Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I only needed to read this far.

The very quote you just referenced was what I had JUST showed, by giving it in it's FULL CONTEXT in Augustine's sermon, that Augustine explicitly explained that this had a spiritual/symbolic meaning. For heaven's sake, read that sermon and THINK, guys, THINK.

Good lord, you guys are dense, brick walls.

---

The bolded sentence is YOUR issue.

That seems to me as being either intellectually lazy or sinfully prideful.

You didn't read further and you completely missed the fact that SPIRITUAL does NOT mean SYMBOLIC.

I provided a philosophical framework for this as well as provided two quotes from St. Paul himself where he uses "spiritual" (pneumatikos) and it never means "symbolic."

You have completely changed the meaning of a word to fit your preconceived notion rather than objectively looking at what the actual meaning of the word and the passage is.

Bonus: I also provided an answer as to why St Augustine didn't "explain that the bread and wine are the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus" in that specific sermon.

I would humbly ask you to go back and read my enter response.

---

This isn't about this one post of yours. You have constantly shown me that you just can't be honest or intelligent with the argument being presented. In post after post. Your arguments are all so faulty, and you can't even understand why. You can't understand basic logical words and concepts, yet you try to use them, like "strawman" and "ad hominem". You've even got on me for replying to one of your posts, when your post was not directed to me specifically. I don't even know where to begin on that one. That's just so stupid beyond words. It's just so apparent that talking and reasoning with you is like trying to do that to a brick wall.

Regarding your argument that "spiritual" does not mean symbolic - a symbol can mean or point to something spiritual. This isn't difficult, folks. This is what Augustine is explaining, when he said "..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."

"Grasped", not "eaten". He's saying it's an understanding we are getting from the physical representations. Hence, "symbol".

Augustine is clearly saying here, that nothing in "real" substance is being eaten in the bread and drank in the wine, but rather that a spiritual truth is being "grapsed". You simply can not show from this sermon that Augustine believed in the Roman Catholic view of "Real Presence", which expressly includes a physical transformation of the bread into Jesus' actual flesh (transubstantiation). You simply can't. It's just not there. You'd be showing how dishonest you are, if you tried.

Now, can you answer my challenge, and give me your BEST EVIDENCE from Augustine showing that he believed in your view of the "Real Presence"?

And therefore receive and eat the body of Christ. Yes. You that have become members of Christ in the body of Christ. receive and drink the blood of Christ in order not to be scattered and separated. Eat what binds you together in order not to seem cheap in your own estimation. Drink the price that was paid for you. Just as this turns into you when you eat and drink it, so you for your part turn into the body of Christ when you live devout and obedient lives. He himself, you see, as his passion drew near while he was keeping the Passover with his disciples, took bread and blessed it, and said, 'This is my body which will be handed over for you.' Likewise, he gave them the cup and blessed and said, 'This is the blood of the new covenant which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"


"You were able to read or to hear this in the gospel before, but you were unaware that this Eucharist is the Son. But now your heart sprinkled with a pure conscience and your bodies washed with pure water. Approach him and be enlightened and your faces will not blush for shame. Because if you receive this worthily, which means belonging to the new covenant by which you hope for an eternal inheritance. And if you keep the new commandment to love one another, then you have life in yourselves. You are then after all receiving that flesh about which life itself says, the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world. And unless people eat my flesh and drink my blood, they will have not life within themselves."

"What you can see here, dearly beloved, on the table of the Lord is bread and wine. But this bread and wine when the word is applied to it becomes the body and blood of the word. That Lord you see who in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God was so compassionate that he did not despise what he had created in his own image. And therefore the word became flesh and dwelt among us as you know because yes the word took to himself a man that is the soul and flesh of a man and became man while remaining God. For that reason because he also suffered for us. He also presented us in this sacrament with his body and blood. And this is what he even made us ourselves into as well."

"You ought to know what you have received. What you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord wished to present us with his body and blood which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive."

And the beat goes on. It is rather overwhelming.

FLBear5630 said:

---

And therefore receive and eat the body of Christ. Yes. You that have become members of Christ in the body of Christ. receive and drink the blood of Christ in order not to be scattered and separated. Eat what binds you together in order not to seem cheap in your own estimation. Drink the price that was paid for you. Just as this turns into you when you eat and drink it, so you for your part turn into the body of Christ when you live devout and obedient lives. He himself, you see, as his passion drew near while he was keeping the Passover with his disciples, took bread and blessed it, and said, 'This is my body which will be handed over for you.' Likewise, he gave them the cup and blessed and said, 'This is the blood of the new covenant which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"


"You were able to read or to hear this in the gospel before, but you were unaware that this Eucharist is the Son. But now your heart sprinkled with a pure conscience and your bodies washed with pure water. Approach him and be enlightened and your faces will not blush for shame. Because if you receive this worthily, which means belonging to the new covenant by which you hope for an eternal inheritance. And if you keep the new commandment to love one another, then you have life in yourselves. You are then after all receiving that flesh about which life itself says, the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world. And unless people eat my flesh and drink my blood, they will have not life within themselves."

"What you can see here, dearly beloved, on the table of the Lord is bread and wine. But this bread and wine when the word is applied to it becomes the body and blood of the word. That Lord you see who in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God was so compassionate that he did not despise what he had created in his own image. And therefore the word became flesh and dwelt among us as you know because yes the word took to himself a man that is the soul and flesh of a man and became man while remaining God. For that reason because he also suffered for us. He also presented us in this sacrament with his body and blood. And this is what he even made us ourselves into as well."

"You ought to know what you have received. What you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord wished to present us with his body and blood which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive."

And the beat goes on. It is rather overwhelming.

---

Are you guys really so dense, as to not comprehend that in each of those examples you gave above Augustine could have very well been speaking in the figurative sense, in the same way he did in that sermon I posted (sermon 272) where he says:

"But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood."

...which he went on to explain in detail how the meaning was figurative? Especially considering that Augustine's direct words in other writings say that the meaning of John 6 "eat my flesh and drink my blood" was NOT literal, but figurative? And that he said that understanding it literally was FOOLISH?

NOW THINK. For God's sake, THINK - clearly, this means you shouldn't be taking all those statements you've listed about the Eucharist literally.

"You WILL NOT eat this body that you see. You WILL NOT drink the blood that will be shed on the cross." - Augustine

My God, this is just sooooooo painful, and frankly, very embarassing.

FLBear5630 said:

---

"You ought to know what you have received. What you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord wished to present us with his body and blood which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive."

---

Now look more closely at this particular one you provided:

"....you are yourselves what you receive".

Do you honestly think that Augustine is saying that WE believers, OUR bodies, are transubstantiated into the bread??

FLBear5630 said:

---

Those were from the Augustinian Order article on proof of Augustine's view on teal presence.

Yeah, you know more. Geez, you are such ae egotistical clown.

---

Maybe you're the prideful brick wall?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

"You ought to know what you have received. What you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord wished to present us with his body and blood which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive."

---

Now look more closely at this particular one you provided:

"....you are yourselves what you receive".

Do you honestly think that Augustine is saying that WE believers, OUR bodies, are transubstantiated into the bread??

---

"That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. "

Rather clear. Part you keep freaking over means, By par-taking it changes you. The sacraments heal and help us live better lives. You really need to stop overanalyzing, it is leading you astray. Go to communion and pray on it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Those were from the Augustinian Order article on proof of Augustine's view on teal presence.

Yeah, you know more. Geez, you are such ae egotistical clown.

---

Roman Catholics - is this really the extent of your argument?

No one wants to think? Just swallow?

Could have? Is that what you are basing your view on? You really must be joking. After all this, he could have meant?

Done...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Could have? Is that what you are basing your view on? You really must be joking. After all this, he could have meant?

Done...

---

Yes, "could have". I'm asking how YOU are you not even leaving room for the possibility, even after being given overwhelming evidence. I'm wondering if there is one, just ONE logical bone in your body that can for once, help you to expand your thinking outside of the literalist, confirmation bias rut you've entrenched yourself in.

So far, I have to say no, there's none. So prove me wrong.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

"You ought to know what you have received. What you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord wished to present us with his body and blood which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive."

---

Now look more closely at this particular one you provided:

"....you are yourselves what you receive".

Do you honestly think that Augustine is saying that WE believers, OUR bodies, are transubstantiated into the bread??

---

"That bread which you can see on the altar sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That cup or rather what the cup contains sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ. "

Rather clear. Part you keep freaking over means, By par-taking it changes you. The sacraments heal and help us live better lives. You really need to stop overanalyzing, it is leading you astray. Go to communion and pray on it.

---

And in what sense is he saying that? You're fully assuming literal. Given the evidence I've shown you, do you honestly not leave any room for the possibility that you're reading literalism into it, out of confirmation bias?

My God. You truly are a brick wall.

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

For 1000+ years, your church has "analyzed" Scripture and early church history in the writings of the church fathers. Your church had monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to them, all which have parsed every word....

.... and yet they have you now bowing and praying to images and statues of Mary, singing hymns dedicated to her, building churches in her name and honor, calling her the "ALL HOLY ONE", and dogmatically insisting she was sinless, perpetually pure, and bodily ascendant into heaven just like Jesus. And they have you even crediting her for salvation, saying that salvation is obtained only through her.

Obvioulsy, something went very, very, very wrong. And you don't think it's possible that they could have gotten it wrong about Augustine as well?

For 1000+ years, your church has tried to convince people that what it holds, including what was taught by Augustine, has been held unanimously and without question during that whole time. They have trained you like seals to believe that any challenge to the current RC view of the Eucharist is a recent, Reformation-era invention. What actual church history shows, is that there wasn't agreement about the "Real Presence" for hundreds of years in the beginning, until conformity was being enforced by the now "state" of Christianity, having been institutionalized by the state of Rome. And EVEN then, the debate continued, highlighted by the major debates between Radbert (transubstantiation) vs Ratramnus (figurative) in the 9th century, and again later in the 11th century between Berengar and Lanfranc. And then continued on until the time of the Reformation by Wycliff and the Reformationists. Throughout church history, the symbolic/figurative view was very much present and actively argued. It wasn't until the Roman Catholic church began to exert its power and influence to enforce conformity on the view by punishing and even killing those who disagreed with her.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This isn't about this one post of yours. You have constantly shown me that you just can't be honest or intelligent with the argument being presented. In post after post. Your arguments are all so faulty, and you can't even understand why. You can't understand basic logical words and concepts, yet you try to use them, like "strawman" and "ad hominem". You've even got on me for replying to one of your posts, when your post was not directed to me specifically. I don't even know where to begin on that one. That's just so stupid beyond words. It's just so apparent that talking and reasoning with you is like trying to do that to a brick wall.

---

It is you who refuse logic when it is presented to you.

A strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or completely misrepresents their opponent's actual position. You do this every time that you claim that Catholics worship Mary. We don't. Many have consistently demonstrated this; however, you still continue to do so. I won't attempt to psychoanalyze as to why you still do this other than insecurity.

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or other personal traits of their opponent instead of addressing the actual substance of the argument. You do this every time you insult someone's intelligence or falsely label them as in league with satan, or as a non-Christian.

We all know what these terms mean. You've had other protestants call you out for these very actions, but you still persist in your ways. How many people to you draw to Christ with your attitude?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding your argument that "spiritual" does not mean symbolic a symbol can mean or point to something spiritual. This isn't difficult, folks. This is what Augustine is explaining, when he said "..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."

---

A symbol can mean spiritual, but it doesn't necessarily mean that spiritual means symbol. Here's a link for you two better help your understanding.

I have demonstrated how Paul NEVER used spiritual as symbol. I have provided two examples of this. (Which you ignored.) I have provided the philosophical framework which Augustine was under and why that spiritual does NOT mean symbol. (Which you also ignored.)

I presented all of this, and you still TRY to reverse engineer symbol back to spiritual when that's NOT what he meant in this passage.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Grasped", not "eaten". He's saying it's an understanding we are getting from the physical representations. Hence, "symbol".

---

I'm not sure why you are trying to link "seen" with "eaten." That's not the purpose of this passage. You are trying SO hard to prove your point by asserting an analogy that would have been made.

Augustine contrasts "seen" and "grasped." Here he deliberately contrasts the ordinary sight of the eyes (videtur) with the interior grasp of the spirit (intelligitur).

Augustine is making a fundamental distinction between two layers of reality in a sacrament: What is Seen (The Sign) and What is Grasped (The Reality)

The invisible, spiritual reality that the physical sign both points to and actually delivers. Not merely a symbol that gestures toward something elsewhere but a genuine bearer of spiritual power and fruit.

The word he used here again for spiritual is spiritalem spiritual, of the Spirit. Not symbolic.

The full phrase: "it has spiritual fruit" what is grasped interiorly yields fruit that belongs to the Holy Spirit.

With your "symbolic" belief, the phrase would be, "it has symbolic fruit." That makes no sense logically.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Augustine is clearly saying here that nothing in "real" substance is being eaten in the bread and drank in the wine, but rather that a spiritual truth is being "grapsed". You simply can not show from this sermon that Augustine believed in the Roman Catholic view of "Real Presence", which expressly includes a physical transformation of the bread into Jesus' actual flesh (transubstantiation). You simply can't. It's just not there. You'd be showing how dishonest you are, if you tried.

---

Once again, you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

The Church NEVER claims that it is a physical transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus' actual flesh.

It is a change in the substance to Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The accidents remain the same.

You are trying to falsify claims that the Church doesn't make.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Now, can you answer my challenge, and give me your BEST EVIDENCE from Augustine showing that he believed in your view of the "Real Presence"?

---

"That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ." (Sermons 227, A.D. 411)

He doesn't use the word "symbol." And "symbol" in NOT a synonym of the word "is."

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' Matt. 26:26. For he carried that body in his hands." (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10, A.D. 405)

"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it." (Explanations of the Psalms 98, 9)
Catholics give adoration to ONLY God. If Augustine mean that it was a symbol, then he would be stating that we are to adore a symbol, which is against the Church.

"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."
Augustine is not describing adoration of a symbol. You do not sin by failing to adore a mere piece of bread. Eucharistic adoration adorare presupposes that the One being adored is genuinely present. Augustine commands adoration because Christ is really there.

And of course, from your "gotcha" Sermon 272 that you still claim he means symbolic
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

Having provided all these quotes, it will take you less than 30 minutes to respond (probably)

BusyTD17 "You still don't get it. Think, man. THINK. He obviously means symbolically in ALL these passages based on the ONE passage that I have managed to take out of context and misrepresent. Why are you Catholics so BLIND? Why can't you see that I am right and the Church is wrong?"

We await your predictable response.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

I'm stating that I believe the RCC overstates the readings because they need it to be true - it is required for RCC transubstantiation, and their church needs it from an authority perspective, something we see over and over from the RC's. Making it so the only path to heaven is through their doors and their priests.

Fwiw, I think there is something between "Real Presence" and "Symbolic". Something can be a spiritually significant symbol that aligns one with the Spirit and Christ. Is it real presence "in the eucharist" or is it the real presence of Christ in the act of taking communion, I lean towards the latter. If I am willfully sinning, I will repent before taking the Eucharist because I believe the act to be something significant more than simple symbol, but something less than literal. I think my view is what Augustine and maybe others alluded to in much better words.

Last, who can doubt its significance, and reduce it to mere symbol? Not even the prots, which I am. That is the issue, when Prots say symbol, they don't mean meaningless - most don't anyway. Most teach the heart must be right before partaking.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

If the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, then you need a validly ordained priest to confect it, which means you need apostolic succession, which means you need the institutional church. The symbolic view is almost a necessary consequence of rejecting episcopal authority and the visible Church. You can't keep sacramental theology if you dismantle the ecclesiology that makes it coherent and their number one goal from the start was to reject Rome, not a revelation of the real truth.

A lot of Reformation theology wasn't built by asking "what did the apostles teach", it was built by asking "what does Rome do" and then going in the opposite direction. You can see it everywhere. Rome has a sacrificial priesthood so Protestants abolish the priesthood entirely rather than reform it. Rome has a robust sacramental theology so Protestants gut the sacraments rather than correct any abuses. Rome has elaborate Marian devotion so Protestants strip Mary down to almost nothing. Rome has visual sacred art so Protestants whitewash the walls. Rome emphasizes works so Protestants build an entire soteriological system around their absence.

---

Well said.

---

I suppose that is one take. But not exactly accurate. It all started with what the Catholic church has gotten wrong, and there's been a lot.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This isn't about this one post of yours. You have constantly shown me that you just can't be honest or intelligent with the argument being presented. In post after post. Your arguments are all so faulty, and you can't even understand why. You can't understand basic logical words and concepts, yet you try to use them, like "strawman" and "ad hominem". You've even got on me for replying to one of your posts, when your post was not directed to me specifically. I don't even know where to begin on that one. That's just so stupid beyond words. It's just so apparent that talking and reasoning with you is like trying to do that to a brick wall.

---

It is you who refuse logic when it is presented to you.

A strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone distorts, exaggerates, or completely misrepresents their opponent's actual position. You do this every time that you claim that Catholics worship Mary. We don't. Many have consistently demonstrated this; however, you still continue to do so. I won't attempt to psychoanalyze as to why you still do this other than insecurity.

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or other personal traits of their opponent instead of addressing the actual substance of the argument. You do this every time you insult someone's intelligence or falsely label them as in league with satan, or as a non-Christian.

We all know what these terms mean. You've had other protestants call you out for these very actions, but you still persist in your ways. How many people to you draw to Christ with your attitude?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Regarding your argument that "spiritual" does not mean symbolic a symbol can mean or point to something spiritual. This isn't difficult, folks. This is what Augustine is explaining, when he said "..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."

---

A symbol can mean spiritual, but it doesn't necessarily mean that spiritual means symbol. Here's a link for you two better help your understanding.

I have demonstrated how Paul NEVER used spiritual as symbol. I have provided two examples of this. (Which you ignored.) I have provided the philosophical framework which Augustine was under and why that spiritual does NOT mean symbol. (Which you also ignored.)

I presented all of this, and you still TRY to reverse engineer symbol back to spiritual when that's NOT what he meant in this passage.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Grasped", not "eaten". He's saying it's an understanding we are getting from the physical representations. Hence, "symbol".

---

I'm not sure why you are trying to link "seen" with "eaten." That's not the purpose of this passage. You are trying SO hard to prove your point by asserting an analogy that would have been made.

Augustine contrasts "seen" and "grasped." Here he deliberately contrasts the ordinary sight of the eyes (videtur) with the interior grasp of the spirit (intelligitur).

Augustine is making a fundamental distinction between two layers of reality in a sacrament: What is Seen (The Sign) and What is Grasped (The Reality)

The invisible, spiritual reality that the physical sign both points to and actually delivers. Not merely a symbol that gestures toward something elsewhere but a genuine bearer of spiritual power and fruit.

The word he used here again for spiritual is spiritalem spiritual, of the Spirit. Not symbolic.

The full phrase: "it has spiritual fruit" what is grasped interiorly yields fruit that belongs to the Holy Spirit.

With your "symbolic" belief, the phrase would be, "it has symbolic fruit." That makes no sense logically.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Augustine is clearly saying here that nothing in "real" substance is being eaten in the bread and drank in the wine, but rather that a spiritual truth is being "grapsed". You simply can not show from this sermon that Augustine believed in the Roman Catholic view of "Real Presence", which expressly includes a physical transformation of the bread into Jesus' actual flesh (transubstantiation). You simply can't. It's just not there. You'd be showing how dishonest you are, if you tried.

---

Once again, you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

The Church NEVER claims that it is a physical transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus' actual flesh.

It is a change in the substance to Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The accidents remain the same.

You are trying to falsify claims that the Church doesn't make.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Now, can you answer my challenge, and give me your BEST EVIDENCE from Augustine showing that he believed in your view of the "Real Presence"?

---

"That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ." (Sermons 227, A.D. 411)

He doesn't use the word "symbol." And "symbol" in NOT a synonym of the word "is."

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' Matt. 26:26. For he carried that body in his hands." (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10, A.D. 405)

"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it." (Explanations of the Psalms 98, 9)
Catholics give adoration to ONLY God. If Augustine mean that it was a symbol, then he would be stating that we are to adore a symbol, which is against the Church.

"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."
Augustine is not describing adoration of a symbol. You do not sin by failing to adore a mere piece of bread. Eucharistic adoration adorare presupposes that the One being adored is genuinely present. Augustine commands adoration because Christ is really there.

And of course, from your "gotcha" Sermon 272 that you still claim he means symbolic
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

Having provided all these quotes, it will take you less than 30 minutes to respond (probably)

BusyTD17 "You still don't get it. Think, man. THINK. He obviously means symbolically in ALL these passages based on the ONE passage that I have managed to take out of context and misrepresent. Why are you Catholics so BLIND? Why can't you see that I am right and the Church is wrong?"

We await your predictable response.

---

As usual your post demonstrates your thinking is too lacking to be able to constructively engage. You STILL don't know what strawman and ad hominem are. You STILL are repeating the same Augustine quote which I had shown from his sermon to have been figurative. It really is a waste of time dealing with your TLDR nonsense. So what I WILL do, is just answer your offering to my challenge. Since you did not follow my specific request to only give ONE BEST quote, I will choose one. Let's look at this example you gave:

"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it."

Now let's look at it in its entire context. It comes from Augustine's exposition on Psalm 99:

" ...And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy. What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek , in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commands us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Isaiah 66:1 Does he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God's footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, You shall worship the Lord your God? Deuteronomy 6:13 Yet here it says, fall down before His footstool: and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, The earth is My footstool. I am in doubt; I fearto worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, fall down before His footstool. I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, the earth is My footstool. In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping."


The Roman Catholic argument that Augustine is talking about worshiping (adoring) the Eucharist bread and therefore he believes it to be the literal presence, i.e. the Real Presence, is a complete misread of this passage. As one can see in its context, Augustine was talking about worshiping the "footstool", which he explains is the physical manifestation (flesh) of the REAL physical body of Jesus. The "footstool" he's talking about is NOT the Eucharist bread, it's Jesus in the flesh. It's JESUS in the flesh that we are worshiping, NOT the Eucharist bread.

A note about Augustine's translation of Psalm 99 here - he seems to incorrectly understand the verse, in saying that it means we are falling down before (worshiping) THE FOOTSTOOL itself. But that's not what the verse is saying. In almost all translations, the verse says to worship AT God's footstool. Meaning, the footstool is NOT the object we are bowing to, we are bowing to God AT his footstool.

Also, it's vitally important to note what immediately follows that passage:

"But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing....But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him. John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said to themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."


Augustine is clearly qualifying what he had just said in the first passage in this, the following passage. How would it make ANY SENSE for Augustine to talk about "eating Jesus' flesh" in the literal sense, and then turn right around in the next passage to say that the literal sense is the FOOLISH way to understand it? How would it make any sense for Augustine to be saying that we WILL EAT Jesus' literal flesh that they see, and drink his literal blood that was shed on the cross... and then turn right around and explain that Jesus meant that we WILL NOT eat this body that they see, and WILL NOT drink his literal blood that will be shed on the cross??

Think, people, think.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

If the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, then you need a validly ordained priest to confect it, which means you need apostolic succession, which means you need the institutional church. The symbolic view is almost a necessary consequence of rejecting episcopal authority and the visible Church. You can't keep sacramental theology if you dismantle the ecclesiology that makes it coherent and their number one goal from the start was to reject Rome, not a revelation of the real truth.

A lot of Reformation theology wasn't built by asking "what did the apostles teach", it was built by asking "what does Rome do" and then going in the opposite direction. You can see it everywhere. Rome has a sacrificial priesthood so Protestants abolish the priesthood entirely rather than reform it. Rome has a robust sacramental theology so Protestants gut the sacraments rather than correct any abuses. Rome has elaborate Marian devotion so Protestants strip Mary down to almost nothing. Rome has visual sacred art so Protestants whitewash the walls. Rome emphasizes works so Protestants build an entire soteriological system around their absence.

---

Well said.

---

But very wrong.

And since he's "blocked" me, I can't explain it to him. Pretty convenient solution he's found.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

---

It is absolutely astounding how they can not and will not grasp this.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

I'm stating that I believe the RCC overstates the readings because they need it to be true - it is required for RCC transubstantiation, and their church needs it from an authority perspective, something we see over and over from the RC's. Making it so the only path to heaven is through their doors and their priests.

Fwiw, I think there is something between "Real Presence" and "Symbolic". Something can be a spiritually significant symbol that aligns one with the Spirit and Christ. Is it real presence "in the eucharist" or is it the real presence of Christ in the act of taking communion, I lean towards the latter. If I am willfully sinning, I will repent before taking the Eucharist because I believe the act to be something significant more than simple symbol, but something less than literal. I think my view is what Augustine and maybe others alluded to in much better words.

Last, who can doubt its significance, and reduce it to mere symbol? Not even the prots, which I am. That is the issue, when Prots say symbol, they don't mean meaningless - most don't anyway. Most teach the heart must be right before partaking.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

---

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think it is perhaps fair to say that Prots understate the readings because the Eucharist opens the door to sacramental life and some of the more mystical aspects of Christianity that (non-charismatic) Prots seem to be extremely uncomfortable with. It can't be true because then so much else would need to come into play....

There is a famous quote from (writer and devout Catholic) Flannery O'Connor on the Eucharist: "Well, if it's just a symbol, to hell with it." If you are around devout Catholics you will run into that quote frequently. Heck, my wife has a pillow with that quote stitched on it sitting on her favorite reading chair.

No need to rehash all the debates from here, but, ironically, from the Catholic perspective, if it is just a symbol (or symbolic) then adoration and solemnity around it creates a very serious problem that we Catholics are routinely accused of engaging in. Which is where the problem of reading Augustine as saying that Christ is there, but only symbolically comes in. He was acutely concerned with idolatry and I can't get there with the interpretation that he simultaneously believes the bread and the wine are symbolic yet also believes that the priest's words consecrate and transform them into something holy worthy of adoration and solemnity. He 100% also would have gone about trying to correct his fellow bishops who were 200+ years into established teaching about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Add in that Disciplina Arcani was starting to come to an end at the time of Augustine and I think it paints a more complicated picture where the better interpretation is for the real presence.

Thanks for posting.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

I'm stating that I believe the RCC overstates the readings because they need it to be true - it is required for RCC transubstantiation, and their church needs it from an authority perspective, something we see over and over from the RC's. Making it so the only path to heaven is through their doors and their priests.

Fwiw, I think there is something between "Real Presence" and "Symbolic". Something can be a spiritually significant symbol that aligns one with the Spirit and Christ. Is it real presence "in the eucharist" or is it the real presence of Christ in the act of taking communion, I lean towards the latter. If I am willfully sinning, I will repent before taking the Eucharist because I believe the act to be something significant more than simple symbol, but something less than literal. I think my view is what Augustine and maybe others alluded to in much better words.

Last, who can doubt its significance, and reduce it to mere symbol? Not even the prots, which I am. That is the issue, when Prots say symbol, they don't mean meaningless - most don't anyway. Most teach the heart must be right before partaking.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

---

.... He was acutely concerned with idolatry and I can't get there with the interpretation that he simultaneously believes the bread and the wine are symbolic yet also believes that the priest's words consecrate and transform them into something holy worthy of adoration and solemnity.

---

As I explained in my post above, Augustine did not say this. This is a complete misread and eisegesis of his exposition of Psalm 99.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

I'm stating that I believe the RCC overstates the readings because they need it to be true - it is required for RCC transubstantiation, and their church needs it from an authority perspective, something we see over and over from the RC's. Making it so the only path to heaven is through their doors and their priests.

Fwiw, I think there is something between "Real Presence" and "Symbolic". Something can be a spiritually significant symbol that aligns one with the Spirit and Christ. Is it real presence "in the eucharist" or is it the real presence of Christ in the act of taking communion, I lean towards the latter. If I am willfully sinning, I will repent before taking the Eucharist because I believe the act to be something significant more than simple symbol, but something less than literal. I think my view is what Augustine and maybe others alluded to in much better words.

Last, who can doubt its significance, and reduce it to mere symbol? Not even the prots, which I am. That is the issue, when Prots say symbol, they don't mean meaningless - most don't anyway. Most teach the heart must be right before partaking.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

---

There is a famous quote from (writer and devout Catholic) Flannery O'Connor on the Eucharist: "Well, if it's just a symbol, to hell with it." If you are around devout Catholics you will run into that quote frequently. Heck, my wife has a pillow with that quote stitched on it sitting on her favorite reading chair.

---

This pretty much sums up the spirit behind the Roman Catholic view- "if Jesus was saying 'do this in remembrance of me' to mean it's just a commemorative symbol of his sacrifice for us... then to hell with that commemoration and what Jesus told us to do."

This really should open your eyes, Roman Catholics. But will it?

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

In Catholic parlance (if you will), the Real Presence is NOT a symbol-only meaning. It is believed that Jesus is literally and wholly presentbody and blood, soul and divinityunder the appearances of bread and wine. HOW that happens is called Transubstantiation.

To what "great step" are you referring?

The Real Presence (as stated above) has been believed since the beginning of the Church

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:27:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:3332 [A.D. 189]).

I could list a dozen more that believed the same 500 years before Luther was born.

Are you arguing that ALL these men meant symbolic? Where would your proof be for that?

---

Everyone refers to it as the body and blood of Christ, even those that hold to a more symbolic view.

I'm stating that I believe the RCC overstates the readings because they need it to be true - it is required for RCC transubstantiation, and their church needs it from an authority perspective, something we see over and over from the RC's. Making it so the only path to heaven is through their doors and their priests.

Fwiw, I think there is something between "Real Presence" and "Symbolic". Something can be a spiritually significant symbol that aligns one with the Spirit and Christ. Is it real presence "in the eucharist" or is it the real presence of Christ in the act of taking communion, I lean towards the latter. If I am willfully sinning, I will repent before taking the Eucharist because I believe the act to be something significant more than simple symbol, but something less than literal. I think my view is what Augustine and maybe others alluded to in much better words.

Last, who can doubt its significance, and reduce it to mere symbol? Not even the prots, which I am. That is the issue, when Prots say symbol, they don't mean meaningless - most don't anyway. Most teach the heart must be right before partaking.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

---

Your instinct to find a middle position is actually closer to Orthodox theology than you might expect. Orthodoxy has always resisted the Latin scholastic machinery behind transubstantiation, like we don't need Aristotelian substance and accident categories to explain what happens at the altar. The Eucharist is a mystery, and we hold it as such without demanding a philosophical framework that explains it.

Here's where I push back: if Christ is genuinely present in the act of taking communion, what exactly are you receiving? The act includes the bread and the cup. At some point "present in the act" and "present in what you're receiving during the act" become very hard to separate. You're not communing with an abstraction, you're eating and drinking something. The presence has to land somewhere concrete or it's indistinguishable from a purely psychological event, which I don't think that's what you mean.

Here's where I see a major difference. Walk into an evangelical church as a brand new believer and you can take communion the same Sunday with no formation, no examination, no real understanding of what you're participating in.

In Orthodoxy, before you even get to the Eucharist, you spend a year or two as a catechumen, learning the faith, the theology, the life of the Church before a Priest signs off on your baptism and chrismation to formally bring you in. Then you have regular confession to examine your conscience and work through sin, and ongoing preparation before each time you receive. None of that benefits the clergy's power. If this were about institutional control, you'd expect the Church to make the Eucharist easy to get and impossible to live without on its own terms. What you actually find is a tradition that tells you to examine yourself, confess your sins, fast, and approach with fear and trembling, and that taking it unworthily is a condemnation, not a blessing (1 Cor. 11:29).

The disciplines around the Eucharist point you toward Him. You can't half ass it. It holds you accountable and strengthens your relationship with Christ. forces you to examine yourself before you approach. Which is why the "no life in you" language from John 6 lands so hard. Jesus doesn't say the Eucharist is one option among many spiritual practices. He says unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Now look at the process to actually be able to consume it regularly: it's bound to a living and ongoing relationship with Christ.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Absolutely. My best friend, who is very new to Christianity (less than a year), has been asking me about Orthodoxy. Out of curiosity, he asked his SBC church elder about Catholic/Orthodox, and they told him we aren't real Christian's and we won't be saved.

I'm not shocked though. We are told the world will hate us.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Leaving room? This has been analyzed for 1000+ years. There are monastic orders, Universities, and museums dedicated to studying Augustine's writings, philosophies and believes. (Not to mention the Vatican, which has his original texts) that have parsed every word, your view is the outlier. So, yeah there is little chance everyone for this long has got it wrong.

But, are you prepared to turn the "could have" on Sola Scriptura? There is far less in any of Christ or Paul's writings saying that a book to be determined 500 years in the future was to be the end all in Christian thought than there is to say Augustine didnt believe in real presence in the eucharist. You prepared to go into the "could have" of Luther?

---

The real problem with "RC research" is that the Catholic church requires absolute conformity, and real presence plus transubstantiation now, is the only acceptable outcome despite clearly figurative language. Fwiw, I accept Real 'Spiritual' Presence as a reasonable belief, transubstantiation though is a different story historically. So I don't take issue with the general premise that Augustine was likely or close to a real presence believer, but it's not as clear as the RC's portray - again they can allow no doubt because without real presence you cannot have their version of transubstantiation.

---

Honest, intelligent take. However, it's clear to me that Augustine was nowhere close to the RC view of the Real Presence, which includes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is derived from and based on the literal interpretation of John chapter 6, "eat my flesh and drink my blood", which Augustine obviously did not believe in. I don't how anyone can think otherwise, given the quotes I've provided above explicitly stating such.

---

No it's clear he did not believe in the literal take on it, an objective person knows that is clear.

As I said, I believe they have to overstate Augustine because of the step from real presence to transubstantiation is so great, a figurative spiritual significance isn't enough for that chasm.

---

On the contrary, Augustine's view is fundamentally no different from that of Aquinas. He just lacks the philosophical theory that Aquinas applied to it. Augustine clearly doesn't put the spiritual significance in opposition to the literal. Rather he puts it in addition. This is why those who receive the sacrament unworthily are condemned. They are not in spiritual communion with Christ or the body of believers, yet they are indeed partaking of Christ's flesh.

---

This is what is so weird to me about this conversation. I don't read Augustine as inconsistent with anything I have been taught in my life in the Church. Yet people who reject Church teaching or who don't even recognize Augustine as an authority on the Eucharist are hell-bent on telling us that they are the ones who truly know what Church teaching and Augustine really mean. It just doesn't make any sense. Many such cases.

I am, in part, thankful for my experience at Baylor because it really opened my eyes to the fact that for many Protestants, even to this day, their faith is materially defined by their opposition to Rome. Don't get me wrong, my Catholic schooling did cover the reformation and explore those issues as a theological and historical topic, but there seems to be an unreciprocated intensity to their focus on us. I also understand a good faith effort to oppose that which you disagree with, but for some, it goes way beyond that.

---

Similar experience. Grew up in a Catholic household and went to Baylor because I wanted to go to a Christian school. Didn't take long to realize many of my Protestant peers didn't claim us as Christians. I never really thought about the whole Protestant v Catholic/Ortho thing until then. Luckily Baylor has a huge Catholic population since much of the student body is from the West Coast.

Fwiw, my best friend from Baylor is Protestant, he was initially interested in Orthodox but I think he is starting to migrate to Catholicism because there's no Orthodox presence in his home-town.

---

It wasn't that long ago that most practicing prots didn't see many devout Catholics. Just the general population, with every vice under the sun, and so they don't believe most of the catholic-in-name-only are saved. I don't necessarily think so either. Same for progressive CINO prots, they have willingly exchanged truth for a lie.

And it works both ways. Was in a Wendy's where a catholic lay person verbally attacked a Presby Priest and berated him in line. I watched for a bit and then decided to help the nice guy out and reminded the lady of Romes not so spotless past. And of course, her view is that is irrelevant because RC rules.

Anyway for the most part, Its a little different today because we are able to interact and see devout examples daily through media. So most practicing traditional prots that I know have little doubt that the devout RCs who truly put their faith in Christ will be in heaven along with the devout prots.

Is it me or does it seem like the last 2 popes were basically selected right out of the DNC?