I get that you are playing word games.

Using your logic EVERYTHING is figurative. You are not a serious person in these discussions, your just being a dick.

Every time I take you off ignore, you play this *****

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There 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?

---

If I understand your question correctly, the Catholic Church is stating that the doctrinal truths that the anathemas protected are still valid, but the penalty of anathema no longer exists.

If one does commit a moral sin, they have separated themselves from God until they repent.

The anathema was applied as a canonical penalty to a specific person. It followed a solemn and elaborate ritual procedure. A series of procedures had to be followed, including the local bishop warning the person he was committing a grave ecclesiastical crime and imperiling his soul. This customarily involved the
Ringing of a bell - signifying a public announcement of death
Closing of a (Bible) book - signifying that the person was cut off from the word of God
Snuffing out of candles symbolizing the spiritual darkness into which the anathematized person had cast themselves

This collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.

Today, "ain't nobody got time for that" everytime some Catholic commits "a grave ecclesiastical crime."

Anathemas were removed.

If I have failed to sufficiently answer your question, please restate it so that I can try again.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

So everything Jesus said was figurative? When he refers to God as his father, is that figurative too? You're nothing but a heretic.

Satan knows the significance of the Eucharist, that's why he has spent centuries trying to downplay it. You're one of many who have fallen to this scheme.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There 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?

---

If I understand your question correctly, the Catholic Church is stating that the doctrinal truths that the anathemas protected are still valid, but the penalty of anathema no longer exists.

If one does commit a moral sin, they have separated themselves from God until they repent.

The anathema was applied as a canonical penalty to a specific person. It followed a solemn and elaborate ritual procedure. A series of procedures had to be followed, including the local bishop warning the person he was committing a grave ecclesiastical crime and imperiling his soul. This customarily involved the
Ringing of a bell - signifying a public announcement of death
Closing of a (Bible) book - signifying that the person was cut off from the word of God
Snuffing out of candles symbolizing the spiritual darkness into which the anathematized person had cast themselves

This collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.

Today, "ain't nobody got time for that" everytime some Catholic commits "a grave ecclesiastical crime."

Anathemas were removed.

If I have failed to sufficiently answer your question, please restate it so that I can try again.

---

Are the anathemas pronounced in Niceae II still valid, and are the bishops who attended that council right or wrong that an anathema is "nothing less than complete separation from God"?

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

So everything Jesus said was figurative? When he refers to God as his father, is that figurative too? You're nothing but a heretic.

Satan knows the significance of the Eucharist, that's why he has spent centuries trying to downplay it. You're one of many who have fallen to this scheme.

---

If I'm a heretic, you're calling Augustine a heretic too.

The idea that what I'm saying means "everything is a figure" is just so stupid and ridiculous. Let me ask you: is Jesus saying he is "the door" figurative, or not? What about "I am the bread of life"? How can you tell? Well, we can do the same thing for "This is my body". We also know from other areas of Scripture why the idea that the bread and wine literally turns into Jesus body and blood completely falls apart and is untenable. The apostles forbidding Gentile Christtians from drinking blood in Acts 15 is one such example. Augustine, in his quote, gave you his hermaneutic for determining whether something is literal, or symbolic language - "if it's a vice, then it's figurative. Eating human flesh and drinking blood is a vice. Therefore, it is figure". There is just NO comparison to Jesus calling God his Father, because the literalism is all over Scripture, and completely consistent with all of Scripture.

I haven't got a response from you about the above quote from Augustine - from that quote, can you acknowledge that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation? Yes, or no?

I see it the other way around - Satan knows that the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist binds all their followers to their rule, because apart from their Church they can't receive the Eucharist in the Mass, which would send them to Hell. So, all of them firmly in his grasp, Satan can then introduce all kinds of damnable heresy, and all the Church's people are bound to it. This is why you guys are completely BLIND to the outrageous, egregious, and completely obvious heresy and idolatry surrounding Mary. You're a frog in water that's been slowly turned up into a temperature that will eventually kill it. But you won't jump out, because you don't notice a thing. It is incredibly sad to behold. I'm talking with people who's minds are completed blinded and brainwashed. Open your eyes, before its too late.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

So everything Jesus said was figurative? When he refers to God as his father, is that figurative too? You're nothing but a heretic.

Satan knows the significance of the Eucharist, that's why he has spent centuries trying to downplay it. You're one of many who have fallen to this scheme.

---

If I'm a heretic, you're calling Augustine a heretic too.

The idea that what I'm saying means "everything is a figure" is just so stupid and ridiculous. Let me ask you: is Jesus saying he is "the door" figurative, or not? What about "I am the bread of life"? How can you tell? Well, we can do the same thing for "This is my body". We also know from other areas of Scripture why the idea that the bread and wine literally turns into Jesus body and blood completely falls apart and is untenable. The apostles forbidding Gentile Christtians from drinking blood in Acts 15 is one such example. Augustine, in his quote, gave you his hermaneutic for determining whether something is literal, or symbolic language - "if it's a vice, then it's figurative. Eating human flesh and drinking blood is a vice. Therefore, it is figure". There is just NO comparison to Jesus calling God his Father, because the literalism is all over Scripture, and completely consistent with all of Scripture.

I haven't got a response from you about the above quote from Augustine - from that quote, can you acknowledge that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation? Yes, or no?

I see it the other way around - Satan knows that the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist binds all their followers to their rule, because apart from their Church they can't receive the Eucharist in the Mass, which would send them to Hell. So, all of them firmly in his grasp, Satan can then introduce all kinds of damnable heresy, and all the Church's people are bound to it. This is why you guys are completely BLIND to the outrageous, egregious, and completely obvious heresy and idolatry surrounding Mary. You're a frog in water that's been slowly turned up into a temperature that will eventually kill it. But you won't jump out, because you don't notice a thing. It is incredibly sad to behold. I'm talking with people who's minds are completed blinded and brainwashed. Open your eyes, before its too late.

---

This is real rich. So BustyTarp gets to decide what's figurative and what's not? Your interpretation of scripture lacks order and authority. The funny thing about Protestants is that none of you can even agree on the same thing.

As for your question, why should I repeat what the others have already explained to you? Aquinas has confronted these questions, as well as the Augustine Order. You've self elected to be ignorant and don't care about the truth. Your hatred for the Church has blinded you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

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

Pretty clear...

---

very clear interpretation of "this is my body, do this in remembrance of me". Remembrance = recognizing Christ in the bread and cup

It is a step beyond giving thanks for food by giving thanks for the gift of salvation and sealing the new covenant each time we partake in the bread and cup.

Luke 22:19
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

So everything Jesus said was figurative? When he refers to God as his father, is that figurative too? You're nothing but a heretic.

Satan knows the significance of the Eucharist, that's why he has spent centuries trying to downplay it. You're one of many who have fallen to this scheme.

---

If I'm a heretic, you're calling Augustine a heretic too.

The idea that what I'm saying means "everything is a figure" is just so stupid and ridiculous. Let me ask you: is Jesus saying he is "the door" figurative, or not? What about "I am the bread of life"? How can you tell? Well, we can do the same thing for "This is my body". We also know from other areas of Scripture why the idea that the bread and wine literally turns into Jesus body and blood completely falls apart and is untenable. The apostles forbidding Gentile Christtians from drinking blood in Acts 15 is one such example. Augustine, in his quote, gave you his hermaneutic for determining whether something is literal, or symbolic language - "if it's a vice, then it's figurative. Eating human flesh and drinking blood is a vice. Therefore, it is figure". There is just NO comparison to Jesus calling God his Father, because the literalism is all over Scripture, and completely consistent with all of Scripture.

I haven't got a response from you about the above quote from Augustine - from that quote, can you acknowledge that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation? Yes, or no?

I see it the other way around - Satan knows that the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist binds all their followers to their rule, because apart from their Church they can't receive the Eucharist in the Mass, which would send them to Hell. So, all of them firmly in his grasp, Satan can then introduce all kinds of damnable heresy, and all the Church's people are bound to it. This is why you guys are completely BLIND to the outrageous, egregious, and completely obvious heresy and idolatry surrounding Mary. You're a frog in water that's been slowly turned up into a temperature that will eventually kill it. But you won't jump out, because you don't notice a thing. It is incredibly sad to behold. I'm talking with people who's minds are completed blinded and brainwashed. Open your eyes, before its too late.

---

This is real rich. So BustyTarp gets to decide what's figurative and what's not? Your interpretation of scripture lacks order and authority. The funny thing about Protestants is that none of you can even agree on the same thing.

As for your question, why should I repeat what the others have already explained to you? Aquinas has confronted these questions, as well as the Augustine Order. You've self elected to be ignorant and don't care about the truth. Your hatred for the Church has blinded you.

---

You're merely appealing to authority here, instead of engaging my argument. If I'm wrong, HOW am I wrong?

Can you determine for yourself that Jesus saying "I am the door" is figurative, or do you need a magisterium or an "Augustinian Order" to tell you?

Can you not read that Augustine quote for yourself, and determine for yourself what he's saying? You're only showing that I'm correct, that you've checked your brain at the door and are letting "authority" think for you. As Jesus himself said, "Why don't you reason for yourselves?"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are the anathemas pronounced in Niceae II still valid,

---

Doctrinal truths Yes; Canonical Penalties (ceremonial form) are no longer apply because of the 1983 Code of Canon. Canonical consequences of holding a heresy condemned by an ecumenical council remains very much in force under modern canon law. A person could still be excommunicated. An unrepented soul could end up in hell.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

and are the bishops who attended that council right or wrong that an anathema is "nothing less than complete separation from God"?

---

This is more nuanced.

Spiritually the bishops are correct, and they are drawing from the St. Paul and epistle of Romans 9:3 - "I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren"

In the phrase, "complete separation from God ", the bishops were also making a pastoral and rhetorical point with pastoral urgency. To be cut of from the Body of Christ, which is the Church, is to be cut off from the ordinary means of grace, the sacraments, and the life of sanctifying grace that flows through them.

Where some may have some confusion by which this is NOT a pronouncement on eternal destiny. It isn't a metaphysical guarantee of damnation.

This announcement was hoped to be medicinal and to encourage the person to repent and return to the Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are the anathemas pronounced in Niceae II still valid,

---

Doctrinal truths Yes; Canonical Penalties (ceremonial form) are no longer apply because of the 1983 Code of Canon. Canonical consequences of holding a heresy condemned by an ecumenical council remains very much in force under modern canon law. A person could still be excommunicated. An unrepented soul could end up in hell.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

and are the bishops who attended that council right or wrong that an anathema is "nothing less than complete separation from God"?

---

This is more nuanced.

Spiritually the bishops are correct, and they are drawing from the St. Paul and epistle of Romans 9:3 - "I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren"

In the phrase, "complete separation from God ", the bishops were also making a pastoral and rhetorical point with pastoral urgency. To be cut of from the Body of Christ, which is the Church, is to be cut off from the ordinary means of grace, the sacraments, and the life of sanctifying grace that flows through them.

Where some may have some confusion by which this is NOT a pronouncement on eternal destiny. It isn't a metaphysical guarantee of damnation.

This announcement was hoped to be medicinal and to encourage the person to repent and return to the Church.

---

So... nothing I've been saying is wrong. You said "anathemas don't exist anymore", and then you explain that they in fact still do. Then you agree that an anathema sends someone to Hell. You're trying to hedge on this point, but it's not ultimately changing any end result.

Therefore, a denial of transubstantiation anathematizes someone to Hell. I don't see how you did anything to prove otherwise.

4th and Inches said:

---

very clear interpretation of "this is my body, do this in remembrance of me". Remembrance = recognizing Christ in the bread and cup

---

This is YOUR interpretation of the word "remembrance" in modern day English and not congruent with the original meaning.

The Greek term that Jesus in Luke is anamnesis . It has a much more deeper and existential meaning: it is a remembrance that makes present an act of living memory that breaks the barriers of time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So... nothing I've been saying is wrong. You said "anathemas don't exist anymore", and then you explain that they in fact still do. Then you agree that an anathema sends someone to Hell. You're trying to hedge on this point, but it's not ultimately changing any end result.

Therefore, a denial of transubstantiation anathematizes someone to Hell. I don't see how you did anything to prove otherwise.

---

Dude, you've gone a long way to prove nothing.

For a Catholic to outright reject the concept of transubstantiation with full knowledge is a mortal sin.

For a protestant (or anyone outside the Church) that doesn't know better, it's not.

Is this simply enough for you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"And thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament." Thomas Aquinas

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

So everything Jesus said was figurative? When he refers to God as his father, is that figurative too? You're nothing but a heretic.

Satan knows the significance of the Eucharist, that's why he has spent centuries trying to downplay it. You're one of many who have fallen to this scheme.

---

If I'm a heretic, you're calling Augustine a heretic too.

The idea that what I'm saying means "everything is a figure" is just so stupid and ridiculous. Let me ask you: is Jesus saying he is "the door" figurative, or not? What about "I am the bread of life"? How can you tell? Well, we can do the same thing for "This is my body". We also know from other areas of Scripture why the idea that the bread and wine literally turns into Jesus body and blood completely falls apart and is untenable. The apostles forbidding Gentile Christtians from drinking blood in Acts 15 is one such example. Augustine, in his quote, gave you his hermaneutic for determining whether something is literal, or symbolic language - "if it's a vice, then it's figurative. Eating human flesh and drinking blood is a vice. Therefore, it is figure". There is just NO comparison to Jesus calling God his Father, because the literalism is all over Scripture, and completely consistent with all of Scripture.

I haven't got a response from you about the above quote from Augustine - from that quote, can you acknowledge that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation? Yes, or no?

I see it the other way around - Satan knows that the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist binds all their followers to their rule, because apart from their Church they can't receive the Eucharist in the Mass, which would send them to Hell. So, all of them firmly in his grasp, Satan can then introduce all kinds of damnable heresy, and all the Church's people are bound to it. This is why you guys are completely BLIND to the outrageous, egregious, and completely obvious heresy and idolatry surrounding Mary. You're a frog in water that's been slowly turned up into a temperature that will eventually kill it. But you won't jump out, because you don't notice a thing. It is incredibly sad to behold. I'm talking with people who's minds are completed blinded and brainwashed. Open your eyes, before its too late.

---

This is real rich. So BustyTarp gets to decide what's figurative and what's not? Your interpretation of scripture lacks order and authority. The funny thing about Protestants is that none of you can even agree on the same thing.

As for your question, why should I repeat what the others have already explained to you? Aquinas has confronted these questions, as well as the Augustine Order. You've self elected to be ignorant and don't care about the truth. Your hatred for the Church has blinded you.

---

You're merely appealing to authority here, instead of engaging my argument. If I'm wrong, HOW am I wrong?

Can you determine for yourself that Jesus saying "I am the door" is figurative, or do you need a magisterium or an "Augustinian Order" to tell you?

Can you not read that Augustine quote for yourself, and determine for yourself what he's saying? You're only showing that I'm correct, that you've checked your brain at the door and are letting "authority" think for you. As Jesus himself said, "Why don't you reason for yourselves?"

---

Augustine isn't using "figurative" in the same sense we do. Augustine believes Christ is present in the Eucharist, that's indisputable. Don't spin it back to Transubstantiation because that term wasn't even used for another 800 years.

And yeah, absolutely do I appeal to authority. Religion is a mess without it. Pastor Bob at Harris Creek interprets scripture one way while Pastor Tim at Antioch interprets another. It simply does not work.

This is not about your interpretation. It is about Augustine's. He clearly believed in the real presence. You may believe it is grape juice, that is a you thing.

I propose this gesture to appease the Pope.

The Pope still holds it against Trump for killing the USFL...




Latest headline:
Marco Rubio Rushes to Claim Trump Didn't Threaten the Pope

In all seriousness, it Trump wants the Hispanic vote, don't f-uck with the Pope. Rubio is a South Florida guy, he gets it. Hispanics are the largest growing voting block in key States.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So... nothing I've been saying is wrong. You said "anathemas don't exist anymore", and then you explain that they in fact still do. Then you agree that an anathema sends someone to Hell. You're trying to hedge on this point, but it's not ultimately changing any end result.

Therefore, a denial of transubstantiation anathematizes someone to Hell. I don't see how you did anything to prove otherwise.

---

Dude, you've gone a long way to prove nothing.

For a Catholic to outright reject the concept of transubstantiation with full knowledge is a mortal sin.

For a protestant (or anyone outside the Church) that doesn't know better, it's not.

Is this simply enough for you?

---

1) Anyone who does not believe in transubstantiation can't be a Roman Catholic, and by not being Roman Catholic they are anathematized.

2) Any Roman Catholic who denies transubstantiation is anathematized.

3) An anathema, by the Roman Catholic Church's own definition, is complete separation from God.

You acknowledged all these things are true, even though you specifically argued that "anathemas don't exist anymore". Why you can't have the humility and honesty to acknowledge what transpired above, that you had to go against what you had just argued and admit what I said was true, I don't know. That's your issue, not mine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"And thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament." Thomas Aquinas

---

So, to show me what part of his own statement "It is figurative" that Augustine meant was also NOT figurative......you show me what Thomas Aquinas said eight centuries later??

Seriously... what is the matter with you guys? What is wrong with your brains?

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

So everything Jesus said was figurative? When he refers to God as his father, is that figurative too? You're nothing but a heretic.

Satan knows the significance of the Eucharist, that's why he has spent centuries trying to downplay it. You're one of many who have fallen to this scheme.

---

If I'm a heretic, you're calling Augustine a heretic too.

The idea that what I'm saying means "everything is a figure" is just so stupid and ridiculous. Let me ask you: is Jesus saying he is "the door" figurative, or not? What about "I am the bread of life"? How can you tell? Well, we can do the same thing for "This is my body". We also know from other areas of Scripture why the idea that the bread and wine literally turns into Jesus body and blood completely falls apart and is untenable. The apostles forbidding Gentile Christtians from drinking blood in Acts 15 is one such example. Augustine, in his quote, gave you his hermaneutic for determining whether something is literal, or symbolic language - "if it's a vice, then it's figurative. Eating human flesh and drinking blood is a vice. Therefore, it is figure". There is just NO comparison to Jesus calling God his Father, because the literalism is all over Scripture, and completely consistent with all of Scripture.

I haven't got a response from you about the above quote from Augustine - from that quote, can you acknowledge that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation? Yes, or no?

I see it the other way around - Satan knows that the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist binds all their followers to their rule, because apart from their Church they can't receive the Eucharist in the Mass, which would send them to Hell. So, all of them firmly in his grasp, Satan can then introduce all kinds of damnable heresy, and all the Church's people are bound to it. This is why you guys are completely BLIND to the outrageous, egregious, and completely obvious heresy and idolatry surrounding Mary. You're a frog in water that's been slowly turned up into a temperature that will eventually kill it. But you won't jump out, because you don't notice a thing. It is incredibly sad to behold. I'm talking with people who's minds are completed blinded and brainwashed. Open your eyes, before its too late.

---

This is real rich. So BustyTarp gets to decide what's figurative and what's not? Your interpretation of scripture lacks order and authority. The funny thing about Protestants is that none of you can even agree on the same thing.

As for your question, why should I repeat what the others have already explained to you? Aquinas has confronted these questions, as well as the Augustine Order. You've self elected to be ignorant and don't care about the truth. Your hatred for the Church has blinded you.

---

You're merely appealing to authority here, instead of engaging my argument. If I'm wrong, HOW am I wrong?

Can you determine for yourself that Jesus saying "I am the door" is figurative, or do you need a magisterium or an "Augustinian Order" to tell you?

Can you not read that Augustine quote for yourself, and determine for yourself what he's saying? You're only showing that I'm correct, that you've checked your brain at the door and are letting "authority" think for you. As Jesus himself said, "Why don't you reason for yourselves?"

---

Augustine isn't using "figurative" in the same sense we do. Augustine believes Christ is present in the Eucharist, that's indisputable. Don't spin it back to Transubstantiation because that term wasn't even used for another 800 years.

And yeah, absolutely do I appeal to authority. Religion is a mess without it. Pastor Bob at Harris Creek interprets scripture one way while Pastor Tim at Antioch interprets another. It simply does not work.

---

But did Augustine believe that the Eucharist involved the eating and drinking of bread and wine that was transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus? You are continually and conspicuously avoiding the salient question.

Your Church anathematizes the failure to believe in transubstantiation, NOT the "Real Presence", right?

And please substantiate your claim that Augustine "indisputably" believed in the "Real Presence". Define what you mean by "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed it. Let me remind you, that if you merely give quotes where he says something like "The bread is the body" or "the wine is the blood", you HAVE TO show how these are not simply the echoing of the figurative language that he said Jesus used when he was saying these things. If your definition of "Real Presence" is that Jesus is present either physically or spiritually within the elements of the bread and wine themselves, then you have to show where Augustine says or supports this. Again - define "Real Presence" and show where Augustine believed it.

Coke Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

very clear interpretation of "this is my body, do this in remembrance of me". Remembrance = recognizing Christ in the bread and cup

---

The Greek term that Jesus in Luke is anamnesis . It has a much more deeper and existential meaning: it is a remembrance that makes present an act of living memory that breaks the barriers of time.

---

And so this means that the bread and wine miraculously turn into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus.... how??

Roman Catholicism is a religion completely built upon non sequiturs.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"And thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament." Thomas Aquinas

---

So, to show me what part of his own statement "It is figurative" that Augustine meant was also NOT figurative......you show me what Thomas Aquinas said eight centuries later??

Seriously... what is the matter with you guys? What is wrong with your brains?

---

It is a figure, but not only a figure. If you understand Aquinas' explanation of this idea, you'll better understand what Catholics (including Augustine) have always believed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"And thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament." Thomas Aquinas

---

So, to show me what part of his own statement "It is figurative" that Augustine meant was also NOT figurative......you show me what Thomas Aquinas said eight centuries later??

Seriously... what is the matter with you guys? What is wrong with your brains?

---

It is a figure, but not only a figure. If you understand Aquinas' explanation of this idea, you'll better understand what Catholics (including Augustine) have always believed.

---

But that's your and Aquinas' idea, not Augustine's.

Look, there's a point where you have to realize that you're flailing, and it's better to just acknowledge the truth instead of continuing to make yourself look silly, dishonest, and irrational. "Yes, Augustine does seem to be saying it's figurative. I guess it's wrong to say that the Protestant view, which is pretty much the same as Augustine's, is NOT a "500 year old" belief as we are repeatedly being told." <== WHY is that so hard for Roman Catholics to do??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"And thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament." Thomas Aquinas

---

So, to show me what part of his own statement "It is figurative" that Augustine meant was also NOT figurative......you show me what Thomas Aquinas said eight centuries later??

Seriously... what is the matter with you guys? What is wrong with your brains?

---

It is a figure, but not only a figure. If you understand Aquinas' explanation of this idea, you'll better understand what Catholics (including Augustine) have always believed.

---

But that's your and Aquinas' idea, not Augustine's.

Look, there's a point where you have to realize that you're flailing, and it's better to just acknowledge the truth instead of continuing to make yourself look silly and dishonest. "Yes, Augustine does seem to be saying it's figurative. I guess it's wrong to say that the Protestant view, which is pretty much the same as Augustine's, is NOT a "500 year old" belief as we are repeatedly being told." <== WHY is that so hard for Roman Catholics to do??

---

I didn't say it was a 500-year-old belief, although that is true in the sense that it never had any real purchase before the Reformation.

Augustine himself alludes to it as the oldest of all heresies: "The very first heresy was formulated when men said: "this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?"

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

"And thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament." Thomas Aquinas

---

So, to show me what part of his own statement "It is figurative" that Augustine meant was also NOT figurative......you show me what Thomas Aquinas said eight centuries later??

Seriously... what is the matter with you guys? What is wrong with your brains?

---

It is a figure, but not only a figure. If you understand Aquinas' explanation of this idea, you'll better understand what Catholics (including Augustine) have always believed.

---

But that's your and Aquinas' idea, not Augustine's.

Look, there's a point where you have to realize that you're flailing, and it's better to just acknowledge the truth instead of continuing to make yourself look silly and dishonest. "Yes, Augustine does seem to be saying it's figurative. I guess it's wrong to say that the Protestant view, which is pretty much the same as Augustine's, is NOT a "500 year old" belief as we are repeatedly being told." <== WHY is that so hard for Roman Catholics to do??

---

I didn't say it was a 500-year-old belief, although that is true in the sense that it never had any real purchase before the Reformation.

Augustine himself alludes to it as the oldest of all heresies: "The very first heresy was formulated when men said: "this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?"

---

It's not about what "purchase" it had. The Roman Catholic Church through it's systematic condemnation, and even killing, or those who go against her chosen beliefs can see to it that certain ideas don't develop any "purchase".

Augustine alluded to that saying you referenced NOT to note it a heresy to believe that Jesus was being figurative, but that the "heresy" was in that they were believing it LITERALLY, and by believing so, were believing FOOLISHLY:

"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.)


Good Lord, you got that completely wrong, like 180 degrees wrong! It's time to stop flailing and making yourself look silly, like I said, and just acknowledge that what I'm saying is true.

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

And as you've already seen in his other quote, this foolish carnal understanding is what is at play when you fail to understand that the statement is figurative, and you say that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, i.e. transubstantiation.

Do you honestly believe that Augustine is saying that eating Jesus' flesh and blood are figurative.... but then turns right around and says that the bread and wine are literally the flesh and blood of Jesus that we are to eat?

You continue to offer quotes from Augustine that merely state "the bread is the body", which can be in the figurative sense. You're not showing how this statement is showing that Augustine believes the spiritual presence of Jesus (we already know he denies it is physical) is within the elements of the bread and wine themselves, i.e. the "Real Presence". You're only assuming it through your confirmation bias.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

I accept the bread and the cup as a strong remembrance of the body broken for forgiveness of sin and the blood of new covenant.

if we are saying the spirit of Christ is in the bread and cup after being blessed then one could have strong belief in that.. Spirit of Christ renews and strengthens the inner man

Its hard to have belief in the bread and wine becoming real flesh and blood and by eating it, Christ is in me. Too much of Christs teaching is pushing away the body and increasing the spirit to lean heavy into a belief giving that level of importance Christs flesh

John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

You have it backward. Sam's position is authoritative, the Church and Augustinian Order agree with Sam.

So far, all you have provided is your misinterpretation of a passage on cannibalism You need to show writings where Augustine says the body and blood are not in the eucharist. You do not know more than the Order Augustine founded himself. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are reading it wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

And as you've already seen in his other quote, this foolish carnal understanding is what is at play when you fail to understand that the statement is figurative, and you say that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, i.e. transubstantiation.

---

No, that is your error. You're forcing the same interpretation on Jesus' words that the unbelievers among his audience did, and like them, you reject the true sacrament as a result.

Catholics believe the substance of Christ's body and blood are present under the appearance of bread and wine. It's the appearance of the sacrament that is a figure, or as Aquinas puts it, a sign.

Once you understand this, Augustine's meaning isn't hard to see (and there are many more passages one could quote). Why do you think he says that when our eyes see bread and wine, our faith obliges us to accept them as body and blood? Does it require any leap of faith simply to believe that X symbolizes Y? I don't think so.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

I accept the bread and the cup as a strong remembrance of the body broken for forgiveness of sin and the blood of new covenant.

if we are saying the spirit of Christ is in the bread and cup after being blessed then one could have strong belief in that.. Spirit of Christ renews and strengthens the inner man

Its hard to have belief in the bread and wine becoming real flesh and blood and by eating it, Christ is in me. Too much of Christs teaching is pushing away the body and increasing the spirit to lean heavy into a belief giving that level of importance Christs flesh

John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

---

Putting away the flesh means putting to death carnality and passions. The body itself is holy and a temple of the Spirit. The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection all heavily emphasize its importance.

The Spirit strengthens in many ways -- through the Word, prayer, fellowship, etc. Yet Christ says in John 6 that unless we share in communion, we don't have his life within us. He certainly seems to be telling us that it's a unique source of grace.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You have it backward. Sam's position is authoritative, the Church and Augustinian Order agree with Sam.

So far, all you have provided is your misinterpretation of a passage on cannibalism You need to show writings where Augustine says the body and blood are not in the eucharist. You do not know more than the Order Augustine founded himself. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are reading it wrong.

---

And this is ultimately your position - an appeal to authority, without any real understanding. This is your undoing, and why you have been led to such false teachings. You aren't even a real Roman Catholic, which makes all your passionate defense of it really weird, and really telling. Telling, because if a non-Christian like yourself (who denies that the apostle Paul is inspired thus making the majority of the New Testament uninspired) vehemently defends Catholicism, it says something about the falseness of her beliefs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

And as you've already seen in his other quote, this foolish carnal understanding is what is at play when you fail to understand that the statement is figurative, and you say that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, i.e. transubstantiation.

---

No, that is your error. You're forcing the same interpretation on Jesus' words that the unbelievers among his audience did, and like them, you reject the true sacrament as a result.

Catholics believe the substance of Christ's body and blood are present under the appearance of bread and wine. It's the appearance of the sacrament that is a figure, or as Aquinas puts it, a sign.

Once you understand this, Augustine's meaning isn't hard to see (and there are many more passages one could quote). Why do you think he says that when our eyes see bread and wine, our faith obliges us to accept them as body and blood? Does it require any leap of faith simply to believe that X symbolizes Y? I don't think so.

---

You're once again injecting your own and Aquinas' beliefs into Augustine's head. As it stands, you have completely failed to substantiate your claim that Augustine himself believed in transubstantiation or a spiritual presence of Jesus within the elements of the bread and wine, i.e. the "Real Presence". You're clawing, spitting, twisting, and turning... but you can't escape this. Intelligent people reading this thread can see this.

The unbelievers were believing in the LITERAL intepretation, not the figurative one. You are getting really confused here. If you're STILL arguing that Augustine's quote is saying anything but the fact that Jesus' words about eating and drinking his flesh and blood are completely figurative, then you just aren't an intelligent person. That, or you are just so wickedly dishonest.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

And as you've already seen in his other quote, this foolish carnal understanding is what is at play when you fail to understand that the statement is figurative, and you say that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, i.e. transubstantiation.

---

No, that is your error. You're forcing the same interpretation on Jesus' words that the unbelievers among his audience did, and like them, you reject the true sacrament as a result.

Catholics believe the substance of Christ's body and blood are present under the appearance of bread and wine. It's the appearance of the sacrament that is a figure, or as Aquinas puts it, a sign.

Once you understand this, Augustine's meaning isn't hard to see (and there are many more passages one could quote). Why do you think he says that when our eyes see bread and wine, our faith obliges us to accept them as body and blood? Does it require any leap of faith simply to believe that X symbolizes Y? I don't think so.

---

You're once again injecting your own and Aquinas' beliefs into Augustine's head. As it stands, you have completely failed to substantiate your claim that Augustine himself believed in transubstantiation or a spiritual presence of Jesus within the elements of the bread and wine, i.e. the "Real Presence". You're clawing, spitting, twisting, and turning... but you can't escape this. Intelligent people reading this thread can see this.

The unbelievers were believing in the LITERAL intepretation, not the figurative one. You are getting really confused here. If you're STILL arguing that Augustine's quote is saying anything but the fact that Jesus' words about eating and drinking his flesh and blood are completely figurative, then you just aren't an intelligent person. That, or you are just so wickedly dishonest.

---

Again, "completely figurative" isn't what he said. It's your interpretation based on your chosen authorities, which Augustine didn't share. But it's very difficult to argue interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're engaged in it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The foolish, carnal understanding is the one you insist on calling literal. Augustine rejects that understanding while fully embracing the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament: "What you see is the bread and the chalice. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ."

---

And as you've already seen in his other quote, this foolish carnal understanding is what is at play when you fail to understand that the statement is figurative, and you say that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, i.e. transubstantiation.

---

No, that is your error. You're forcing the same interpretation on Jesus' words that the unbelievers among his audience did, and like them, you reject the true sacrament as a result.

Catholics believe the substance of Christ's body and blood are present under the appearance of bread and wine. It's the appearance of the sacrament that is a figure, or as Aquinas puts it, a sign.

Once you understand this, Augustine's meaning isn't hard to see (and there are many more passages one could quote). Why do you think he says that when our eyes see bread and wine, our faith obliges us to accept them as body and blood? Does it require any leap of faith simply to believe that X symbolizes Y? I don't think so.

---

You're once again injecting your own and Aquinas' beliefs into Augustine's head. As it stands, you have completely failed to substantiate your claim that Augustine himself believed in transubstantiation or a spiritual presence of Jesus within the elements of the bread and wine, i.e. the "Real Presence". You're clawing, spitting, twisting, and turning... but you can't escape this. Intelligent people reading this thread can see this.

The unbelievers were believing in the LITERAL intepretation, not the figurative one. You are getting really confused here. If you're STILL arguing that Augustine's quote is saying anything but the fact that Jesus' words about eating and drinking his flesh and blood are completely figurative, then you just aren't an intelligent person. That, or you are just so wickedly dishonest.

---

Again, "completely figurative" isn't what he said. It's your interpretation based on your chosen authorities, which Augustine didn't share. But it's very difficult to argue interpretation with someone who doesn't know they're engaged in it.

---

You really are in a circle of stupidity. It's completely figurative, because there is NO part of it that he says isn't figurative. It doesn't even make any sense to definitively say something is figurative like he did, but then believe part of it is literal. I gave you a plenty of chances to support your assertion from Augustine's writings, and you failed - completely. The best you could come up with was to quote someone else's words which was said eight centuries later. Just laughable.

It may be a completely foreign concept to you, but in order to show what a church father believed, you have to go by what that church father says... not by what someone ELSE said eight hundred years later.

Just stop. You have this pathetic habit of doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on a point that you already lost and spending the next three or four pages looking like an irrational, raving lunatic liar. Do you really want the terrible reputation that you have garnered for yourself on this forum? Are you a troll?