Pope Leo is one of the Catholic Church's biggest problems

10,642 Views | 373 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pope Leo and the aging Catholic hierarchy pine for the days of Vatican II "renewal and reform"

Of course it was Vatican II and its wrecking ball "reform" to the centuries old Roman rites that accelerated Catholic collapse and emptied out the pews…or at least greatly accelerated the process




BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."

- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.

I would say a better term would be "real presence". I thought the same, but transubstantiation didn't come around until 1250 AD or so. Up to that point, it was "real presence" then someone asked "how" and the whole transubstantiation came about.

They used different terms for it. I usually avoid the term "real presence" because, as we're seeing now, it can mean almost anything. The main point is that Christ is present in the elements of the Eucharist itself, not just wherever two are gathered.

... and that "presence" in the Eucharist is in the form of his actual flesh and blood, i.e. transubstantiation, which if denied the RC Church says you are condemned to Hell.

NONE of which Augustine or the early church believed, or what Jesus and his apostles taught.

The Church doesn't say you are condemned to hell.

The Eucharist is one of the Christian mysteries, like the Trinity itself. The idea of three persons in one God is paradoxical, but it's what we believe. It's the same with Christ's presence in the Eucharist, to which Scripture and the earliest tradition all bear witness.

The lie that an "anathema" according to Roman Catholicism doesn't condemn a person to Hell has been addressed many times. All the bishops at the council of Niceae II defined an anathema this way: "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God".
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Christ himself says it's his body & blood, the people who lived shortly after him confirm it was his body and blood, and even Martin Luther believed the real presence.

500 years later we have Pastor Bob telling us it's a mere metaphor, I think I'll go with the early church fathers on this one.

Both Jesus and the people shortly after him were speaking in the same figurative language. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic, so no surprise he missed the point.

Did Peter ever get around to feeding Jesus' sheep back at his ranch?

And clearly, you Roman Catholicis are intent on ignoring the evidence, such as from Augustine who clearly said it was a figure of speech, and perpetuating the lie that the belief it is a metaphor is only 500 years old. You really can't help people who are intent on being brick walls.


Haha oh my goodness, you're a fool. Do you REALLY think the Catholic Church would canonize Augustine as a Saint if he rejected the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Read more into his writings before you make asinine claims.

Who said that Augustine rejected the "Real Presence"? He clearly did not believe in "transubstantiation". Which interestingly, would mean he is anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church, the very church that canonized him as a saint!

Your post is the perfect example of what I said earlier - Roman Catholics play the motte-and-bailey game with the Eucharist. They insist "transubstantiation' is involved, and then when pressed, they go to the less controversial and more easily defended "but the church had always believed in the Real Presence!" argument.

Thank you for demonstrating the absurdity of the Roman Catholic position.

And what do you make of the quotes I provided, where Augustine CLEARLY says that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John chapter 6, and not literally? It's obvious you guys simply want to avoid this fact, and resort to "asinine" name calling.


St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years…

However, I never mentioned Transubstantiation in the first place, I only mentioned "real presence", which is the base line of Transubstantiation. Augustine believed that Christ is the Eucharist.

"For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body".

He didn't believe it was a mere figure of speech like modern day Protestants.

"St Augustine didn't believe in Transubstantiation because it wouldnt be developed for another 800 years".

Thank you for acknowledging that Roman Catholicism is therefore NOT the "original, unchanged faith since the beginning".

Many Protestants today believe there is a spiritual presence with the communion. So there is no problem with the "Real Presence" in that sense. But like Protestants today, Augustine clearly viewed that the "eating of Jesus flesh and drinking his blood" in John chapter 6 as being NOT in the literal sense (transubstantiation in the Eucharist in Roman Catholicism) but rather in the figurative sense. You're just completely ignoring his words. "It is figurative". Here are his words again for the easily-forgetful:

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53) This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."

- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. Book 3 Chapter 16).


The idea of Transubstantiation being developed 800 years after Augustine does not mean Roman Catholicism began at the same time? You make no sense.

You keep using this term "Roman Catholic", are you suggesting that Augustine was not a Roman Catholic? Constantine legalized Christianity in the ROMAN empire in 313 AD, it was made the state religion only a few decades later. These events happened before and during Augustine's life. He was aligned politically and culturally with Rome.

Real Presence is a broad term, like Sam said. If you don't believe Augustine believed Christ is the bread and wine then you're completely lost. The Augustine Order says he does, I'm going with them. But I'm sure the random Sicem365 poster knows more about Augustine than the order that has followed his teachings for 800+ years.

Seriously - what is it with the Roman Catholics here and problems with thinking and comprehension? Do you really not understand how a concept being developed 800 years after Augustine's day which and then made a requirement for salvation, where denying it condemns a person to Hell - a doctrine that did not exist in Scripture and in the early church, including Augustine's time - that this completely belies the RC claim of being the original, unchanged faith?

And you are continually and conspicuously avoiding the salient point: did Augustine, or did he not, believe that the eating and drinking of the Eucharist bread and wine was eating and drinking the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, based on what you read in his quote above? If you thnk "no", then YOU are the one who's lost. And where (provide the citation) does Augustine explicitly state that Jesus is actually within the elements of the bread and wine itself, whether physical or spiritual? Note that statements such as "The bread is his body" is NOT explicitly stating this. It can be simply that Augustine expressing it this way is in the same figurative sense that he says Jesus spoke in. So if you can't provide it, then how can you Roman Catholics say that Augustine didn't express the same belief about communion that Protestants today believe?





this isn't about the amorphous concept of the "Real Presence", this is about transubstantiation, which is a dogma of the RC Church. Augustine clearly did not believe that in the Eucharist, one is eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. He clearly says that it is metaphorical, just as Protestants believe. If you can't gather that from what he wrote above, then YOU are lost. You are continually repeating your motte-and-bailey tactic of retreating to the "Real Presence" position when defending the RC dogmatic transubstantiation position. If you can't understand that the two are not the same thing, then you are either being dishonest or dense.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Just because God CAN do something, it doesn't mean he did.

If you're denying it's cannibalism, then you're denying it really is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. You're trying the same kind of "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism, and which serves as a constant testament to her false teaching. Satan is the god of confusion.

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

You are kidding right? From the guy that all sins are saved through grace? How? Faith. Trinity, how do you explain it? Mystery, but have faith. Why is the Bible right? Holy Spirit came down (or up or appeared?) and made sure that only the correct stuff was included. How? Have faith...

The whole thing is stuff that makes no sense, but we believe because we have faith. So, the Eucharist is the bridge too far?????

Faith is not grounded in intellectually dishonest double talk. If it is, I suggest you start questioning what you're putting your "faith" in.

You guys are trying to argue that yes, you're eating the actual flesh of Jesus.... but no, it's not cannibalism. I suggest you look up what cannibalism means, and then go from there. This isn't an issue of "faith".
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Transubstantiation was simply describing how it happened, it did not change real presence. Just the process. You really are off base, cherry picking info will do that. Look at the passage you put up, rather than looking at the whole in context you highlight little phrases and words. Anyone can play gotcha.

Am I talking with fourth graders? Is transubstantiation the "Real Presence" that Augustine believed in, though? And yet, your church anathematizes anyone who doesn't believe in transubstantiation, right? This means that if you only believed that there was a mysterious spiritual presence in the elements of the bread and wine, but not an actual transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, you are anathema! And as I've shown, according to RC this means "separation from God", i.e. being condemned to Hell!

Can you honestly tell me that based on his quote above, that Augustine believed that in the Eucharist, one is eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? You're trying your hardest to eliminate what he said and call it "cherry picking", but I gave you the entire quote in its full context. So YOU look at the whole context of that passage, and tell me.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Read all of Augustine's works, he believed in real presence.

You are chasing something that doesn't exist. Augustine's believes on the real presence in the eucharist is settled and has been for over 1000 years.

Maybe if you approached your faith with the faith of a 4th grader instead of playing gotcha you would be happier in your faith and not take joy in attacking others. Just a thought. Try Mathew 18, take the ego out of your faith.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Read all of Augustine's works, he believed in real presence.

You are chasing something that doesn't exist. Augustine's believes on the real presence in the eucharist is settled and has been for over 1000 years.

Maybe if you approached your faith with the faith of a 4th grader instead of playing gotcha you would be happier in your faith and not take joy in attacking others. Just a thought. Try Mathew 18, take the ego out of your faith.

Instead of just repeating yourself like a broken record and being a brick wall to what I'm saying, how about actually engaging in what I'm saying?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."

- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.

Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?

Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.

Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?

Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?

Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.

So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?

Not in a crude molecular sense, no.

Jesus actual body and blood in their "molecular sense" is what was was sacrificed on the cross. Jesus said the the bread in the Last Supper was his body "given for you" (Luke 22:19) and that the wine was the "blood" which was to be "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Well, the body that was given for us and the blood that was poured out for us on the was the body and blood in their "molecular senses". So if you're taking Jesus literally, but denying it in its molecular sense, then you're saying the bread is NOT his body that was given for them, and that the wine was NOT the blood poured out for them, thus contradicting Jesus.


It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

Did you ever read FLBear's link?

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."

- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.

Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?

Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.

Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?

Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?

Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.

So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?

Not in a crude molecular sense, no.

Jesus actual body and blood in their "molecular sense" is what was was sacrificed on the cross. Jesus said the the bread in the Last Supper was his body "given for you" (Luke 22:19) and that the wine was the "blood" which was to be "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Well, the body that was given for us and the blood that was poured out for us on the was the body and blood in their "molecular senses". So if you're taking Jesus literally, but denying it in its molecular sense, then you're saying the bread is NOT his body that was given for them, and that the wine was NOT the blood poured out for them, thus contradicting Jesus.


It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

Did you ever read FLBear's link?

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?
The quotations you demanded.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Just because God CAN do something, it doesn't mean he did.

If you're denying it's cannibalism, then you're denying it really is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. You're trying the same kind of "double talk" that plagues Roman Catholicism, and which serves as a constant testament to her false teaching. Satan is the god of confusion.

Is Jesus physically missing any flesh after the Eucharist is consumed?

Obviously, NO.

Therefore, it is NOT cannibalism.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

If the bread and wine are turned into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and then eaten, then YES, that part of his flesh that was transformed from the bread and wine are missing. If it isn't, then you really didn't eat his actual flesh and blood.

Apparently, it IS too hard for you Roman Catholics to understand.

This is yet another pure example of Roman Catholics having to say that a thing is something, and also say that it is NOT that something in the same breath. The necessity for Roman Catholics to engage in this repetitive double talk in order to defend their beliefs is clear evidence that their theology is completely untenable. And I think you guys even know it. But pride, and tribe......

You are kidding right? From the guy that all sins are saved through grace? How? Faith. Trinity, how do you explain it? Mystery, but have faith. Why is the Bible right? Holy Spirit came down (or up or appeared?) and made sure that only the correct stuff was included. How? Have faith...

The whole thing is stuff that makes no sense, but we believe because we have faith. So, the Eucharist is the bridge too far?????

It's IMMENSELY ironic that you are preaching about accepting thing on faith, when you don't even believe in your own church's dogmas and you don't accept the vast majority of the New Testament as inspired. You aren't even a Roman Catholic by definition, yet you vehemently defend it. It's because you don't care about the truth, you only care about your tribe.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."

- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.

Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?

Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.

Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?

Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?

Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.

So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?

Not in a crude molecular sense, no.

Jesus actual body and blood in their "molecular sense" is what was was sacrificed on the cross. Jesus said the the bread in the Last Supper was his body "given for you" (Luke 22:19) and that the wine was the "blood" which was to be "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Well, the body that was given for us and the blood that was poured out for us on the was the body and blood in their "molecular senses". So if you're taking Jesus literally, but denying it in its molecular sense, then you're saying the bread is NOT his body that was given for them, and that the wine was NOT the blood poured out for them, thus contradicting Jesus.


It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

Did you ever read FLBear's link?

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:


You keep using this term "Roman Catholic", are you suggesting that Augustine was not a Roman Catholic?


Saint Augustine was not a Roman Catholic.

Nobody before 1054 A.D. was a Roman Catholic, and Saint Augustine predated the launch of Roman Catholicism by some 700 years.

Saying Saint Augustine was a Roman Catholic is akin to saying Arius was a Muslim.

"From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven."

And yes, Arianism was involved in the founding of Islam. The above is from "On Heresies" by Saint John of Damascus.

This is a pretty good article about that if you are interested in that bit of history.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."

- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.

Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?

Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.

Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?

Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?

Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.

So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?

Not in a crude molecular sense, no.

Jesus actual body and blood in their "molecular sense" is what was was sacrificed on the cross. Jesus said the the bread in the Last Supper was his body "given for you" (Luke 22:19) and that the wine was the "blood" which was to be "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Well, the body that was given for us and the blood that was poured out for us on the was the body and blood in their "molecular senses". So if you're taking Jesus literally, but denying it in its molecular sense, then you're saying the bread is NOT his body that was given for them, and that the wine was NOT the blood poured out for them, thus contradicting Jesus.


It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

Did you ever read FLBear's link?

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.

Let me save us both some time. Nothing in the cited quotes expressly contradicts your proof text. Then again, nothing in your proof text expressly says communion is "purely symbolic." It's almost like you have to read everything in context to discern the meaning.

But you have your usual schtick to perform. Read everything in the most stubbornly obtuse way possible, then wail and lament that none of it makes sense. Very tiresome and predictable at this point.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

Sam Lowry said:

We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.


Sam, this is the Lutheran position of consubstantiation: "The idea is that in the communion the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine coexist in union with each other."

This is similar to the Orthodox position which says Christ is in the elements as stated in John's Gospel, but it is a mystery beyond our understanding as to how this happens.

The Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation denotes the idea that during the ceremony of the Mass, the bread and wine are changed in substance into the flesh and blood of Christ, which is very much a matter of alchemy not faith.

I would argue that the Orthodox view is closer to the Catholic one, especially since it specifically rejects consubstantiation. However, this is very much in the Orthodox tradition of trying to separate oneself from Catholics by finding an issue where there is none (see "Filioque" for the classic example).
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Realitybites said:

Sam Lowry said:

We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.


Sam, this is the Lutheran position of consubstantiation: "The idea is that in the communion the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine coexist in union with each other."

This is similar to the Orthodox position which says Christ is in the elements as stated in John's Gospel, but it is a mystery beyond our understanding as to how this happens.

The Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation denotes the idea that during the ceremony of the Mass, the bread and wine are changed in substance into the flesh and blood of Christ, which is very much a matter of alchemy not faith.

I would argue that the Orthodox view is closer to the Catholic one, especially since it specifically rejects consubstantiation. However, this is very much in the Orthodox tradition of trying to separate oneself from Catholics by finding an issue where there is none (see "Filioque" for the classic example).

The Catholic Church recognizes other Sacramental denominations as being in full communion

  • Eastern Catholic Churches
  • Lutheran Church in America.
  • Moravian Church
  • Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht
  • Philippine Independent Church
  • Church of Sweden
As for the definition of the Eucharist, Luther was a Catholic Priest of course it is similar. His issues was more where salvation came - Grace alone vs Grace and Works. Not with the real presence in the Eucharest and what that meant.

When we lived in Amarillo, there was no WELS Lutheran Church and the Catholic Convent we attended Mass the Pastor allowed my Wife to attend Communion. Surprisingly, WELS agreed. The quote being they were not going to deny someone the Eucharist because of distance. Impressed with both sides.

But, typically those in remote areas learn how to work together. Best masses I attended were in the military in the 82nd on the hood of a HUMVEE mixed Catholic and Protestant. Those guys were great. Priest from Convent was great guy. Want to go to a moving Mass, go to Mother's Day Service at a convent. That will get you.

We can all learn from them.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

"What seemed difficult to them was his saying, "Unless a man eat my flesh, he will not have eternal life." They understood it foolishly. They thought in a carnal way and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some pieces of this body and give the pieces to them. And they said, "This is a hard saying." They were the ones who were hard, not the saying. For the twelve disciples remained with him, and when the others left, they pointed out to him that those who had been scandalized by what he had said had left. But he instructed them and said to them, "It is the spirit which gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Understand what I have said spiritually. You are not going to eat this body which you see. Nor are you going to drink the blood which those who crucify me are going to shed. I have given you a sacrament. Understood spiritually, it will give you life. Although it must be celebrated visibly yet it should be understood invisibly."

- Translated by J.E. Tweed. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Except you in your last post, where you were asserting that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Where did I say that? He believed in transubstantiation, not cannibalism.

Are you stupid? That means you're asserting Augustine believed they were eating Jesus' literal body.

Seriously, RC's, is Sam the best you got? Is there ANYONE among RC's who can have an honest, rational discussion and debate?

Of course I'm not the best we've got. I've always encouraged you to seek out other sources if you're really interested.

Let me ask this. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in communion, and if so what does that mean to you?

Don't run away from the point. You ARE saying that Augustine believed they were eating Jesus literal body and blood, right? And then you denied you were saying it, right?

Augustine didn't believe (nor does any Catholic) that the actual body in which Christ walked the earth is torn up and consumed in the mass. We believe the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present invisibly under the appearance of the transformed bread and wine.

So when Jesus held up the bread and said "This is my body", he wasn't referring to the body that he was walking the earth with, that was there right in front of his disciples?

Not in a crude molecular sense, no.

Jesus actual body and blood in their "molecular sense" is what was was sacrificed on the cross. Jesus said the the bread in the Last Supper was his body "given for you" (Luke 22:19) and that the wine was the "blood" which was to be "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). Well, the body that was given for us and the blood that was poured out for us on the was the body and blood in their "molecular senses". So if you're taking Jesus literally, but denying it in its molecular sense, then you're saying the bread is NOT his body that was given for them, and that the wine was NOT the blood poured out for them, thus contradicting Jesus.


It was confusing for many of Jesus' listeners, too. Welcome to the world of Christian theology circa AD 30.

And apparently the apostles as well, according to your view, considering that they commanded Gentile Christians to abstain from blood. It's pretty obvious they weren't taking Jesus literally in the Last Supper. They were highly aware of the symbolism involved in the Passover meal, and knew that Jesus was instituting a new symbolism for the new covenant.

Did you ever read FLBear's link?

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.

Nothing in the cited quotes expressly contradicts your proof text.

Thank you. And it's not a "proof text", it's clearly revealing Augustine's beliefs. But I understand why you feel the need to reduce it to such. It's all you can do. You can't erase what he said, so all you have left to do is to say that it doesn't mean what it clearly says. This is your typical game, and THAT is what's tiresome.

Therefore, nothing in that link debunks anything I've said, contrary to your assertion. This really isn't that hard.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam LowryDid you ever read FLBear's link? said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.

Then again, nothing in your proof text expressly says communion is "purely symbolic."

Again - "It is figurative". If he's saying it's figurative, what part of it is he saying is NOT figurative? Therefore, "purely figuratve" is a completely valid statement. Especially considering you still have not provided ANY statement from Augustine to the counter.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam LowryDid you ever read FLBear's link? said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.

Then again, nothing in your proof text expressly says communion is "purely symbolic."

Again - "It is figurative". If he's saying it's figurative, what part of it is he saying is NOT figurative? Therefore, "purely figuratve" is a completely valid statement. Especially considering you still have not provided ANY statement from Augustine to the counter.

Glad you figured out what the Church missed for all these centuries. I will alert the pope immediately.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam LowryDid you ever read FLBear's link? said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.

Then again, nothing in your proof text expressly says communion is "purely symbolic."

Again - "It is figurative". If he's saying it's figurative, what part of it is he saying is NOT figurative? Therefore, "purely figuratve" is a completely valid statement. Especially considering you still have not provided ANY statement from Augustine to the counter.

'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 … 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.'
Sermon 228B,3


That is pretty clear he not only believes the Eucharist IS THE Body and Blood, but that it transforms you. That is not figurative.

Here is the text.I expect you to find a phrase or word to argue. It is what you do...

Writings of St Augustine, Sermons - Sermon 228B

Sermon 228/B
ON THE SACRAMENTS ON EASTER DAY The sacrifice of our time, how great and noble. The obligation of giving a sermon and the care with which we have labored over you, so that Christ may be formed in you, compels us to admonish your infancy, who, now reborn from water and the Spirit, behold this food and drink on this Lord's table with new light, and receive it with newfound piety. What does such a great and divine sacrament mean, such a clear and noble remedy, such a pure and easy sacrifice, which is now offered not in one earthly city of Jerusalem, nor in that tabernacle made by Moses, nor in that temple built by Solomon, which were shadows of things to come, but from the rising of the sun to its setting, as foretold by the Prophets, it is immolated, and according to the grace of the New Testament is offered to God as a victim of praise. No longer is a bloody sacrifice sought from the flocks of animals, neither is a sheep or goat brought to the divine altars, but the sacrifice of our time is the body and blood of the priest himself. For of him it was foretold long before in the Psalms: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. And what Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, brought forth bread and wine, when he blessed our father Abraham, we read and hold in the book of Genesis. In the bread, the body of Christ must be recognized; in the cup, the blood.
Therefore Christ our Lord, who by suffering for us offered that which he received from us by being born, made the prince of priests forever, gave the order of sacrifice which you see, without a doubt of his body and blood. For his body, struck by a spear, emitted water and blood, by which he dismissed our sins. Mindful of this grace, working out your own salvation, since it is God who works in you, approach with fear and trembling to the participation of this altar. Recognize in the bread, what hung on the cross; in the chalice, what flowed from his side. For even those old sacrifices of the people of God prefigured this one to come by varied diversity. For Christ himself is both the lamb for the innocence of his simple mind, and the goat for the likeness of sinful flesh. And whatever else was foreshadowed in many and diverse ways in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one thing revealed in the New Testament.
Through the Eucharist we are converted into the body of Christ.
Therefore, take and eat the body of Christ, you who have already been made members of Christ in the body of Christ; take and drink the blood of Christ. Do not be dissolved, eat your bond; do not consider yourselves vile, drink your price. As this is converted into you when you eat and drink it, so also you are converted into the body of Christ when you live obediently and piously. For He Himself, with His passion already approaching, while making Passover with His disciples, took the bread, blessed it, and said: This is my body, which will be given up for you. Similarly, He gave the blessed cup saying: This is my blood of the New Testament, which will be shed for many for the remission of sins. This you either read or heard in the Gospel, but you did not know that this Eucharist is the Son: now, however, having been sprinkled in heart with a pure conscience, and having washed the body with clean water, approach Him, and be enlightened, and your faces will not be ashamed. For if you receive this worthily, which pertains to the New Testament, through which you hope for eternal inheritance, holding the new commandment that you love one another, you have life in you. For you receive that flesh, of which life itself says: The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world; and: Unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he will not have life in himself. The Eucharist is a sign of unity in one body.
Therefore, having life in Him, you will be in one flesh with Him. For this sacrament does not commend the body of Christ so as to separate you from it. For the Apostle recalls that this was foretold in Holy Scripture: "The two will become one flesh." This sacrament, he said, is great; but I speak in Christ and in the Church. And in another place, about the same Eucharist, he says: "We, being many, are one bread, one body." Therefore, you begin to receive what you have also started to be, if you do not receive it unworthily, so that you do not eat and drink judgment upon yourselves. For thus it says: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself."
He receives worthily who maintains the unity of faith and charity
"But you will worthily receive it if you beware of the leaven of false doctrine, that you may be unleavened in sincerity and truth; or if you hold onto that leaven of charity, which a woman hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened. For this woman is the Wisdom of God, made through the Virgin in mortal flesh, who spreads her Gospel throughout the whole world, which was restored after the flood by the three sons of Noah, as in three measures, until the whole is leavened. This is the whole, which in Greek is called olon, where you will be keeping the bond of peace according to the whole, which is called catholon, and from which the term 'Catholic' is derived."
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Am I talking with fourth graders? Is transubstantiation the "Real Presence" that Augustine believed in, though? And yet, your church anathematizes anyone who doesn't believe in transubstantiation, right? This means that if you only believed that there was a mysterious spiritual presence in the elements of the bread and wine, but not an actual transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, you are anathema! And as I've shown, according to RC this means "separation from God", i.e. being condemned to Hell!

Can you honestly tell me that based on his quote above, that Augustine believed that in the Eucharist, one is eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? You're trying your hardest to eliminate what he said and call it "cherry picking", but I gave you the entire quote in its full context. So YOU look at the whole context of that passage, and tell me.

With all due respect, I think you need some counseling.

I've stated this before -
  • Only those that are Catholic were anathematized.
  • Anathemas didn't apply to protestants.
  • Anathemas NO LONGER EXIST. Code of Canon law removed them.
  • The doctrinal truths still remain, but the anathemas that protected them don't.
Please find another hook for your hat.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam LowryDid you ever read FLBear's link? said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What from that link do you think debunks anything I've said?

The quotations you demanded.

So you have no actual answer. Par for your course.

Then again, nothing in your proof text expressly says communion is "purely symbolic."

Again - "It is figurative". If he's saying it's figurative, what part of it is he saying is NOT figurative? Therefore, "purely figuratve" is a completely valid statement. Especially considering you still have not provided ANY statement from Augustine to the counter.

Glad you figured out what the Church missed for all these centuries. I will alert the pope immediately.

Is it such a far-fetched idea that your church missed it, considering it's missed on so many other things that even baby Christians know to be true?

And you've once again dodged yet another opportunity to actually substantiate why saying "purely figurative/symbolic" is wrong. So I'll ask again - what part of what he says "it is figurative" does Augustine mean it is also NOT figurative?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Am I talking with fourth graders? Is transubstantiation the "Real Presence" that Augustine believed in, though? And yet, your church anathematizes anyone who doesn't believe in transubstantiation, right? This means that if you only believed that there was a mysterious spiritual presence in the elements of the bread and wine, but not an actual transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, you are anathema! And as I've shown, according to RC this means "separation from God", i.e. being condemned to Hell!

Can you honestly tell me that based on his quote above, that Augustine believed that in the Eucharist, one is eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? You're trying your hardest to eliminate what he said and call it "cherry picking", but I gave you the entire quote in its full context. So YOU look at the whole context of that passage, and tell me.

With all due respect, I think you need some counseling.

I've stated this before -
  • Only those that are Catholic were anathematized.
  • Anathemas didn't apply to protestants.
  • Anathemas NO LONGER EXIST. Code of Canon law removed them.
  • The doctrinal truths still remain, but the anathemas that protected them don't.
Please find another hook for your hat.

- Roman Catholicism has already anathematized Protestants, so your point is completely pointless.
- Cite where anathemas "no longer exist".

With all due respect, you are not intellectually capable of these arguments based on my experience with you. That, or you're just incredibly, incredibly dishonest.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You just want to *****. You have gotten pages of proof. You are wrong. I am sure there is some other minutia you can latch on to yell about. This one is done.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Pope Leo and the aging Catholic hierarchy pine for the days of Vatican II "renewal and reform"

Of course it was Vatican II and its wrecking ball "reform" to the centuries old Roman rites that accelerated Catholic collapse and emptied out the pews…or at least greatly accelerated the process






You realize that ALL Christian church attendance is down since 1966. This isn't a function of Vatican II. This is a result of a secularization of our country over the last 60+ years.

We introduced the birth control pill in 1960, Pope Paul VI wrote in his brilliant encyclical, Humanae Vitae, in 1968 what would happen to society with birth control -

  • A Rise in Marital Infidelity and a General Lowering of Moral Standards
  • The Degradation of Women
  • Abuse of Government Power Over Human Reproduction
  • Unbridled Human Autonomy Over the Body
With declining morals, fewer people needed or wanted God. This isn't a Vatican II issue. This is a degradation of morals in an entire country.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i read your bold statments as saying we are converted to the body of Christ upon eating the bread, not the bread converts to Christ.



"As this(the eucharist) is converted into you when you eat and drink it, so also you are converted into the body of Christ when you live obediently and piously."
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

You just want to *****. You have gotten pages of proof. You are wrong. I am sure there is some other minutia you can latch on to yell about. This one is done.

What am I wrong about? The pages I'm looking at show the opposite.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

i read your bold statments as saying we are converted to the body of Christ upon eating the bread, not the bread converts

Yep, that's what I read too. But getting them to see anything outside of their confirmation bias is near impossible.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Am I talking with fourth graders? Is transubstantiation the "Real Presence" that Augustine believed in, though? And yet, your church anathematizes anyone who doesn't believe in transubstantiation, right? This means that if you only believed that there was a mysterious spiritual presence in the elements of the bread and wine, but not an actual transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, you are anathema! And as I've shown, according to RC this means "separation from God", i.e. being condemned to Hell!

Can you honestly tell me that based on his quote above, that Augustine believed that in the Eucharist, one is eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? You're trying your hardest to eliminate what he said and call it "cherry picking", but I gave you the entire quote in its full context. So YOU look at the whole context of that passage, and tell me.

With all due respect, I think you need some counseling.

I've stated this before -
  • Only those that are Catholic were anathematized.
  • Anathemas didn't apply to protestants.
  • Anathemas NO LONGER EXIST. Code of Canon law removed them.
  • The doctrinal truths still remain, but the anathemas that protected them don't.
Please find another hook for your hat.

- Roman Catholicism has already anathematized Protestants, so your point is completely pointless.
- Cite where anathemas "no longer exist".

With all due respect, you are not intellectually capable of these arguments based on my experience with you. That, or you're just incredibly, incredibly dishonest.

1917 Code of Canon Law - reduced the distinction between major and minor excommunication, noting that excommunication was only called anathema when inflicted with specific, solemn ceremonies.

1983 Code of Canon Law - This modern code completely removed the word "anathema" from its text. It abrogated all prior canonical penalties not explicitly included in the new laws.

Trent condemned protestant doctrines as heretical, but not protestant persons. Only Catholics that had rejected those articles of faith could be anathematized.

You may need to get some updated "anti-Catholic" books.

Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


As usual, your comprehension is sorely lacking. I've already explained that if the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, and then eaten, then THAT part that is newly "made" from the bread and wine is what goes missing. If NONE of Jesus' body goes "missing" from his person, then you didn't really eat his actual body. By denying that any flesh of Jesus goes missing, you're actually denying that you're eating his real flesh! You've defeated your own theology!
You truly misunderstand cannibalism (and the entire Catholic faith), but that's not a shocker.

Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


What you dishonest/dense Roman Catholics just can't seem to grasp is that the "Real Presence" believed by the church fathers did not all mean "transubstantiation". Never have I argued that the "Real Presence" was not always believed by the church. Rather, I've argued against YOUR Church's argument that transubstantiation was always believed.
I feel like you are yelling at clouds here. The two concepts are different sides of the same coin.

I'm glad that you agree that the Church has always believed in the Real Presence.

But the Real Presence is the fact the at consecration, while the appearance of bread and wine exist (accidents), the substance is changed into Body and Blood of Jesus. They believed (the Church fathers) that this was NOT just a symbol. They believed that it was the Body and Blood of Jesus. It could be worshipped and adored.

St Augustine stated:
"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it." (Enarrationes in Psalmos 33)

Now, with respect to Transubstantiation, I would agree that no one used that term until the Forth Lateran Council in 1251, but that doesn't mean that the process didn't exist. The Church didn't have a working "definition" for the process. That's all Transubstantiation is it's the "How it Happens."

Please help me better understand what you believe the differences are between the two terms.

Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:


Eating human flesh is eating human flesh. Sinful for Jews, so transubstantiation did not happen.
Except Jesus said to do so.

You are failing to understand the point of transubstantiation.

At the words of consecration, the SUBSTANCE is changed. The ACCIDENTS remain the same.

Please let me know if you require further clarification.

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not mine, that was directly from the sermon. I didn't bold anything, that was Augustine's emphasis. I just copied from the Augustine Orders library of his sermons.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In the bread, the body of Christ must be recognized; in the cup, the blood.

Pretty clear...
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:


Am I talking with fourth graders? Is transubstantiation the "Real Presence" that Augustine believed in, though? And yet, your church anathematizes anyone who doesn't believe in transubstantiation, right? This means that if you only believed that there was a mysterious spiritual presence in the elements of the bread and wine, but not an actual transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, you are anathema! And as I've shown, according to RC this means "separation from God", i.e. being condemned to Hell!

Can you honestly tell me that based on his quote above, that Augustine believed that in the Eucharist, one is eating the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? You're trying your hardest to eliminate what he said and call it "cherry picking", but I gave you the entire quote in its full context. So YOU look at the whole context of that passage, and tell me.

With all due respect, I think you need some counseling.

I've stated this before -
  • Only those that are Catholic were anathematized.
  • Anathemas didn't apply to protestants.
  • Anathemas NO LONGER EXIST. Code of Canon law removed them.
  • The doctrinal truths still remain, but the anathemas that protected them don't.
Please find another hook for your hat.

- Roman Catholicism has already anathematized Protestants, so your point is completely pointless.
- Cite where anathemas "no longer exist".

With all due respect, you are not intellectually capable of these arguments based on my experience with you. That, or you're just incredibly, incredibly dishonest.

1917 Code of Canon Law - reduced the distinction between major and minor excommunication, noting that excommunication was only called anathema when inflicted with specific, solemn ceremonies.

1983 Code of Canon Law - This modern code completely removed the word "anathema" from its text. It abrogated all prior canonical penalties not explicitly included in the new laws.

Trent condemned protestant doctrines as heretical, but not protestant persons. Only Catholics that had rejected those articles of faith could be anathematized.

You may need to get some updated "anti-Catholic" books.



Nothing here is saying that anathemas "no longer exist", but only that they change the way they "punish" those who they anathematize.

But here's the salient question: is the Roman Catholic Church declaring, then, that the anathemas declared by the Council of Niceae II, along with those Council's bishops' very own definition of an anathema as being "nothing more than a complete separation from God", to be invalid and/or wrong?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

In the bread, the body of Christ must be recognized; in the cup, the blood.

Pretty clear...

Where are you getting that this is not figurative, in the same sense that Augustine was saying that Jesus was speaking? You're reading into it through your confirmation bias.

Let me give you example of what you're doing. Suppose you believe that Jesus was being LITERAL when he said he is "the door". Then, when you read a church father echoing Jesus' words and saying, "Jesus is the door", you're saying "SEE??!! This church father is agreeing with me that Jesus is literally a door!!".

Get it?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.