BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Sir (or ma'am), you've lost the debate. Flooding the board with repeated arguments filled with the usual poor logic and reasoning isn't helping you. The apostles CLEARLY did not believe Jesus was being literal, otherwise they would not have prohibited Christians from drinking blood in Acts 15. Any honest, rational, intelligent person sees this. And that's just ONE of the undeniable arguments against your view. The views of the early church fathers were wide and varied about the "Real Presence", and they didn't mean transubstantiation necessarily. Augustine CLEARLY believed it to be a symbol:
"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."
(Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.))
St. Augustine is saying that YOU understood it foolishly, just like the disciples who left Jesus. He's saying that YOU are the one who is hard (of heart), rather than the saying. At this point, you're in denial of what's plainly in front of everyone's eyes. I don't think I could convince you that the sky is blue even if I showed you at this point. You're brainwashed. But I'm glad that you continually engage, because it allows the opportunity to expose exactly this about the Roman Catholic Church.
What is sad is that you believe that this is your slam dunk argument. In fact, it actually PROVES the Catholic case for the Real Presence.
What Augustine is saying is that "people foolishly believed that that had to physically tear pieces of Jesus' body and eat it." That is cannibalism. That's not what Jesus meant. You are so blinded by your misunderstanding that you can't get it. Look at what Augustine says about that same hard saying -
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)
He calls it the first heresy.
Augustine, time and time again, defends the Real Presence:
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)
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. (Sermons, 234, 2; on p. 31)
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. (Sermons, 272; on p. 32)
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)
Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the
Son of God was that Eucharist. (
Denis , 3, 3; on p. 66)
It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a
Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. (
Ep. 54, 8; on p. 71)
I could MANY more, but I can only hope one day that you will get the point.
These quotes absolutely show that Augustine believed in the Real Presence.
Seriously ask yourself what's more reasonable concerning his believes (not whether they were true or not, but what did HE believe) - giving the preponderance Real Presence evidence or your two misunderstood quotes claiming "symbol-alone."
Your post demonstrates that you continually
read the words without looking at or trying to understand the entire context of a person's work. It appears to that you see words that sound favorable to your point while failing to grasp the entire meaning. This is very evident with the way you have built your theology on single passages of the bible.
When did the Catholic Church first believe in the Real Presence?
