BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What's "laughable" is your attempt to hide from the fact that you couldn't produce ONE best argument from any of those videos that we can discuss, so that I could perhaps show you. "Misrepresenting" Wes Huff's points wasn't what I said. I specifically said, which anyone can read above, that RC apologists have to engage in dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning to defend against Wes' points. Your poor reading and comprehension rears its ugly head again.

---

Dude, your bias is showing.

Trent sent his entire script to Wes BEFORE he made his response video to ensure that he DID NOT misrepresent using "dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning" on any of Wes' points.

Wes provided him with some changes. Trent's response is reflective of Wes' comments. In other words, Wes even agrees that Trent was not dishonest.

You don't accept their reasoning, so you call it dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning. Why do you get to be the arbiter of these points?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's sad that you can't or won't understand this.


You: "If you'd like to discuss a "Wes" point... I'm happy to discuss one at a time".
I'm the one who challenged YOU to produce a point against Wes, any ONE, from those videos. Why are you ducking the challenge, and then turning it around to me to have to give a point to discuss? Do you not know what you're doing? Do you think it really works this way? Why not just admit that you probably didn't even watch those videos, OR Wes Huff's, or you didn't understand them?

---

I did not watch all the videos. I listened to them on Podcasts when they were released. Joe and Trent are on my regular weekly cycle. I rarely make time to watch videos. I prefer to listen to podcasts.

So, you are saying that you watched (listened) to all three apologists, and you found all of their points dishonest, inaccurate, and poorly reasoned?

What does that say about you? Joe and Trent are two of the brightest Catholic apologists and authors today.

All three had some overlapping agreements between them. They each produced their responses independently, but they found similar disagreements in Wes' video.

BTW, Dr. Karlo Brousaud just released his weekly podcast today which I will listen to in the next few days. It is another rational, well-thought out refutation of his "6 reasons."

I'm not ducking anything. We can discuss the fallacy of sufficiency of scripture, if you'd like.

Quote:

---

When Seeburg writes that the Carolingian-period theologians as Augustinians were fond of "presenting it as a memorial and a symbol," he is describing a 9th-century (not ancient Church) theological tendency, specifically among certain medieval theologians who drew heavily on Augustine's sacramental language of signum (sign) and res (reality).

Augustine's language of sign and symbol does not mean "mere symbol" in the modern sense. For Augustine, a sacramental sign is efficacious it truly effects what it signifies. When Carolingian Augustinians spoke symbolically, many were not denying Real Presence but trying to articulate it in Augustinian philosophical categories. The debate was largely semantic and philosophical, not a flat denial of Christ's presence.

---

Winner Winner! Chicken Dinner!

The issue for this debate has always been that word "symbol" has evolved over the past 1500 years to have a different meaning today. That is why the strong (overwhelming?) consensus of scholars do not see Augustine as denying the real presence in the Eucharist and why the rest of his sermons/statements around the sacrament can be reconciled. If the chalice carries an empty symbol, then Augustine would have never called it sacred....

Just as important, I read Augustine words and I hear something that is very at home in the modern Catholic Church. Your bishop could deliver an extremely similar message to First Communicants and every practicing Catholic in the pews would be nodding along...

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're either being dishonest, or once again your poor comprehension is rearing its ugly head.

Do you not understand what a motte-and-bailey fallacy is? Because that's what you're consistently doing with your "Real Presence" argument. You're constantly referring to the fact that Augustine believed in the "Real Presence" without ever explaining what that meant. The concept of the Real Presence was NOT agreed upon by the early church fathers. There is plenty of historical evidence for this. The "Real Presence" wasn't even a term they used. That is a term later used in RC. In the early church, there were BOTH literalistic and symbolic/spiritual interpretations of the Last Supper:

---

I thought that both sides had long ago decided that "Real Presence" means what the Catholic Church as: "The bread and wine are completely transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, rather than being mere symbols."

Augustine believed this.

---

The Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" involves, dogmatically, transubstantiation. Why you are running away from your Church's own dogma, is quite telling. And NO, Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, nor did he even believe in any kind of spiritual transformation of the bread and wine. That was proven by the quotes I gave. If you're still denying this, you're either dishonest or dumb. There just isn't any way to put it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The Ancient Church produced no dogma of the Lord's Supper. Two methods of presenting the subject are found side by side without any attempt at discrimination. They are commonly spoken of as the metabolic and symbolic views. Pope Gelasius I taught that 'the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to exist, although the elements, the Holy Spirit perfecting them, pass over … into a divine substance, as was the case with Christ himself. And certainly the image and likeness … are honored… in the observance … of the mysteries.'…The theologians of the Carlovingian period, as Augustinians, were fond of emphasizing the symbolical character of the ordinance, presenting it as a memorial and a symbol" - church historian Reinhold Seeburg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume Two, p. 34).

Did you catch that last part? Augustinians believed in the memorialistic and symbolic nature of the Eucharist.

---

I had to do some research on this Reinhold Seeburg, a German Lutheran scholar writing in the late 19th century.

When Seeburg writes that the Carolingian-period theologians as Augustinians were fond of "presenting it as a memorial and a symbol," he is describing a 9th-century (not ancient Church) theological tendency, specifically among certain medieval theologians who drew heavily on Augustine's sacramental language of signum (sign) and res (reality).

Augustine's language of sign and symbol does not mean "mere symbol" in the modern sense. For Augustine, a sacramental sign is efficacious it truly effects what it signifies. When Carolingian Augustinians spoke symbolically, many were not denying Real Presence but trying to articulate it in Augustinian philosophical categories. The debate was largely semantic and philosophical, not a flat denial of Christ's presence.

The key figure here is Ratramnus of Corbie. Ratramnus maintained that the elements are not the actual body and blood of the Christ of history, but are mystic symbols of remembrance making him a symbolist, seeing in the Eucharist a sacrificial meal, the efficacy of which depends on the intensity of faith. Like most other theologians of the Carolingian period, Ratramnus was a traditionalist drawing primarily on Augustinian thought.

This is the critical point where Seeburg's framing can mislead if lifted out of context. The Carolingian "symbolic" tendency was a minority position being contested, not the orthodox consensus.

Standing directly against Ratramnus was Paschasius Radbertus, a Carolingian theologian who articulated a clear doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, proposing that the bread and wine truly became the actual body and blood of Christ.

King Charles the Bald did not agree with Paschasius' teaching that there was a literal and physical presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and imposed upon Ratramnus to argue a counterposition. In his treatise, Ratramnus argued that the Holy Eucharist is merely a symbolic representation of Christ's Body and Blood.

This was a politically driven theological controversy not a reflection of the ancient Church's settled faith. And the Church ultimately sided with Paschasius.

---

You're confirming my point, that there was no consensus of belief regarding the "Real Presence" and that it was being debated far into the 11th century. And you're destroying your own point that "the Real Presence view has always been the same since Pentecost". You're also confirming my point that Augustine did not believe in the dogmatized view of the "Real Presence" which involves transubstantiation.

Are you even thinking about what you're writing?

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Church history also shows that the nature of the "Real Presence" was debated all the way into the 11th century. You are just flatly wrong that "the belief in the Real Presence has been the same since Pentecost".

---

Since the beginning of the Church, it has been believed that "Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist. The bread and wine do not merely symbolize Him. They become Him."

It was contested in the 9th century, as previously discussed, and in the 11th century.

Berengar of Tours, in the 11century, did deny belief in the Real Presence. He argued that the bread and wine remain substantially unchanged and that Christ's presence is purely spiritual or symbolic.

Berengar was condemned at multiple councils, and he was required to profess that the bread and wine are "truly changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ.

As you can (should) see, the Church still maintained the same belief in the Real Presence. It was forced to deal with individuals or small factions that doubted it.

This set the stage for the formal definition of Transubstantiation in 1215. The true Augustinians (Order of St Augustine) was founded in 1244, decades after the definition of Transubstantiation. If Augustine didn't believe in the Real Presence, Pope Innocent IV would never have allowed this Order to be formed.

---

Your myopic view of church history (which you only get from your Church) has ignored Clement, Origen, Tertullian, etc that did NOT believe in the RC dogmatized view of "Real Presence" which involved transubstantiation.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is NO difference between Athanasius and Augustine in this regard. Both held to views that were later anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church. This is the fact that you have to keep running away from, and create artificial distinctions for in order to argue against.

---

As you can see, there actually is a difference between the two.

Augustine's view in the Real Presence was NEVER anathematized.

Augustine believed in the Real Presence, which has been a consistent belief since the beginning of Church. Athanasius had questions about a canon that was NOT fully formed in his day.

I hope that you can see the difference given these facts.

---

Seriously, are you dense? Augustine's view did not involve transubstantiation. So yes, his view IS anathematized.

And you're STILL employing the motte-and-bailey fallacious reasoning. The "Real Presence" view as dogmatized in the 4th Lateran council and the Council of Trent was NOT the view of Augustine.

You are trying to run away from the fact that you were checkmated on this:

You: "Yes, the RC view of the Real Presence is that they were to eat the flesh that they see, and drink the blood that was shed on the cross"

Augustine: "You WILL NOT eat the flesh you see, or drink the blood that will be shed on the cross."

Seriously, any more denial of this, and you should really seek help.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What's "laughable" is your attempt to hide from the fact that you couldn't produce ONE best argument from any of those videos that we can discuss, so that I could perhaps show you. "Misrepresenting" Wes Huff's points wasn't what I said. I specifically said, which anyone can read above, that RC apologists have to engage in dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning to defend against Wes' points. Your poor reading and comprehension rears its ugly head again.

---

Dude, your bias is showing.

Trent sent his entire script to Wes BEFORE he made his response video to ensure that he DID NOT misrepresent using "dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning" on any of Wes' points.

Wes provided him with some changes. Trent's response is reflective of Wes' comments. In other words, Wes even agrees that Trent was not dishonest.

You don't accept their reasoning, so you call it dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning. Why do you get to be the arbiter of these points?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's sad that you can't or won't understand this.


You: "If you'd like to discuss a "Wes" point... I'm happy to discuss one at a time".
I'm the one who challenged YOU to produce a point against Wes, any ONE, from those videos. Why are you ducking the challenge, and then turning it around to me to have to give a point to discuss? Do you not know what you're doing? Do you think it really works this way? Why not just admit that you probably didn't even watch those videos, OR Wes Huff's, or you didn't understand them?

---

I did not watch all the videos. I listened to them on Podcasts when they were released. Joe and Trent are on my regular weekly cycle. I rarely make time to watch videos. I prefer to listen to podcasts.

So, you are saying that you watched (listened) to all three apologists, and you found all of their points dishonest, inaccurate, and poorly reasoned?

What does that say about you? Joe and Trent are two of the brightest Catholic apologists and authors today.

All three had some overlapping agreements between them. They each produced their responses independently, but they found similar disagreements in Wes' video.

BTW, Dr. Karlo Brousaud just released his weekly podcast today which I will listen to in the next few days. It is another rational, well-thought out refutation of his "6 reasons."

I'm not ducking anything. We can discuss the fallacy of sufficiency of scripture, if you'd like.

---

Still dodging my challenge.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

When Seeburg writes that the Carolingian-period theologians as Augustinians were fond of "presenting it as a memorial and a symbol," he is describing a 9th-century (not ancient Church) theological tendency, specifically among certain medieval theologians who drew heavily on Augustine's sacramental language of signum (sign) and res (reality).

Augustine's language of sign and symbol does not mean "mere symbol" in the modern sense. For Augustine, a sacramental sign is efficacious it truly effects what it signifies. When Carolingian Augustinians spoke symbolically, many were not denying Real Presence but trying to articulate it in Augustinian philosophical categories. The debate was largely semantic and philosophical, not a flat denial of Christ's presence.

---

Winner Winner! Chicken Dinner!

The issue for this debate has always been that word "symbol" has evolved over the past 1500 years to have a different meaning today. That is why the strong (overwhelming?) consensus of scholars do not see Augustine as denying the real presence in the Eucharist and why the rest of his sermons/statements around the sacrament can be reconciled. If the chalice carries an empty symbol, then Augustine would have never called it sacred....

Just as important, I read Augustine words and I hear something that is very at home in the modern Catholic Church. Your bishop could deliver an extremely similar message to First Communicants and every practicing Catholic in the pews would be nodding along...

---

"Symbol", no matter how you want to dress it up to match the dogmatized RC view of the Real Presence, still does not mean transubstantiation.

And Augustine didn't just say symbol. He said it was figurative. There is no misunderstanding or misinterpretation. He explicitly said that any time Jesus was enjoining them to "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood", he was being figurative.

You guys were given these direct quotes. And now you're trying to twist yourselves around them. As I recall, you were checkmated in the same way CokeBear was - you affirmed the RC view of the Real Presence... and Augustine directly contradicted it.

I really do wonder about you guys. Something is really, really wrong with your thinking.

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

---

I have many different opinions from what I had 5 months ago

Some things said on here have made me question and change or question and reaffirm my opinion

---

Can you give a couple examples of opinions you have changed?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" involves, dogmatically, transubstantiation. Why you are running away from your Church's own dogma, is quite telling. And NO, Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, nor did he even believe in any kind of spiritual transformation of the bread and wine. That was proven by the quotes I gave. If you're still denying this, you're either dishonest or dumb. There just isn't any way to put it.

---

The term "Transubstantiation " was created until 800 years after Augustine. He didn't understand photosynthesis, zymurgy, or quantum mechanics, but that didn't mean that they didn't exist.

Once again, you are confusing Transubstantiation with the Real Presence. We've mentioned time and time again, that they are integrally linked by the HOW and the What.

You continue to assert that I am dishonest or dumb. I fear it is YOU who refuses to use or understand the context in which the Church uses these terms.

His writings clearly indicate that his believe that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus in a manner that was worthy of adoration and worship.

"It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so."

One can ONLY adore God.

How can the Church create an Order of friars and declare someone a doctor and saint, if they didn't believe that the Eucharist was the Real Presence?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]
You're confirming my point, that there was no consensus of belief regarding the "Real Presence" and that it was being debated far into the 11th century. And you're destroying your own point that "the Real Presence view has always been the same since Pentecost". You're also confirming my point that Augustine did not believe in the dogmatized view of the "Real Presence" which involves transubstantiation.

Are you even thinking about what you're writing?

---

Just because a few people couldn't accept that the Eucharist was the Real Presence, (once each in the 9th and 11th centuries) does mean that there wasn't a consensus in the Church. There absolutely was a consensus. There were a few sects of people that rejected it.

Just like, some protestants reject it today. The Church has always maintained the same belief in the Real Presence as I, and others, have documented using historical sources dating from the beginning of the Church.

Case in point, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were always divine, but there was a period when a small group of heretics rejected these claims. The Church believed this from the beginning, but it had to dogmatize when there was some doubt.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your myopic view of church history (which you only get from your Church) has ignored Clement, Origen, Tertullian, etc that did NOT believe in the RC dogmatized view of "Real Presence" which involved transubstantiation.

---

Church history is ACTUAL history. That's all there was then. All we can do is take the actual writings, in totality AND context, to determine what these men teach. The Church doesn't cherry-pick verses and passages of history to create a false theology.

Having said that, Clement wrote:

In describing the Eucharist, "'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children."

Clement also connects the Eucharist to the typology of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine as "consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist."

Furthermore, he writes: "And the mixture of both of the water and of the Word is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word."

Origen, who is NOT considered a Church father, but none the less, an Ecclesiastical Writer, stated -

"we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it."

Tertullian, not considered a Church father either, but also an Ecclesiastical Writer, said, -

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure."

In other words, Tertullian is affirming the Real Presence by saying: a figure requires a real thing to figure. There is no symbol without a substance.

Tertullian specifically said, "the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ" not "the flesh feeds on the symbols of the body and blood of Christ."

When Tertullian uses the term "figurative," he does not mean to deny the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Seriously, are you dense? Augustine's view did not involve transubstantiation. So yes, his view IS anathematized.

And you're STILL employing the motte-and-bailey fallacious reasoning. The "Real Presence" view as dogmatized in the 4th Lateran council and the Council of Trent was NOT the view of Augustine.

You are trying to run away from the fact that you were checkmated on this:

You: "Yes, the RC view of the Real Presence is that they were to eat the flesh that they see, and drink the blood that was shed on the cross"

Augustine: "You WILL NOT eat the flesh you see, or drink the blood that will be shed on the cross."

Seriously, any more denial of this, and you should really seek help.

---

My gosh, bless your heart.

Sam AND I have both told you that there is no inconsistency here. Augustine was describing the eating of an actual limb of Jesus vs. the "flesh that you see" metaphysically.

You are trying, with all of your insincere heart, to prove something that doesn't exist.

There is no checkmate here. Only you trying to move a rook diagonally.

It is truly sad watching an old man who keeps yelling at a cloud.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What's "laughable" is your attempt to hide from the fact that you couldn't produce ONE best argument from any of those videos that we can discuss, so that I could perhaps show you. "Misrepresenting" Wes Huff's points wasn't what I said. I specifically said, which anyone can read above, that RC apologists have to engage in dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning to defend against Wes' points. Your poor reading and comprehension rears its ugly head again.

---

Dude, your bias is showing.

Trent sent his entire script to Wes BEFORE he made his response video to ensure that he DID NOT misrepresent using "dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning" on any of Wes' points.

Wes provided him with some changes. Trent's response is reflective of Wes' comments. In other words, Wes even agrees that Trent was not dishonest.

You don't accept their reasoning, so you call it dishonest, inaccurate, and poor reasoning. Why do you get to be the arbiter of these points?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It's sad that you can't or won't understand this.


You: "If you'd like to discuss a "Wes" point... I'm happy to discuss one at a time".
I'm the one who challenged YOU to produce a point against Wes, any ONE, from those videos. Why are you ducking the challenge, and then turning it around to me to have to give a point to discuss? Do you not know what you're doing? Do you think it really works this way? Why not just admit that you probably didn't even watch those videos, OR Wes Huff's, or you didn't understand them?

---

I did not watch all the videos. I listened to them on Podcasts when they were released. Joe and Trent are on my regular weekly cycle. I rarely make time to watch videos. I prefer to listen to podcasts.

So, you are saying that you watched (listened) to all three apologists, and you found all of their points dishonest, inaccurate, and poorly reasoned?

What does that say about you? Joe and Trent are two of the brightest Catholic apologists and authors today.

All three had some overlapping agreements between them. They each produced their responses independently, but they found similar disagreements in Wes' video.

BTW, Dr. Karlo Brousaud just released his weekly podcast today which I will listen to in the next few days. It is another rational, well-thought out refutation of his "6 reasons."

I'm not ducking anything. We can discuss the fallacy of sufficiency of scripture, if you'd like.

---

Still dodging my challenge.

---

Do you really read or just type? I feel like you may be some type of Calvinistic AI-bot that has programming issues.

Please see the bolded passage above.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence" involves, dogmatically, transubstantiation. Why you are running away from your Church's own dogma, is quite telling. And NO, Augustine did NOT believe in transubstantiation, nor did he even believe in any kind of spiritual transformation of the bread and wine. That was proven by the quotes I gave. If you're still denying this, you're either dishonest or dumb. There just isn't any way to put it.

---

The term "Transubstantiation " was created until 800 years after Augustine. He didn't understand photosynthesis, zymurgy, or quantum mechanics, but that didn't mean that they didn't exist.

Once again, you are confusing Transubstantiation with the Real Presence. We've mentioned time and time again, that they are integrally linked by the HOW and the What.

You continue to assert that I am dishonest or dumb. I fear it is YOU who refuses to use or understand the context in which the Church uses these terms.

His writings clearly indicate that his believe that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus in a manner that was worthy of adoration and worship.

"It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so."

One can ONLY adore God.

How can the Church create an Order of friars and declare someone a doctor and saint, if they didn't believe that the Eucharist was the Real Presence?

---

This is truly bizarre. You are now denying and/or trying to separate yourself from the fact that "Real Presence" in the Roman Catholic view intimately and necessarily includes transubstantiation. This is beyond the level of "double talking" I usually get from RC's who are trying to get out of a bind, this is outright denying Roman Catholic dogma to get there!

Simply stated, if Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation, then he did not believe in the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence. And clearly from what I've shown in his quotes, he did not. Yes, you are either dishonest or dumb if you continue to fail to acknowledge this.

You are running away from the fact that you were checkmated regarding this. You explicitly asserted the Roman Catholic view of Real Presence that Augustine explicitly denied. The debate was over, and it is amazing to see you continue to flail in order to save your belief.

You are also completely misreading the passage from Augustine where he was talking about "adoration", i.e. "worship". I had already written a response to this claim. The "worship" Augustine was talking about there was to the "footstool" he was referencing, NOT the Eucharist bread and wine. The "footstool" was the earthly, physical body of Jesus, and that is what we "worship". Augustine wasn't even talking about the Eucharist at all in that passage.

You: "How can the Church create an Order of friars and declare someone a doctor and saint, if they didn't believe that the Eucharist was the Real Presence?"

Answer: for the same reason they made Athanasius a Doctor and saint even though he denied that the deuterocanonical books belonged in the canon. Jerome too. For the same reason they made a bunch of church fathers saints, even though they denied things that the RCC dogmatized. The RCC isn't consistent, isn't the same church as the church from the beginning, and isn't apostolic - but they lie to gulliible, brainwashed people like you into thinking that they are.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]
You're confirming my point, that there was no consensus of belief regarding the "Real Presence" and that it was being debated far into the 11th century. And you're destroying your own point that "the Real Presence view has always been the same since Pentecost". You're also confirming my point that Augustine did not believe in the dogmatized view of the "Real Presence" which involves transubstantiation.

Are you even thinking about what you're writing?

---

Just because a few people couldn't accept that the Eucharist was the Real Presence, (once each in the 9th and 11th centuries) does mean that there wasn't a consensus in the Church. There absolutely was a consensus. There were a few sects of people that rejected it.

Just like, some protestants reject it today. The Church has always maintained the same belief in the Real Presence as I, and others, have documented using historical sources dating from the beginning of the Church.

Case in point, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were always divine, but there was a period when a small group of heretics rejected these claims. The Church believed this from the beginning, but it had to dogmatize when there was some doubt.

---

There was no consensus in the church, as historians I quoted have acknowledged. You're merely asserting your belief, not what is supported by actual history. Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine did not believe in the literal, physical transformation of the bread and wine. You're just refusing to accept history.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your myopic view of church history (which you only get from your Church) has ignored Clement, Origen, Tertullian, etc that did NOT believe in the RC dogmatized view of "Real Presence" which involved transubstantiation.

---

Church history is ACTUAL history. That's all there was then. All we can do is take the actual writings, in totality AND context, to determine what these men teach. The Church doesn't cherry-pick verses and passages of history to create a false theology.

Having said that, Clement wrote:

In describing the Eucharist, "'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children."

Clement also connects the Eucharist to the typology of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine as "consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist."

Furthermore, he writes: "And the mixture of both of the water and of the Word is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word."

Origen, who is NOT considered a Church father, but none the less, an Ecclesiastical Writer, stated -

"we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it."

Tertullian, not considered a Church father either, but also an Ecclesiastical Writer, said, -

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure."

In other words, Tertullian is affirming the Real Presence by saying: a figure requires a real thing to figure. There is no symbol without a substance.

Tertullian specifically said, "the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ" not "the flesh feeds on the symbols of the body and blood of Christ."

When Tertullian uses the term "figurative," he does not mean to deny the Real Presence.

---

None of the quotes you gave are speaking in literal terms. You are stuck in a mind trap of only reading figurative language in literal terms, because that's how your Church tells you to read it. Your church also tells you to completely ignore all statements, even explicit ones, which speak of the bread and wine in figurative terms. And when you do read "figurative", you've been brainwashed into finagling a way for "figurative" to actually mean "literal". It really is astonishing to witness.

For example, Clement said, "The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food that is, the Lord Jesus that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified... Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. 'For Moses,' He says, 'gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.' Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh … But since He said, 'And the bread which I will give is My flesh,' and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine…Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? ('Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1956), Volume II, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, Chapter VI, pp. 219-222).

You simply don't have a mind for truth in order to read the church fathers honestly. I can give quotes from Origen and Terullian just like this. And Augustine, well, its clear to rational and honest people that he believed it to be figurative as well, not literal.

You: "When Tertullian uses the term "figurative," he does not mean to deny the Real Presence."

Using the term "figurative" IS a denial of the Roman Catholic view of the Real Presence. You are dishonest with history, church fathers, and even language itself.

Another example of Mary's perpetuity virginity is, as tradition would have it, Mary was espoused by the Holy Spirit ajd as such, was not appropriate for Joseph to Have relationship with her, as he never did.

This is also reflected in the Old Testament Deut 24:1-4 and Jer 3:1-2

NT reflects OT over and over

If God took flesh from a woman, that woman matters. Dishonoring her is dishonoring the flesh He chose.

Honoring Mary doesn't compete with Christ. It confesses Him. She is who she is because of who He is. That's the whole point

The saints are not independent objects of worship. They are members of His body. Venerating a saint is venerating a trophy of His grace. It's glorifying what He did in a human life. Every saint is a monument to what His grace accomplished in human flesh.

When you venerate a saint, you're not honoring a rival to Christ. You're honoring His workmanship. Ephesians 2:10 we are His masterpiece. Why would you refuse to admire what the Master made?

The total depravity concept has made people hateful. If regeneration actually transforms, if the saint genuinely becomes a new creation, conformed to Christ, indwelt by the Spirit, then there IS something to admire. You can't continue importing your concept of human degeneracy on those who are alive in Christ.

Calvinism has been absolutely destructive for western society and some protestant theology. Calvinism saved the soul from hell but forgot to save the human being. It's hyper focused on getting into heaven as a legal contract instead of transformation.

When you start with Total Depravity as a permanent ontological condition rather than a diagnosis that grace actually heals, you end up with a framework where a human person never becomes anything new in Christ.

If human nature can't be genuinely elevated, united, and transformed by grace, then the Incarnation didn't accomplish what the Fathers said it did: the union of the divine and human natures in one Person, making humanity itself capable of bearing God. Christ didn't come to absorb legal penalty. He came to restore and elevate what Adam lost, to recapitulate humanity, and to open the way for us to become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) not a medieval legal theory.

If the human person never truly becomes anything, the saints are just pardoned criminals: not glorified images of God reflecting uncreated light. And if that's true, why would you venerate them? Why would Mary matter? Why would the Incarnation require a pure vessel at all?

When I started to understand this, I could look at someone I didn't know and cry for them. You will weep for the world, feel responsible for everyone and see Christ's face in every human being you pass.