he himself gave up the ghost, besides, Jesus and everyone present did not need confirmation that he was going to die. “It is finished” begins at the Passover “last supper” and is consummated in his passion, death and resurrection the Eucharistic celebration does all of the above.

Have a Listen to scripture here;
Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29 **I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” **

John 19: 28 After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.”
29 There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth.
30 **When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” **

Jesus gave his disciples each to drink from the same “cup” which begins his sacrifice, John even mentions the hour when the lambs are taken to be prepared for the sacrifice for the Passover feast. Jesus drinks of the “cup” to finish his Passover meal fulfillment in his instituted Eucharist which is his body, and blood sacrifice given “for the many”. In summary the Eucharist is all of the above Jesus passion, death and resurrection.

Here are the teachings from the C.C.C

1323 “At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’”

1329 The Lord’s Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.141
The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread,142 above all at the Last Supper.

143 It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection,144 and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies;145 by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.146
The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.147

1409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Transubstantiation;
CCC;
The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:195 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"196 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,197 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. **But “he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species.”**198

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1375** It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:**
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council **now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”**204

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.** Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205**

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206

Matthew 18:2
He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3
and said, **"Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, 3 you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. **
4
**Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. **
5
4 **And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me. **
6
"Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

What child ever refuses his Fathers Word and will? It is man who wrestles with God never the child of God;

When the Father speaks to his child, “son this is my body” do you think the child will ever doubt his Father who teaches his child all things? It is the faith of the Fathers child innocent, never doubting always leaning and looking for every word from his Father to be “Truth” and the child recieves his Fathers words “take eat” “Take and drink” you must eat my flesh and drink my blood so that you will have eternal life and I will raise you on the last day. The child of the Father humbles himself to his word becomes the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Transubstantiation reveals what takes place in the species of bread and wine when they are confected by the Words of Jesus Christ himself they become his True body, blood soul and divninity.

Now to our senses (the flesh) these remain bread and wine which doesn’t availeth much, now the substance have changed and become The True Presence of Jesus Body, Blood Soul and Divinity this is accomplished through the Spirit which gives Life, for the Spirit is never symbolic but eternally with the Father and the Son. Thus Transubstantiation has defined what “foreshadowed” from the Old testament and then “Imaged” in Jesus Christ now fulfilled in Jesus himself who gives us the “paraclete” Holy Spirit that takes the image and becomes an “eternal Reality”.

Peace be with you

 

[Radical]

My interpretations of the biblical text are not mine, they come from the Revelations of Jesus to his Apostles who handed them down to us written and oral Apostolic Tradition.

Again, I know this is what you want to believe and what you claim, but it is hardly something that you can establish from the historical record. The divergent views wrt the Lord’s supper that existed at the outset suggest that your interpretation is not something handed down from the apostles (otherwise there should have been more uniformity).

The fact remains is that; “This is my body, This is my blood” are Jesus words, not mine, nor are they yours. I find no piety in accepting Jesus words, it is a matter of faith. Two camps have derived from Jesus teaching from the first century, those who accepted his teaching to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” and those who walked away in disbelief and not accepting his teaching to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”. So holds true today I am from the camp that believes and practice Jesus teachings to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”.

Actually, there were (and still are) a number of camps. 1) There are those like Augustine who hold that the command that you reference must be interpreted figuratively 2) There are those that want to claim that they actually eat Christ’s flesh even though no flesh is present. 3) there are those that hold that a spiritual presence is involved. 4) there are those that don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God and walk away from him. In every case no one actually chews on and eats Jesus’s words flesh (your insistance that you accept Jesus"s notwithstanding).

. “It is finished” begins at the Passover “last supper” and is consummated in his passion, death and resurrection the Eucharistic celebration does all of the above.

Yes, this is the odd bit of your interpretation…again does the CC actually teach that the original Last Supper continues to and ends at the resurrection?

Have a Listen to scripture here;
Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

John 19: 28 After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.”
29 There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth.
30 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.”

see, to make your interpretation you must jump from one gospel to another…Matthew and Mark mention the wine vinegar, but don’t quote the “It is finished”. If any of the authors of the gospels were actually trying to present the interpretation that you are straining to make, then they would have at least put all the essential parts into a single gospel. What Catholics (such as you) do with the Lord’s Supper demonstrates why one should not go beyond what is written…it only leads to error by addition.

In summary the Eucharist is all of the above Jesus passion, death and resurrection.

His resurrection? Is such mentioned anywhere in scripture? Paul states that it is a proclamation of Christ’s death.

When the Father speaks to his child, “son this is my body” do you think the child will ever doubt his Father who teaches his child all things?

Again, it is not a matter of doubt. When the father points to his assistant and tells the child that, “He is my right arm.” …the child doesn’t doubt the father, but rather, the intelligent child understands that the father is using a figure of speech. You repeatedly try to establish a false dichotomy. Believe literally vs call Jesus a liar. Believe literally vs doubt Jesus. Perhaps your problem lies in an inability to grasp a figurative understanding. The dichotomy that you should be focusing upon is: Believe literally vs believe figuratively. In neither of those cases does the adherent doubt the truth that Jesus is communicating. If you cannot grasp that such is the way a figurative interpretation would work, then merely say so.

Transubstantiation reveals what takes place in the species of bread and wine when they are confected by the Words of Jesus Christ himself they become his True body, blood soul and divninity.

transub. doesn’t reveal anything. It is a philisophical explanation (that appealed to medieval theologians) of what can’t be either observed or tested…and that is why it is unscientific

Now to our senses (the flesh) these remain bread and wine which doesn’t availeth much,…

riddle me this, to what aspect of you do these become body and blood? Do they remain bread to your senses? Yes, it would seem. Do they remain bread to your body? Yes, it would seem, b/c your body interacts through its senses? Do they remain bread on the molecular level? Yes, it would seem. So on what level is there any change? Explain what is the “substance” that changes using specific language…is it anything more than a concept? If so, isn’t the (understanding of the) body’s substance housed in your mind and not the bread? Please, make any sense of what you say Transubstantiation reveals. Good luck.

Peace be with you

and with you.

 

[workingman]

Radical
riddle me this, to what aspect of you do these become body and blood? Do they remain bread to your senses? Yes, it would seem. Do they remain bread to your body? Yes, it would seem, b/c your body interacts through its senses? Do they remain bread on the molecular level? Yes, it would seem. So on what level is there any change? Explain what is the “substance” that changes using specific language…is it anything more than a concept? If so, isn’t the (understanding of the) body’s substance housed in your mind and not the bread? Please, make any sense of what you say Transubstantiation reveals. Good luck

I would like to take a slightly different approach with you on this.

What is a Sacrament?

1. Sacrament is a sacred act
2. instituted by God
   3)in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to a visible element,
   4)and by which He offers, gives, and seals the forgiveness of sins earned by Christ.

How does the Bible make it clear that these words of Christ are not picture language?
Christ’s words in the Sacrament must be taken at face value especially because

1. these words are the words of a testament, and even an ordinary person’s last will and testament may not be changed once that person has died;
   see 1 Cor. 111:25 “This cup is the new covenant[testament] in My blood.”
   Gal. 3:15 Though it is only a man’s covenant [will], yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Also compare to Heb. 9:15-22;15 And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.16 For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must of necessity come in. 17 For a testament is of force, after men are dead: otherwise it is as yet of no strength, whilst the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 Saying: This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you.21 The tabernacle also and all the vessels of the ministry, in like manner, he sprinkled with blood. 22 And almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

Do Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament replace the bread and wine, so that the bread and wine are no longer there?
No, bread and wine remain in the sacrament. 1 Cor 11:26 Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

How then are the bread and wine in the Sacrament the body and blood of Christ?
The bread and wine in the Sacrament are Christ’s body and blood by sacramental union. By the power of His word, Christ gives His body and blood in, with and under the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine.
1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Now what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer, “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by Christ’s Word to eat and to drink.”

It is the word, I say that makes and sets this Sacrament apart. So it is not mere bread and wine, but is and is called, Christ’s body and blood see (1 Corinthians 11:12-27). For it is said, “When the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament.” This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament out of the element, or else it remains a mere element. Now it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor. But it is the Word of the grand Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility (Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10).

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say, “If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying ‘How can bread and wine be Christ’s body and blood?’ and such, I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine majesty in His little finger” (1 Corinthians 1:25). Now here stands Christ’s Word, “Take, eat; this is My body…Drink of it, all of you; this is My blood of the new testament,” and so on. He we stop to watch those who will call themselves His masters and make the matter different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard the Sacrament without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then by virtue of the words, it is truly Christ’s body and blood. What Christ’s lips say and speak, so it is. He can never lie or deceive (Titus 1:2).

I will gladly give the source of the info after you tell me what you think.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dear Radical:

I believe anyone Christian reading these posts, clearly see that what I have presented deal with those things of the Spirit revealing eternal realities, where by it conflicts with your basic humane approach of the phyisical properties that deal with the “flesh”. Your personal opinions that deal with a figurative Jesus present, or symbolic presence does not equate with the same Jesus from antiquity. Your figurative belief’s symbolic Jesus is a new gospel invented by men who become blind to the Spiritual realities of the Mysteries of God.

How do you believe Jesus is truly present to you? or you still deny the True Presence of Jesus? or is your Jesus felt by your “own” emotions living outside the Trure presence of God? I dont know or understand a figurative/symbolic Jesus as you adequately proposed here, so I have to ask these questions, how does your flesh portray the Spirit?

Have you read the Transubstantiation defiinition? because thus far you are only arguing against yourself. I have never propose a scientific explanation of the Eucharist under the title transubstantiation.

Here’s a riddle that does not take us out of the realm of the topic;
God created man from dust and water, how? with his Word. God created all things How? with his Word. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh. And Word said to the bread “This is my body” again like wise, The Word made flesh said to the cup filled with wine “This is my blood”. Until you can graduate from this basic understanding from the intellect of the act of God who is the creator who creates those things that dont exist into existence, with a little prayer God can reveal these spiritual realities to your “flesh” understanding.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;
You cannot find one Christian saint that agrees with your symbolic Jesus, let alone St. Augustine. Here are a few quotes from some early Church Fathers who taught and believed in a real “True Presence” of Jesus in his Eucharist. You dont have to take my living witness of practicing my Catholic belief’s, there are many who believed the same way as I have described and more, please read their testimonies of the Early Church Fathers, some of them will help you understand what we have covered here. God be with you

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (Alt)
“Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.”
Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.:
“We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ … draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.”
Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:

---

ST. AUGUSTINE (Alt)
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
-“Sermons”, [227, 21]
“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.
-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa
"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.
Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.
"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

---

MARCARIUS THE MAGNESIAN
“[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth.”
-“Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D.

---

ST. LEO I (Alt)
“When the Lord says: ‘Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His blood, you shall not have life in you,’ you ought to so communicate at the Sacred Table that you have no doubt whatever of the truth of the Body and the Blood of Christ. For that which is taken in the mouth is what is believed in faith; and in do those respond, ‘Amen,’ who argue against that which is received.”
-“Sermons” [91,3] ante 461 A.D.

---

ST. CAESAR OF ARLES (Alt)
“As often as some infirmity overtakes a man, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”
-"Sermons [13 (265), 3]

---

ST. FULGENE OF RUSPE (Alt)
“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the Only-begotten God the Word Himself become flesh offered Himself in an odor of sweetness as a Sacrifice and Victim to God on our behalf; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom He has one Godhead, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of Bread and Wine … In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively; but in this sacrifice which has now been given us, it is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious; but in the present it is announced that He has been killed for the impious.”
-“The Rule of Faith [62]”

 

[Radical]

How does the Bible make it clear that these words of Christ are not picture language?
Christ’s words in the Sacrament must be taken at face value especially because

1. these words are the words of a testament, and even an ordinary person’s last will and testament may not be changed once that person has died;
   see 1 Cor. 111:25 “This cup is the new covenant[testament] in My blood.”

Actually the words are not the words of a covenant…if they were, one should be able to look at the verse you quoted and see the words of a promise stated. The cup is presented in affrimation of a covenant. If you look at this bit that you quoted, it becomes easier to see;

Heb. 9:15-22;15 And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.16 For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must of necessity come in. 17 For a testament is of force, after men are dead: otherwise it is as yet of no strength, whilst the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 Saying: **This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you.**21 The tabernacle also and all the vessels of the ministry, in like manner, he sprinkled with blood. 22 And almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

The words of the first covenant are not contained at verse 20, instead they are the words which were read by Moses to the people.

Do Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament replace the bread and wine, so that the bread and wine are no longer there?
No, bread and wine remain in the sacrament. 1 Cor 11:26 Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

the Lutherans got this part right…they remain bread and wine.

1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

I do not see that the communion that is described here is achieved by way of a sacramental union.

It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard the Sacrament without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then by virtue of the words, it is truly Christ’s body and blood. What Christ’s lips say and speak, so it is. He can never lie or deceive (Titus 1:2).

It is true that Jesus wasn’t lying, but speaking figuratively is not lying. Jesus talked about raising the temple in 3 days after its destruction and his audience thought he was talking about the actual temple (and not his body). So if the declaration that “What Christ’s lips say and speak, so it is” means that Jesus’s must always be taken literally, then it is a very silly declaration.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical:

I believe anyone Christian reading these posts, clearly see that what I have presented deal with those things of the Spirit revealing eternal realities, where by it conflicts with your basic humane approach of the phyisical properties that deal with the “flesh”.

so what aspect is there to flesh other than the physical properties…again explain what aspect of Jesus’s body is present. Describe to me, in nice plain jargon-free language, what it is of the bread that changes so that it becomes flesh. Explain to me what exactly the substance of bread entails and then explain to me what exactly the substance of the body entails…simply using the term “substance” clarifies nothing.

Here’s a riddle that does not take us out of the realm of the topic;
God created man from dust and water, how? with his Word.

Yes exactly. First dust and water were present. Afterwards, flesh and blood were present. We can describe it as matter being present and with that matter possessing the qualities of dirt and water at the start. If we were there we could do a molecular analysis and verify that “dirt molecules” and water molecules were there at the start and that tissue and blood cells were present at the end…how does this remotely relate to your understanding of the Lord’s Supper where no such change occurs?

 

[Radical]

cont;
You cannot find one Christian saint that agrees with your symbolic Jesus,…

Tertullian calls the bread a figure of Christ’s body and Clement of Alexandria and Origen are in that same ballpark…but I am not saying that you won’t find ECFs that hold to a RP view…and as you get further (in years) from the origin, that view becomes more universal.

…ST. AUGUSTINE (Alt)
“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
-“Sermons”, [227, 21]
“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.
-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa
"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.
Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.
"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

I have seen all these quotes from Augustine before…and I have yet to see one where Augustine’s statement wrt bread and body cannot be understood figuratively. Regarding the command that you like to reference, this is what Augustine had to say:

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

At that point, Augustine is explaining when texts should be understood literally and when they should be understood figuratively. There is simply no issue on his view wrt to the command to eat Jesus’s flesh…in no uncertain terms he stated that it is a figure and is not to be taken literally. Once Augustine has made such a declaration one is required to look at the other things that he said, such as “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ” and ask how is that other thing can be reconciled with Augustine understanding that “to eat Christ’s flesh” is a figure. The obvious answer is that “that Bread…is the Body of Christ” is also a figure.

 

[mpjw2]

This is for those who deny the true literal presence of Christ how do you justify the following out of John 6

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.

Hi, I deny the true presence. I believe Jesus was spiritually talking about eating the bread and drinking His blood.

spiritual referexes are made throughout the bible…not just pertaining the “bread” of life

a spiritual reference is made about a door in Acts 14:27

“they opened the door of faith to the Gentiles”

I am sure you will agree this is not a physical door which was opened.

correct?

I believe the Gentiles had opened the “door” of their hearts and found faith in Jesus

Thank you and God bless

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;
Yes exactly. First dust and water were present. Afterwards, flesh and blood were present. We can describe it as matter being present and with that matter possessing the qualities of dirt and water at the start. If we were there we could do a molecular analysis and verify that “dirt molecules” and water molecules were there at the start and that tissue and blood cells were present at the end…how does this remotely relate to your understanding of the Lord’s Supper where no such change occurs?

Gabriel of 12;
Hello Radical;
What your physical properties and science stumble upon when God created the first Adam from mud takes place next which defies all your physical and science can ever give; Here it is; Genesis 1: 7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

You see it is the breathe, Spirit of God that gives life whereby the flesh (physical) means nothing but mud without the Spirit of God. If your looking for Physical properties according to the flesh, this cannot be achieved on this side of death from our 3 dimensional state that has no understanding of the Spiritual eternal realities because God is Spirit.

Now if your looking for a definition that can define God who is Spirit, then I suggest you have a talk with God. I can assure you of this although, that Jesus teaches signs and wonders will follow him. And there are countless recorded and unrecorded miracles and signs confirming Jesus true presence in his Eucharist.

There are a few biblical definitions that is required here when Jesus states “this is my body, This is my blood”. The first one is “body”, the second one is “presence” and “resurrection”. The body by biblical definition means the “Whole person” which consists of the body and the spirit, It does not mean body in contradiction to the spirit. This is what Jesus has given up for you and me. St. Paul states “He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit (meaning this one shares a new existence in the Holy Spirit) with him” (1Cor.6:17).

When we partake of the Sacred Host in the Eucharist it is Jesus himself that consumes us into himself where we become one with him and, through him, with the fellowship of our brethren. This is why in every Mass since the resurrection. Jesus whole person from a biblical definition is present body, blood soul and divinity in his Eucharist, to every people around the world in every age until he returns for his bride.

The Eucharist is the body, blood of Jesus Christ which becomes a bridge for humanity to commune with God our Father. For nothing goes before the Father except through the Son.

Resurrection means the body ceases to be confined to space and time (physical attributes describing what is limited) and that its capacity for communion remains and remains “open” who gives of himself for others. St. Ignatius of Antioch describes the Eucharist as “medicine of immortality”. This is the promise Jesus gives us; “who ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood” will have life eternal, a promise in his resurrection.

The term “Substance” is used to describe a reality that is not attaching itself to something we can touch or measure. These things remain manifestations of they truly are or consist of. We do not eat flesh as cannibals would do. Jesus is not there in the Eucharist as a piece of meat this is a stumbling block to those false disciples of Jesus. The “substance” is transformed from its fundamental basis of being, by What God himself has created. If I were to truly see you in person, all I would be looking at is dirt and water mixed, and God himself breathing his Life into you so that you may be a living being.

The resurrected Christ is more than just bread and wine he is “other” not of the same order. Jesus takes them higher and transforms them so that the Father is pleased with the Son and, makes himself present to all his people. This applies to the “new Creation” brought about by Jesus Christ of which the New Testament gives witness. When we are baptized into Jesus Christ, when we consume his Eucharist we become “partakers of his divinity” (2 Peter 1:4)

Transubstantiation removes humanity from ever making a god for himself. The Eucharist is not a symbol that unites a community to have something in common for ourselves, this becomes only a toy for man not a reality that becomes subject to change by men. What is happening here in transubstantiation is a transformation from bread (dust) and wine (water) into a resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ, that is why the Early Saints took the Eucharist to the sick. For the Lord is always given of himself to us in his presence of the Eucharist.

God answers with his presence in his Eucharist, for Jesus gives of himself in bodily form so that we can respond to his presence in body.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tertullian calls the bread a figure of Christ’s body and Clement of Alexandria and Origen are in that same ballpark…but I am not saying that you won’t find ECFs that hold to a RP view…and as you get further (in years) from the origin, that view becomes more universal.

Gabriel of 12;

As much as I love Tertullians writings which are very mystical, not to disqualify him, but he was very close to heresy. The others are debatable? What one must understand here about the Early Catholic Church Fathers is that by themselves they do not constituted the whole Catholic Church teachings, what makes the final say comes from Peter and the successors from the apostles unifed as one, here is your guaranteed that Christian teachings is withou error, no matter what ECF quotes, it will either agree with Peter (Pope) and the apostolic successors (Bishops in union with Peters chair) or it gets placed outside as opinion or heresy. Just for your information.

Radical;**
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.**

At that point, Augustine is explaining when texts should be understood literally and when they should be understood figuratively. There is simply no issue on his view wrt to the command to eat Jesus’s flesh…in no uncertain terms he stated that it is a figure and is not to be taken literally. Once Augustine has made such a declaration one is required to look at the other things that he said, such as “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ” and ask how is that other thing can be reconciled with Augustine understanding that “to eat Christ’s flesh” is a figure. The obvious answer is that “that Bread…is the Body of Christ” is also a figure.

Gabriel of 12;
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

You have to forgive me here Radical; but that is not St. Augustines interpretation; He is figuratively speaking about the suffering that Christians have a share of in his (Christ’s) body, just as Jesus Christ gave himsefl up for us through his wounded and crucified humanity, we are to do the same, using the “eat my flesh, drink my blood you have no life in you” quote referencing it to a “crime of vice” adding his emphasis on how Christians are to give up their life for another just as Christ gives us his life in the Eucharist.

Here is confrimation of St.Augustines mindset just before he converted to Roman Catholicism from his Platonic idealism views when he had a vision that spoke to him.
“Iam the bread of the strong, eat me! But you will not transform me and make me part of you; rather, I will transform you and make you part of me.” Augustine, confessioin, bk.7, 10:16

We cannot place into the minds of these Catholic Saints from their writings contrary to what they taught, believed, lived and practiced their Catholic Faith. Your interpretation lends ST. AUGUSTINE into heresy, which he was not, and that is why St. Augustine is a Catholic Saint, and Tertullian is not.

 

[mpjw2]

Hi all,

I am wondering if catholics believe they can be in the presence of Jesus without the holy Eucharist being present?

thank you

God bless

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi, I deny the true presence. I believe Jesus was spiritually talking about eating the bread and drinking His blood.

spiritual referexes are made throughout the bible…not just pertaining the “bread” of life

a spiritual reference is made about a door in Acts 14:27

“they opened the door of faith to the Gentiles”

I am sure you will agree this is not a physical door which was opened.

correct?

I believe the Gentiles had opened the “door” of their hearts and found faith in Jesus

Thank you and God bless

Gabriel of 12;
Be careful my friend on how you chose your words;
Matthew 10:32
14 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
33
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.

The door is a symbol to the entrance into the Kinddom of God and that door is through Jesus Christ himself.

Jesus did not say “This door is my body”? Jesus did say “This (bread) is my body”.

Can you give me one scripture from the bible that references the “Spirit” as something symbolic or a symbol thereof?

How do you define Jesus speaking “spiritually” when he speaks of the Spirit in the context of a person? John 15:26
"When the Advocate comes whom I will send 12 you from the Father, **the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. **27
And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.

To deny the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is to deny the Spirit who gives testimony of Jesus.

And God be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi all,

I am wondering if catholics believe they can be in the presence of Jesus without the holy Eucharist being present?

thank you

God bless

Gabriel of 12;
I as a Catholic believe that I can always find Jesus presence in the Eucharist. That said, it does not limit God to whom, whenever or wherever God wants to reveal himself. This I know because Jesus gave witness and testified with his life that “this bread and this cup” is truly his body, blood soul and divinity in his Eucharist.

By virtue of the Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ and testimony of the New Testament Saints, it is Jesus Christ who lives, and it is the Spirit of Jesus Christ that lives in me, beginning by virtue of my Christian baptism.

Peace be with you

 

[Radical]

Hi Gabriel of 12…thanks for your post, interesting stuff.

Gabriel of 12;
Hello Radical;
What your physical properties and science stumble upon when God created the first Adam from mud takes place next which defies all your physical and science can ever give; Here it is; Genesis 1: 7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

I would take this as actual breath…the movement of air caused by the breathing action of a living thing

You see it is the breathe, Spirit of God that gives life whereby the flesh (physical) means nothing but mud without the Spirit of God. If your looking for Physical properties according to the flesh, this cannot be achieved on this side of death from our 3 dimensional state that has no understanding of the Spiritual eternal realities because God is Spirit.

seems that you are suggesting a spiritual presence (which is rather like Calvin’s position) or an extra-dimensional presence which is something different from transubstantiation

And there are countless recorded and unrecorded miracles and signs confirming Jesus true presence in his Eucharist.

and there are countless miracles claimed by the other branches of Christianity (said to ratify their manner of worship which doesn’t involve a RP)

There are a few biblical definitions that is required here when Jesus states “this is my body, This is my blood”. The first one is “body”, the second one is “presence” and “resurrection”. The body by biblical definition means the “Whole person” which consists of the body and the spirit, It does not mean body in contradiction to the spirit.

If “body” means “body and spirit” then why do we find passages from Paul such as:
But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit

When we partake of the Sacred Host in the Eucharist it is Jesus himself that consumes us into himself where we become one with him and, through him, with the fellowship of our brethren.

I haven’t heard this before…is it a standard Catholic belief, or is it unique to you?

Resurrection means the body ceases to be confined to space and time (physical attributes describing what is limited) and that its capacity for communion remains and remains “open” who gives of himself for others.

I haven’t heard this before…is it a standard Catholic belief, or is it unique to you?

The term “Substance” is used to describe a reality that is not attaching itself to something we can touch or measure. These things remain manifestations of they truly are or consist of.

what does this mean…explain it to me as you would explain it to one of the children brought to Jesus. What is the “substance” of bread? What is the “substance” of a body (or of Jesus’s body in particular)?

We do not eat flesh as cannibals would do.

understood and agreed

The “substance” is transformed from its fundamental basis of being, …

What is “its fundamental basis of being”? That is simply more jargon. Please describe this “substance” thing with simple words and with enough detail so that I can be sure of what you are claiming.

If I were to truly see you in person, all I would be looking at is dirt and water mixed, and God himself breathing his Life into you so that you may be a living being.

but it wouldn’t be dirt and water…wouldn’t it at least be all the various organic molecules that make up a body? You have lost me…

 

[Radical]

You have to forgive me here Radical; but that is not St. Augustines interpretation;…

Here is the Source for the Augustine quote. It starts at Chapter 16/Paragraph 24. You should be able to see that what I said was accurate.

At Paragraph 13 Augustine had written:

*Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error. *