Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you.

  • Thread starter Thread starter donnyblake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not want anyone to chew their cabbage twice, so if this has been answered just let me know.

question from perspective of having no final view on this whatsoever. The closest Ive come is pedrigino and os luke helping me on things, I still havent finished that yet,but I will.

Please Ive read the previous posts, dont repeat, im not asking about tradition, or what the bible says

There is a question that nags me about this, and perhaps its my skeptic side, I dont know. But what exactly is the difference, between it being a symbol and believing it changes physically.

Both “sides” end in the same result, confession etc, so what does it matter, that it is believed to symbolise or believed to change

wondering, not as frusterated thanks to the others, but still trying to get a answer to this part. Almost afraid to ask, dont need more confusion. remember I have no solid opionion so please do not assume. I have only questions.
 
I do not want anyone to chew their cabbage twice, so if this has been answered just let me know.

question from perspective of having no final view on this whatsoever. The closest Ive come is pedrigino and os luke helping me on things, I still havent finished that yet,but I will.

Please Ive read the previous posts, dont repeat, im not asking about tradition, or what the bible says

There is a question that nags me about this, and perhaps its my skeptic side, I dont know. But what exactly is the difference, between it being a symbol and believing it changes physically.

Both “sides” end in the same result, confession etc, so what does it matter, that it is believed to symbolise or believed to change

wondering, not as frusterated thanks to the others, but still trying to get a answer to this part. Almost afraid to ask, dont need more confusion. remember I have no solid opionion so please do not assume. I have only questions.
The passage in Gospel of John about the Bread Discourse is a unique passage. It is the only passage in the Bible which Jesus insist that we eat his flesh and drink his blood, and had 70 disciple depart from him because of this difficult teaching. It is pretty clear that Jesus want us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Indeed there are metaphorical terms like when Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” But many times, he told the disciples, “My flesh is real food indeed, and my blood is real drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drink my blood will have eternal life.” Flesh is clearly repeated time and time again. The more Jesus insist in this, the more hard headed the 70 disciples became and left him and were no longer His disciples.

There is no symbolism in this passage and I find that the claim that the symbolic meaning of Eucharist is weak. There are strong cases to prove both in Scripture and the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers that Jesus intended for us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
 
What does it matter?

Real or Symbol?

Original or Fake?

Converse or knockoffs?

You can eat bread and drink wine anywhere.

There is only one place where you can eat the flesh of the Son of Man. And have eternal life within you. One ,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded and the Holy Spirit guides.

From C.S. Lewis :

Jesus said to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, not eat the flesh and understand.
 
No what Paul says is:

“Therefore whoever **eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord **unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

Again how could drinking simple wine and eating baked bread have anything to do with offending the BODY and BLOOD of the LORD?

Anything you are saying is not addressing this very clear teaching. If reading Christ’s own words in John 6 which are clearly and easily stated won’t change your mind then I won’t either.

Long before Christians could even read on a decent level Christian worship centered on the Eucharist. The Eucharist was (and still is according to all the Apostolic Churches.) the culmination of Christian worship. Christians didn’t just invent this or believe it for no reason, it was (and is documented) passed on by the Apostles themselves in the scriptures and writings of the early Church Fathers, and Christs very words. You owe it to yourself to investigate what the early Church believed on the matter.
Hey Lukewarm,

How then do you square your understanding of the Eucharist (thanksgiving) with that of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom?
  1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 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" (newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm)
    Also see St. Augustine’s Commentary on John 6 (Tractates 25-27)
6.] What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (says He) “do this in remembrance of Me.” ( Luke xxii. 19 .) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice (newadvent.org/fathers/240217.htm)).

Thanks
 
Mrs. Abott,

When I read St. Augustine’s entire commentary on the Bread of Life discourse (found at Newadvent.org, under Church Fathers, Tractates 25-27), I came to the same conclusion as you did. Other early Church Fathers that I have read put forth a similar, figurative understanding of the Bread of Life discourse as well.

Thanks.
Thank you for responding to me. 🙂 That’s what I was thinking but wanted to make sure before I opened a can of worms. 😛
I need to read more church history to better understand myself. :o
 
Thank you for responding to me. 🙂 That’s what I was thinking but wanted to make sure before I opened a can of worms. 😛
I need to read more church history to better understand myself. :o
You are more than welcome. There is a vast resource of early Christian writings at that web site.
Have a blessed weekend!
 
The passage in Gospel of John about the Bread Discourse is a unique passage. It is the only passage in the Bible which Jesus insist that we eat his flesh and drink his blood, and had 70 disciple depart from him because of this difficult teaching. It is pretty clear that Jesus want us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Indeed there are metaphorical terms like when Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” But many times, he told the disciples, “My flesh is real food indeed, and my blood is real drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drink my blood will have eternal life.” Flesh is clearly repeated time and time again. The more Jesus insist in this, the more hard headed the 70 disciples became and left him and were no longer His disciples.

There is no symbolism in this passage and I find that the claim that the symbolic meaning of Eucharist is weak. There are strong cases to prove both in Scripture and the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers that Jesus intended for us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
see Manny, (or anyone) please be nice this is a huge deal for me, taking chances with my heart here.

Manny, seriously from the bottom of my heart this drives me nuts. Ive all but avoided communion in the protestant churches Ive been in. dont even think I can count them on one hand. I went once at my friends catholic church and that was a huge decision for me, she said it was ok, so I did and oddly that was the last time. 😉

Then several yrs later I find out here I should not have done that but we seriously didnt know. The unfortunate part was I finally “felt better” about communion (remember my status on this so my terminology is off) but I actually felt right and now I find it was wrong. Im hoping you can imagine my frustration.

See I dont know how I arrived at it but I take the eat and drink damation so seriously I cant bring myself to do it, only a few times. And I understand the flesh and blood and could care less if Im called a cainnable. Thats my complete thoughts on it.

then I hear the symbolism and my skeptic says well it actually isnt flesh and blood when tested scientifically, (with exception of that preserved one) so in fact you are only believing it to be flesh and blood so what is the difference then between that and symbolism???

The thoughts and actions associated with both, examininig yourself etc are the same so then I think what does it really matter its the same diffference.

and it totally frusterates me that no one can answer** Why **it makes a difference, if the result is the same.

Thats as honest as it gets.
 
see Manny, (or anyone) please be nice this is a huge deal for me, taking chances with my heart here.

Manny, seriously from the bottom of my heart this drives me nuts. Ive all but avoided communion in the protestant churches Ive been in. dont even think I can count them on one hand. I went once at my friends catholic church and that was a huge decision for me, she said it was ok, so I did and oddly that was the last time. 😉

Then several yrs later I find out here I should not have done that but we seriously didnt know. The unfortunate part was I finally “felt better” about communion (remember my status on this so my terminology is off) but I actually felt right and now I find it was wrong. Im hoping you can imagine my frustration.

See I dont know how I arrived at it but I take the eat and drink damation so seriously I cant bring myself to do it, only a few times. And I understand the flesh and blood and could care less if Im called a cainnable. Thats my complete thoughts on it.

then I hear the symbolism and my skeptic says well it actually isnt flesh and blood when tested scientifically, (with exception of that preserved one) so in fact you are only believing it to be flesh and blood so what is the difference then between that and symbolism???

The thoughts and actions associated with both, examininig yourself etc are the same so then I think what does it really matter its the same diffference.

and it totally frusterates me that no one can answer** Why **it makes a difference, if the result is the same.

Thats as honest as it gets.
I think one key is that the passage (I Corinthians 11:28-30, I believe) makes no sense if we view the Eucharist as a symbol. Neither does Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic adoration which he wrote about (don’t have that reference handy, but perhaps someone else does). If it is a symbol alone, then adoration is idolatry, and it is not logical that partkaing of it unworthily would place one’s soul in peril. It also doesn’t make sense that Christ would allow so many to leave Him on account of John 6, if it were a parable alone. In short, making it a symbol makes no sense on any intellectual level–anyway you slice it.
 
see Manny, (or anyone) please be nice this is a huge deal for me, taking chances with my heart here.

Manny, seriously from the bottom of my heart this drives me nuts. Ive all but avoided communion in the protestant churches Ive been in. dont even think I can count them on one hand. I went once at my friends catholic church and that was a huge decision for me, she said it was ok, so I did and oddly that was the last time. 😉

Then several yrs later I find out here I should not have done that but we seriously didnt know. The unfortunate part was I finally “felt better” about communion (remember my status on this so my terminology is off) but I actually felt right and now I find it was wrong. Im hoping you can imagine my frustration.

See I dont know how I arrived at it but I take the eat and drink damation so seriously I cant bring myself to do it, only a few times. And I understand the flesh and blood and could care less if Im called a cainnable. Thats my complete thoughts on it.

then I hear the symbolism and my skeptic says well it actually isnt flesh and blood when tested scientifically, (with exception of that preserved one) so in fact you are only believing it to be flesh and blood so what is the difference then between that and symbolism???

The thoughts and actions associated with both, examininig yourself etc are the same so then I think what does it really matter its the same diffference.

and it totally frusterates me that no one can answer** Why **it makes a difference, if the result is the same.

Thats as honest as it gets.
I don’t think my post isn’t harsh here. I am merely stating the facts on the events why 70 disciples departed from Jesus after he told that they must eat His Flesh and Drink his Blood.

The problem that you cannot accept the Real Presence is because you are reading the passage through Protestant lenses.

I have study this passage for 2 yrs now, and read passages from the Apostolic Father like St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius (who were taught by St. John, the Apostle) the Real Presence of Jesus. The CC affirms it to this day.

To deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, is to say that St. John taught Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch error. John received this teaching from Jesus Christ himself, and he was taught in error then Jesus taught error.

I don’t buy the modern Protestant idea that when Jesus said that we must eat His Flesh and Drink is blood as a mere symbolic gesture. It isn’t.

Oh, I have a question for you. Why do you think the 70 Disciple left Jesus in John Chapter 6 verse 66?
 
I don’t think my post isn’t harsh here. I am merely stating the facts on the events why 70 disciples departed from Jesus after he told that they must eat His Flesh and Drink his Blood.

The problem that you cannot accept the Real Presence is because you are reading the passage through Protestant lenses.

I have study this passage for 2 yrs now, and read passages from the Apostolic Father like St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius (who were taught by St. John, the Apostle) the Real Presence of Jesus. The CC affirms it to this day.

To deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, is to say that St. John taught Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch error. John received this teaching from Jesus Christ himself, and he was taught in error then Jesus taught error.

I don’t buy the modern Protestant idea that when Jesus said that we must eat His Flesh and Drink is blood as a mere symbolic gesture. It isn’t.

Oh, I have a question for you. Why do you think the 70 Disciple left Jesus in John Chapter 6 verse 66?
Hey Manny,

Then what do you make of these quotes from St. Augustine & St. John Chrysostom?
  1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 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" (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16,24).
[6.] What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (says He) “do this in remembrance of Me.” ( Luke xxii. 19 .) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.

Read St. Augustine’s entire commentary on John 6 and let me know what you think.

Thanks
 
Manny to be clear I dont think your harsh, (know I and others have said so, but right now in this I know you are not) and this is the place you really shine btw thats why Im asking to “pick your brain” if you dont mind.

Im on the edge if you will but I have been so terrified of the topic, please reread my other post. Im not trying to argue, only understand, actually I think its something Jesus has stuck under my skin and it will bother me until I get it.

I can understand why the 70 left it seems harsh, and they didnt like the blood eating. Keep in mind Im good with that totally. I dont agree with them but I understand.

Im probably looking through protestant lense but its a foggy lense because even that I dont have straight, I feel like Im in between. Maybe if Singing or some others could help here I could understand the difference??
I have study this passage for 2 yrs now, and read passages from the Apostolic Father like St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius (who were taught by St. John, the Apostle) the Real Presence of Jesus.
and apparentely CS Lewis (my fav) does too. Ive heard of these other 2 as well, I probably know what some of they say, but cant come up with specifics. Which would explain my favoritism towards the Eucharist. Question, I could be “superstious” but the fact that the last time I took communion was in the Catholic church, (although wrong) nothing had felt right until then. So this is also why I get so insistant on unity, theres something going on in my head I dont know yet. So it hurts to know what finally felt right was a mistake, you see what I mean??

As for the symbolic the question earlier about that still plagues me and I wish I knew a answer of some sort :confused:
 
Hey Manny,

Then what do you make of these quotes from St. Augustine & St. John Chrysostom?
  1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 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" (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16,24).
I need to see the entire passage to further see what the Augustine says.
[6.] What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (says He) “do this in remembrance of Me.” ( Luke xxii. 19 .) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.
Read St. Augustine’s entire commentary on John 6 and let me know what you think.
These is nothing symbolic in it.
 
Hey Manny,

Then what do you make of these quotes from St. Augustine & St. John Chrysostom?
Actually St. Augustine didn’t say anything symbolic about the passage.

If you read the entire passage.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

John Chrysostom also said this:

What is that He says? He either desires to declare that this is the true meat which saves the soul, or to assure them concerning what had been said, that they might not suppose the words to be a mere enigma or parable, but might know that it is by all means needful to eat the Body. Then He says, when he commented on John 6:55 Ver. 55 . “For My flesh is true meat, and My blood is true drink.”

No symbolism at all.

newadvent.org/fathers/240147.htm
 
Manny to be clear I dont think your harsh, (know I and others have said so, but right now in this I know you are not) and this is the place you really shine btw thats why Im asking to “pick your brain” if you dont mind.

Im on the edge if you will but I have been so terrified of the topic, please reread my other post. Im not trying to argue, only understand, actually I think its something Jesus has stuck under my skin and it will bother me until I get it.

I can understand why the 70 left it seems harsh, and they didnt like the blood eating. Keep in mind Im good with that totally. I dont agree with them but I understand.

Im probably looking through protestant lense but its a foggy lense because even that I dont have straight, I feel like Im in between. Maybe if Singing or some others could help here I could understand the difference??

and apparentely CS Lewis (my fav) does too. Ive heard of these other 2 as well, I probably know what some of they say, but cant come up with specifics. Which would explain my favoritism towards the Eucharist. Question, I could be “superstious” but the fact that the last time I took communion was in the Catholic church, (although wrong) nothing had felt right until then. So this is also why I get so insistant on unity, theres something going on in my head I dont know yet. So it hurts to know what finally felt right was a mistake, you see what I mean??

As for the symbolic the question earlier about that still plagues me and I wish I knew a answer of some sort :confused:
All I can say is seek if the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Does it bear any truth at all. You can look at the writings of the Apostolic Father, and ECF. I also recommend to look at Eastern Orthodox view as well. They acknowledge Real Presence but don’t use the word the Catholic do. They acknowledge that the Eucharist is Jesus at the blessed alter.

I leave the rest to God through prayer. He will enlighten you.
 
Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you!

Hmmm I wonder what is Count Dracula’s relation to Jesus Christ?
 
All I can say is seek if the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Does it bear any truth at all. You can look at the writings of the Apostolic Father, and ECF. I also recommend to look at Eastern Orthodox view as well. They acknowledge Real Presence but don’t use the word the Catholic do. They acknowledge that the Eucharist is Jesus at the blessed alter.

I leave the rest to God through prayer. He will enlighten you.
Thank you Manny, I really appreciate help in this area.

would St. Augustine & St. John Chrysostom you posted links above be a place to start??

also the Eastern I see they have a section on the forms, should I go there? or is that not what you meant?

I also have a doc from Methodist that doesnt use “Catholic” words but seems similar. still going through that.

I have this feeling I have homework to do, and Im not getting out of it 😉

ps if you happen to think later of anything else, let me know

and if anyone else has a idea Id be very happy to hear it, especially if my earlier question, you get what my dilema is.
 
Are there any practical benefits to eating Jesus? Does it reduce stress, improve health, make catholics more humane, increase intelligence, spark creativity, what? Or does it just make you feel good for 1 hour?
 
Actually St. Augustine didn’t say anything symbolic about the passage.

If you read the entire passage.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

John Chrysostom also said this:

What is that He says? He either desires to declare that this is the true meat which saves the soul, or to assure them concerning what had been said, that they might not suppose the words to be a mere enigma or parable, but might know that it is by all means needful to eat the Body. Then He says, when he commented on John 6:55 Ver. 55 . “For My flesh is true meat, and My blood is true drink.”

No symbolism at all.

newadvent.org/fathers/240147.htm
Hey Manny,

You’ve read the following commentaries by St. Augustine, and you don’t believe that they speak of a symbolic and figurative understanding of the Bread of Life discourse?

“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:”.

“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food”.

St. Augustine also says, " “This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth."

“In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth],”

“Just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him; that is, by receiving Himself as the eternal life” and “The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally”.

In Tractate 27.3 St. Augustine continues, " “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting".

Thanks
 
Are there any practical benefits to eating Jesus? Does it reduce stress, improve health, make catholics more humane, increase intelligence, spark creativity, what? Or does it just make you feel good for 1 hour?
Its a sharing thing at its basic. Im still figuring it out. Its to do with ones relationship with Him.

I figure it probably could reduce stress, because you are one with your creator 😃
 
Hey Manny,

You’ve read the following commentaries by St. Augustine, and you don’t believe that they speak of a symbolic and figurative understanding of the Bread of Life discourse?

“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:”.

“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food”.

St. Augustine also says, " “This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth."

“In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth],”

“Just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him; that is, by receiving Himself as the eternal life” and “The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally”.

In Tractate 27.3 St. Augustine continues, " “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting".

Nope. Even in our Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest say:

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

All: Blessed be God for ever.

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

All: Blessed be God for ever.

Even though the Presentation of the Gift, the word spiritual is used. Yet by no means this means symbolic because in the concretion when the lay the host above the alter and announced the words of consecration. It becomes Jesus.

Second, Augustine is a Catholic Bishop. Since the beginning of Catholicism, he knows well enough that it is not symbolic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top