Why I left Mormonism and didn't become a Protestant --the Eucharist

[Radical]

I have to admit that I haven’t seen any arguments here against the Real Presence that really stand up against the evidence of the New Testament.

fair enough…I guess that demonstates the effects of are respective biases…I haven’t seen anything on this thread that addresses the substance of my posts. If someone wants to believe in something badly enough, he’ll find a way to do so…that is true for both you and me.

 

[Catholic20064]

fair enough…I guess that demonstates the effects of are respective biases…I haven’t seen anything on this thread that addresses the substance of my posts. If someone wants to believe in something badly enough, he’ll find a way to do so…that is true for both you and me.

Your quotes from Augustine are a perfect example of why I tend to rely more on scripture than the early church fathers. It’s one of the reasons I don’t get too excited about whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin. The scriptures couldn’t be more clear than they are regarding the Real Presence.

 

[Radical]

The scriptures couldn’t be more clear than they are regarding the Real Presence.

With respect, I think you need to give your head a good shake on this one. Only 57% American Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 43% hold that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present. What you think is so very clear has a hard time holding on to even half of the Catholics. As such, I would venture to say that more than half of the world’s 2 billion identified Christians do not hold to your view wrt a real bodily presence. They don’t interpret scripture as you do…given the sheer numbers involved, you should be able to figure out that the clarity that you think exists is an animal of your subjectivity. Only a small percentage of that billion plus would take the position that “I think that the scriptures clearly teach a RBP, but I shall reject both the clarity of scripture and a RBP”. On the contrary, it is exactly b/c they value scripture over Catholic/Orthodox tradition that many Protestants reject what you think is clear and hold to what they think scripture clearly teaches, namely a memorialistic understanding.

Earlier you offered this:

I can’t see why Protestant fundamentalists reject the teaching of the Real Presence other than they don’t want to accept anything that might be identified with what they commonly call Popery.

It doesn’t require a desire to avoid Popery to reject your understanding of the Lord’s Supper in the scriptures. I didn’t even know that a person called the Pope existed before I had heard the institution verses read a hundred times…and not once did it occur to me that a figurative meaning was anything but obvious.

 

[Nicea325]

With respect, I think you need to give your head a good shake on this one. Only 57% American Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 43% hold that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present. What you think is so very clear has a hard time holding on to even half of the Catholics. As such, I would venture to say that more than half of the world’s 2 billion identified Christians do not hold to your view wrt a real bodily presence. They don’t interpret scripture as you do…given the sheer numbers involved, you should be able to figure out that the clarity that you think exists is an animal of your subjectivity. Only a small percentage of that billion plus would take the position that “I think that the scriptures clearly teach a RBP, but I shall reject both the clarity of scripture and a RBP”. On the contrary, it is exactly b/c they value scripture over Catholic/Orthodox tradition that many Protestants reject what you think is clear and hold to what they think scripture clearly teaches, namely a memorialistic understanding.

Earlier you offered this:

It doesn’t require a desire to avoid Popery to reject your understanding of the Lord’s Supper in the scriptures. I didn’t even know that a person called the Pope existed before I had heard the institution verses read a hundred times…and not once did it occur to me that a figurative meaning was anything but obvious.

Only 57% American Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 43% hold that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present. What you think is so very clear has a hard time holding on to even half of the Catholics.

And their lack of belief does not prove it is false. One must have faith in order to understand,not have an understanding before having faith.

 

[Radical]

And their lack of belief does not prove it is false.

agreed…but when a good chunk of those who reject a RBP also hold to the authority and inerrancy of scripture, that reality sure speaks to the obvious subjectivity of Catholic20064’s claim that “The scriptures couldn’t be more clear than they are regarding the Real Presence.” Millions upon millions think that the scriptures make it clear that no real bodily presence is involved.

 

[Mike2010]

With respect, I think you need to give your head a good shake on this one. Only 57% American Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 43% hold that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present. What you think is so very clear has a hard time holding on to even half of the Catholics. As such, I would venture to say that more than half of the world’s 2 billion identified Christians do not hold to your view wrt a real bodily presence. They don’t interpret scripture as you do…given the sheer numbers involved, you should be able to figure out that the clarity that you think exists is an animal of your subjectivity. Only a small percentage of that billion plus would take the position that “I think that the scriptures clearly teach a RBP, but I shall reject both the clarity of scripture and a RBP”. On the contrary, it is exactly b/c they value scripture over Catholic/Orthodox tradition that many Protestants reject what you think is clear and hold to what they think scripture clearly teaches, namely a memorialistic understanding.

Earlier you offered this:

It doesn’t require a desire to avoid Popery to reject your understanding of the Lord’s Supper in the scriptures. I didn’t even know that a person called the Pope existed before I had heard the institution verses read a hundred times…and not once did it occur to me that a figurative meaning was anything but obvious.

On top of what Nicea said, a lot of Catholics are very uncatechised. I bet if I asked most of my friends that went through Catholic school if they even heard of a possiblility of it actually being Christ, they would say no.

I know for a fact a few Catholics who were startled when I said that the Eucharist was actually Christ’s body and blood - they hadn’t even heard that before.

I didn’t even know until after college and I did my own research. I’m positive the % of Catholics who believe in the RP would be a lot higher if they were actually taught the RP. That is the fault of us Catholics.

 

[Catholic20064]

With respect, I think you need to give your head a good shake on this one. Only 57% American Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. 43% hold that the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present. What you think is so very clear has a hard time holding on to even half of the Catholics. As such, I would venture to say that more than half of the world’s 2 billion identified Christians do not hold to your view wrt a real bodily presence. They don’t interpret scripture as you do…given the sheer numbers involved, you should be able to figure out that the clarity that you think exists is an animal of your subjectivity. Only a small percentage of that billion plus would take the position that “I think that the scriptures clearly teach a RBP, but I shall reject both the clarity of scripture and a RBP”. On the contrary, it is exactly b/c they value scripture over Catholic/Orthodox tradition that many Protestants reject what you think is clear and hold to what they think scripture clearly teaches, namely a memorialistic understanding.

Earlier you offered this:

It doesn’t require a desire to avoid Popery to reject your understanding of the Lord’s Supper in the scriptures. I didn’t even know that a person called the Pope existed before I had heard the institution verses read a hundred times…and not once did it occur to me that a figurative meaning was anything but obvious.

If 99 percent of Catholics rejected it it wouldn’t make any difference. Jesus said it so I believe it. If there are Protestants and Catholics who have a lack of faith in what Jesus clearly taught they need to look at Jesus’ words a little more seriously.

 

[JeanMichel]

On top of what Nicea said, a lot of Catholics are very uncatechised. I bet if I asked most of my friends that went through Catholic school if they even heard of a possiblility of it actually being Christ, they would say no.

I know for a fact a few Catholics who were startled when I said that the Eucharist was actually Christ’s body and blood - they hadn’t even heard that before.

I didn’t even know until after college and I did my own research. I’m positive the % of Catholics who believe in the RP would be a lot higher if they were actually taught the RP. That is the fault of us Catholics.

Hello Mike, one of the great teachings of the Catholic Church, as you have stated, is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. To me, Eucharistic Adoration, is applicable to all Christianity regardless of their respective beliefs in the Eucharist. The Catholic Church sets an example that all may learn from. The Holiness of Christ, the degree of worship that is held every time the mass is held, the joy of taking Christ into the hearts and lives of all those present, etc. The lessons that could be learned are endless.

You address another issue, that of the learning of members, particularly the young, of the teachings of the Church. This is as much the responsibility of parents as it is the Church itself. Spiritual instruction begins at home. Preparing for the Eucharist should be a family and communal affair. This should be a topic discussed weekly in the home so that each family member gains a deep understanding of the Eucharist and is able to comfortably share that knowledge with others.

 

[Nicea325]

agreed…but when a good chunk of those who reject a RBP also hold to the authority and inerrancy of scripture, that reality sure speaks to the obvious subjectivity of Catholic20064’s claim that “The scriptures couldn’t be more clear than they are regarding the Real Presence.” Millions upon millions think that the scriptures make it clear that no real bodily presence is involved.

And has it ever crossed your mind that those millions upon millions are also wrong? Millions upon millions are exactly like the Jews who walked away when Jesus was teaching them about the Eucharist. I find amazing how so many were so highly offended by mere symbolic language used by Jesus as so many claim.

Millions upon millions can also argue Jesus never really walked on water…does it make them right?

Again,one must have faith to understand,as oppose to understanding in order to have faith.

 

[joe370]

Radical, you said:

Sure. It’ll take some time, but I’ll give you a bit of a taste of what I have seen in the ECFs and I’ll start with one that always ruffles a few feathers.

First, as late as the start of the 5th century we find that Augustine of Hippo did not hold to a real bodily presence. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence (RBP) is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. Show me where he makes his case? Let us compare actual quotes from Augustine with that of the opinion of this biographer; that’s seems fair doesn’t it? Again, I tried to relate but you make it very difficult:

*What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or** rather what is contained in the chalice,** is, sanctified by the word of God,** the blood of Christ.** {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ **bore Himself in His hands, **when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

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. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. . . **and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation **. . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

**The very first heresy was formulated **when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}
Continued…

 

[joe370]

In Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who viewed the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasted this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”

Please, cite Augustine! Lot’s of people in the CC doubt the real presence but that doesn’t make it so my friend, and citing Edward Kilmartin S.J. doesn’t either.

I have discussed Augustine’s position on the Eucharist at length in these forums (in a number of threads). The predictable response from the Catholics is that someone will link to some “Augustine believed in the Real Presence” blogs…others will do the usual copy and paste job (of what, on the surface, look like passages that support a RBP) …a fellow by the name of Pneuma07 is an exception to rule and will present a good analysis. What seems to be lost on most Catholic posters is that van der Meer, Wills and Kilmartin will have actually read and studied Sermons 227 and 272, Expositions on the Psalms 98/99 and 33/34 and yet, they still have concluded that Augustine was not an advocate of a somatic real presence. The Catholics posters should ask themselves how these scholars (who have studied Augustine) could have missed what seems so obvious to the Catholic poster. Could it be that the Catholic poster has let his bias cloud his understanding? In any event, for my purposes, I only need to show the OPster why I believe that the Catholic are wrong in holding to a RBP. I can take comfort in the knowledge that accomplished Catholic (I think all 3 are catholic) scholars side with me in holding that Augustine didn’t support a RBP. For all those who want to claim that the Church has always believed in a RBP, it is more than a little problematic to find that at ca. 400 AD the RBP “was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.”

That’s all great but it would be a lot more convincing to prove your case, by going directly to the source, which is Augustine himself, just as I as I did. You have yet to show this poster why you believe that the Catholic is wrong in holding to a RBP. You said, “others will do the usual copy and paste job…” Copying and pasting actual quotes of Augustine is not good enough for you? Well that is a first.

Could it be that you have let your bias cloud your understanding? We all have them from time to time. You want me to defer to someone like Edward Kilmartin S.J., a RC theologian, instead of Augustine, another RC theologian, who you are suggesting makes your case?

If you are going to use Augustine as your proof-text then please, **use Augustine. **

 

[Radical]

Please, cite Augustine!

It would seem that your keen powers of observation failed you and that you missed post #39 altogether.

Copying and pasting actual quotes of Augustine is not good enough for you?

that’s right…I expect that if someone wants to claim that Augustine believed X based on sermon 272, then that person should have actually read sermon 272 in its entirety. One should understand the copied bit in the context of the whole sermon. Did you know that about half way through Sermon 272 Augustine asks and then answers the question, “So how can bread be his body?” His answer has nothing to do with a bodily presence achieved by means of transubstantiation. Nothing.

I doubt that you have read more than a sentence from sermon 272 and I have come to the conclusion that I have better things to do with my time than to try and walk you through Augustine’s works on the Eucharist.

 

[Snerticus]

I also think that the historical record shows that their view was not held by the church at the very start. I’ll let you tell me if you want greater detail wrt any of those matters. Cheers.

According to our theologians the early Church Fathers did have the same view. So I’m wondering wich documents you are referring to? Do you mind sharing those with us?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical, you are forcing an unknown interpretation into one of the worlds greatest Christian minds ever lived. For one Augustine is a Catholic Saint who gives us a tremendous understanding of the doctrine of biblical Sacramental mystical understandings.

If you can define Augustine’s understanding and definition of a sacrament when reading his material, you will find he is explicit in the Real presence of Jesus body and blood in the sacrament. What you misinterpret from your sources is not Augustine giving his thesis on the true presence, but unrelated subject matters that Augustine uses sacramental (signs) terms to elevate his audiences minds from a carnal understanding raised into a spiritual reality. Which you misinterpret to discredit his faith in the True presence of Jesus Christ.

The problem I always see when Orthodoxy who refuse communion their own Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with the Pope, try and quote Augustine’s enlightened understandings which they try to understand with a protestant mindset never a Catholic understanding, which finds protestants views and not Catholic understanding of which Augustine is a canonized Catholic Saint. Yet you and other anti-catholic sentiments wish to relabel ST. Augustine as a heretic or apostate, from your misinterpretations?

Grant it, the word “Transubstantiation” was not used to clarify the True presence of Jesus body and blood, but the Early Church Fathers, yet both Eastern and Western including Augustine records such an Apostolic teaching of the True presence, when they do address the True presence of the blessed sacrament.

When you begin taking Augustine’s words out of context when they are never addressing the true presence in subject matter makes me question your interpretation of your sources not the sources themselves. Could it be you may have neglected to read the prefaces of your sources, in dealing with Augustine’s historical (pagan) background understanding before converting to Catholicism from his biographies? and then confuse these biographical pagan understandings of Augustine with his Catholicism?

I need not challenge your misinterpretations here from your sources. So I will leave you with ST.Augustine’s sermon.No 227

“**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, consecrated by the word of Gd, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents (a word defined by Transubstantiation today) the Lord wished to entrust to us His body and the Blood which HE poured out for the remission of sins. If you have received worthily, you are what you received”…

… parentheses mine, Augustine uses the same terminology Paul uses “worthily” in receiving the body and blood of Jesus, How can one receive worthily of the bread and wine on the altar if it is not the true body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Show me a teaching when Augustine is addressing the True presence in context where he denies the true presence, do not take out of context of his other teachings when he (Augustine) uses examples or terminology of the true presence or sacraments to prove a point in deciphering what is carnal and what is spiritual. To do the latter is not addressing the topic at hand nor does it address specifically St. Augustine’s real teaching and belief in the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist.

Peace be with you

 

[joe370]

It would seem that your keen powers of observation failed you and that you missed post #39 altogether.

that’s right…I expect that if someone wants to claim that Augustine believed X based on sermon 272, then that person should have actually read sermon 272 in its entirety. One should understand the copied bit in the context of the whole sermon. Did you know that about half way through Sermon 272 Augustine asks and then answers the question, “So how can bread be his body?” His answer has nothing to do with a bodily presence achieved by means of transubstantiation. Nothing.

Sermon 272:

I doubt that you have read more than a sentence from sermon 272 and I have come to the conclusion that I have better things to do with my time than to try and walk you through Augustine’s works on the Eucharist.

You ignore all those quotes I presented and then say, I doubt that you have read more than a sentence from sermon 272

“…So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, **these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. **What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit.

I think this is well said!

But you have all of the time in the world to walk through the expositions of theologians claiming to know what Augustine believed instead of reading exact quotes from the man himself? Clearly no one is ever gonna change your mind. I am not someone claiming that Augustine believed X based on sermon 272. I am actually using all of his quotes and drawing my conclusion based on the whole of his quotes instead of simply cherry picking one or 2, but I guess that is not good enough for you. Different strokes for different folks. I too, as a former protestant, was now convinced from scripture, (mostly due to my personal bias) - that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view was correct, but that all changed when I began to study the views of the earliest Christians on the Eucharist. From the time of the Apostles onward, the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and in the Eucharist as the New Covenant sacrifice was believed. Brother, you believe what you want to believe but you are not gonna change the minds of anyone here at this thread.

If you don’t mind me asking, why are here? I came here long ago to learn about the catholic faith. Are you here to nudge those on the fence Christians, away from what the CC teaches?

 

[Radical]

And has it ever crossed your mind that those millions upon millions are also wrong?

Of course it has…one way or the other, millions upon millions of Christians are wrong on this issue. When Christianity is divided with hundreds of millions on each side of this question, I have had to come to the realization that there are millions of Christians on the other side (who believe in a real bodily presence) who are:

a) much smarter than I am

b) better qualified to interpret the passages in question; and

c) have a much better spiritual relationship with God.

And if I was on your side of this issue, I would have come to the realization that there will be millions of Christians on the other side (who do not believe in a real bodily presence) who are:

a) much smarter than I am:

b) better qualified to interpret the passages in question;

c) have a much better spiritual relationship with God:

d) are better catechized than I could ever hope to be;

e) have treated the question much more seriously than I ever will; and

f) have a greater faith than I ever will.

I find amazing how so many were so highly offended by mere symbolic language used by Jesus as so many claim.

I have answered this again and again…it was a confusing symbol that involved a vulgar and grossly sinful act…but I suppose if you can’t view the matter from the sandals of a 1st century conservative Jew, you’ll never figure it out.

Millions upon millions can also argue Jesus never really walked on water…does it make them right?

well as soon as you have those millions pointing to a stick of wood floating on oil and claiming that it is really Jesus walking on water …we’ll consider the validity of the claim.

 

[Radical]

Radical, you are forcing an unknown interpretation into one of the worlds greatest Christian minds ever lived.

yep, except that the interpretation isn’t unknown….it is known and taught by the experts as being the interpretation that properly describes Augustine’s view.

For one Augustine is a Catholic Saint ….

Labeling Augustine as a Catholic doesn’t give you the power to determine Augustine’s view…you have to actually use his works.

Yet you and other anti-catholic sentiments wish to relabel ST. Augustine as a heretic or apostate, from your misinterpretations?

I wouldn’t call him a heretic b/c he didn’t hold the same view as you….I would conclude that you have added an innovation

When you begin taking Augustine’s words out of context ….

well, let’s see who is taking Augustine’s words out of context. Here is my challenge for you…start a new thread on Augustine’s Sermon 227 and provide a link to it here on this thread. Post the whole sermon on that thread. Let me repeat that. The whole sermon, not a mere sentence or two. Use a proper translation (ie not one that inserts a word like “accidents”). From there we will see if there is a crumb of validity in your claim that Augustine is explicit in stating a true presence.

I need not challenge your misinterpretations here from your sources. So I will leave you with ST.Augustine’s sermon.No 227

“**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, consecrated by the word of Gd, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents (a word defined by Transubstantiation today) the Lord wished to entrust to us His body and the Blood which HE poured out for the remission of sins. If you have received worthily, you are what you received”…

you keep missing the obvious…Augustine states that “you are what you received"…In other words, he is saying that the recipients become the body of Christ. He is using “body of Christ” to mean the church. The bread and the wine symbolize the Church and Augustine explains why they make such good symbols. The next two sentences read:

You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor. 10.17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.

The many worthy participants become the one body of Christ (aka the unifed church)

BTW, what word has been translated as “accidents” and why was that done? …I haven’t see “accidents” used by any other translator.

Show me a teaching when Augustine is addressing the True presence in context where he denies the true presence…

That is just it…according to those historians I keep referring to, a real bodily presence was not contemplated at Carthage at that time. I think the closest we can come is when Augustine critiques carnal and literal views.

…do not take out of context of his other teachings when he (Augustine) uses examples or terminology of the true presence or sacraments to prove a point in deciphering what is carnal and what is spiritual.

So if one wants to understand if Augustine held to a real bodily presence then one shouldn’t look at a passage that explains how Augustine understood the requirement of eating Christ’s flesh? …or if one wants to understand how Augustine viewed the elements of the Lord’s Supper (ie as having undergone transubstantiation or not etc), then one shouldn’t look at a passage that explains how Augustine understood those elements (as signs and not as the things they signified)? It seems that you simply want to disqualify any passage that you can’t explain away, ….but we could look at that in more detail on the new thread.

Cheers.

 

[Radical]

If you don’t mind me asking, why are here?

in these forums…cuz there is the odd guy that one can learn from…in this thread, b/c Catholic20064 asked for an explanation from a non-catholic.

]

 

[Nicea325]

Of course it has…one way or the other, millions upon millions of Christians are wrong on this issue. When Christianity is divided with hundreds of millions on each side of this question, I have had to come to the realization that there are millions of Christians on the other side (who believe in a real bodily presence) who are:

a) much smarter than I am

b) better qualified to interpret the passages in question; and

c) have a much better spiritual relationship with God.

And if I was on your side of this issue, I would have come to the realization that there will be millions of Christians on the other side (who do not believe in a real bodily presence) who are:

a) much smarter than I am:

b) better qualified to interpret the passages in question;

c) have a much better spiritual relationship with God:

d) are better catechized than I could ever hope to be;

e) have treated the question much more seriously than I ever will; and

f) have a greater faith than I ever will.

I have answered this again and again…it was a confusing symbol that involved a vulgar and grossly sinful act…but I suppose if you can’t view the matter from the sandals of a 1st century conservative Jew, you’ll never figure it out.

well as soon as you have those millions pointing to a stick of wood floating on oil and claiming that it is really Jesus walking on water …we’ll consider the validity of the claim.

Precisely why millions upon millions teach it is only a symbol. And why? Because they know better due to the fact they are smarter? How silly to truly believe for centuries everyone was in the dark and confused as to what Jesus’ truly said and meant? Now centuries later finite creatures have it straight because they are ‘smater’ and more educated,hence those gullible Christians believed the Real Presence? What arrogance! All these self-made theologians of today is pure insanity.

A confusing symbol? Indeed, you who is separated 2,000 years from Jesus knows for a fact Jesus’ only meant it as a symbol?

 

[joe370]

in these forums…cuz there is the odd guy that one can learn from…in this thread, b/c Catholic20064 asked for an explanation from a non-catholic.

]

Are you referring to yourself as the “odd guy” from which one can learn truth?