What a magnificent passage from Malcolm Muggeridge, explaining one of the reasons he hesitated so long before becoming Catholic:

"Today...the Church, for inscrutable reasons of its own, has decided to have a reformation just when the previous one—Luther's—is finally running out…

— Peter Kwasniewski (@DrKwasniewski) May 5, 2026

Yawn, no just sick of you not understanding what you are reading and then promulgating that you know more than the actual Order the guy founded. Hubris...

Both the Catholic Church and the Augustinian Order state that he believed in the real presence, but you know more...

Or, you are playing a game of gotcha and there is no answer you are going to accept. When does your term as judge run out.

You do not want to understand, as 3 people have spent a week explaining, providing links, and defiitions. Actual Catholics, that live the faith. But, you know more. So, Appeal to Authority? Yes, in this case the Authority is the Catholic Church and Augustinian Order. Either accept it or move on.

Or do you want to do another week of "what did figurative really mean in 450AD"?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn, no just sick of you not understanding what you are reading and then promulgating that you know more than the actual Order the guy founded. Hubris...

Both the Catholic Church and the Augustinian Order state that he believed in the real presence, but you know more...

Or, you are playing a game of gotcha and there is no answer you are going to accept. When does your term as judge run out.

You do not want to understand, as 3 people have spent a week explaining, providing links, and defiitions. Actual Catholics, that live the faith. But, you know more. So, Appeal to Authority? Yes, in this case the Authority is the Catholic Church and Augustinian Order. Either accept it or move on.

Or do you want to do another week of "what did figurative really mean in 450AD"?

---

Checking your brains at the door, and appealing to your authority. The Roman Catholic way.

Citing Roman Catholic authorities to show that Augustine believed in the "Real Presence" in the form of transubstantiation is like citing the Trump administration to show that the country is having unprecedented success.

You're just going in circles. You're repeatedly arguing "but, but... Augustine believed in the Real Presence!" every time you're asked, based on that quote I gave, whether Augustine believed in transubstantiation.

So I'm going to ask you one last time - define "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed in your definition. If you argue that Augustine believed in the transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. transubstantiation, which RC requires you to believe in or be damned to Hell), and that is what's eaten in the Eucharist, despite what I quoted from him, then you are either just a complete idiot who has ZERO comprehension, or you're just lying to yourself.

So go ahead, make your case.

^^^^ Roman Catholics, look how this person who claims to be Roman Catholic but who doesn't even believe in Roman Catholicism, and who isn't even a Christian for that matter, the same person who wants Roman Catholicism to open up to homosexual couples and be accepting of their lifestyle, and is proud of how Pope Francis worked to that end.... look at how he defends your faith and your authorities over your faith with so much effort, as if he's moved by a spirit that really wants to keep the RC status quo.

Roman Catholics, what does that tell you?

You are not the approval authority

You dont agree, fine. Be a man and move on. Go to your Bible Study church and celebrate how enlightened you are.

You know what real.presence is and means. You also know what Augustine believed because we have spent a week spoon feeding you. Now stop being a little ***** and move on from trashing the other peoples Church. Direct enough for you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

Scripture is from God and authoritative. Tradition is from man and is not, unless based on scripture.

The church is the body of Christ, that is all believers. A politician in an ancient fortress in Rome is only a politician and has no authority over any Christian unless the willingly submit to him. Most of us have no reason to and many reasons not to.

The most common error is replacing God's words an authority with man's. The result is often all kinds of error, heresy, & corruption.

It's funny reading all the quibbling over "Christ's presence". Christ Himself said He was present whenever two or more believers are together worshipping Him. This does not mean physical presence, it's spiritual & invisible, and certainly not in any food or drink.

https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/st-augustines-theology-of-the-eucharist

We have posted numerous articles supporting what you say.. He ignores them. Watch it will be "but, he said" and then pick one word or phrase out of a Canon.

He doesnt want to understand, even if it is to understand someone elses believes. He wants to be a protestant gotcha king. This is all about how clever he is... He really knows
... Back on ignore, I went through this last year for two weeks on Mary thinking it was a real discussion, no silly me.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are not the approval authority

You dont agree, fine. Be a man and move on. Go to your Bible Study church and celebrate how enlightened you are.

You know what real.presence is and means. You also know what Augustine believed because we have spent a week spoon feeding you. Now stop being a little ***** and move on from trashing the other peoples Church. Direct enough for you?

---

Pathetic dodge.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are very hung up on a Canonical penalty that it no longer enforced.

We're going round and round.

Let's back up. Please provide me what you think Catholic definition of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

I'll go first using the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Transubstantiation
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."


TLDR;
Real Presence is the fact that Jesus is fully present (body, blood, soul, divinity) in the Eucharist
Transubstantiation is the explanation of how this occurs: the substance of bread/wine changes into Christ's body/blood, while appearances remain.

I'm struggling to determine why you are so hung up on "anathema" and "Transubstantiation."

FLBear5630 said:

---

https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/st-augustines-theology-of-the-eucharist

We have posted numerous articles supporting what you say.. He ignores them. Watch it will be "but, he said" and then pick one word or phrase out of a Canon.

He doesnt want to understand, even if it is to understand someone elses believes. He wants to be a protestant gotcha king. This is all about how clever he is... He really knows
... Back on ignore, I went through this last year for two weeks on Mary thinking it was a real discussion, no silly me.

---

LOL. Your "numerous articles" have NOTHING which show that Augustine was speaking in literal terms rather than figuratively. I, on the other hand, provided an actual quote where he directly says it is figurative.

You just can't understand that quoting a church father who says "Jesus is the door" is NOT proof that they believed Jesus is an actual door, but rather a mere echoing of the same figurative language Jesus was speaking in. This is the kind of "proof" you guys have been giving in these "numerous articles".

I have directly challenged you, as well as others, to give the Augustine citation where he supports your view. You've done nothing except appeal to authority - a Catholic authority. One of you couldn't even provide an Augustine quote, so he had to give a Thomas Aquinas quote made 800 years later. LOL!

Say what you want in order to make you feel better about your beliefs. But intelligent, rational people reading all this know that you guys couldn't argue the point, so people like you had nothing else but to attack me personally.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You are very hung up on a Canonical penalty that it no longer enforced.

We're going round and round.

Let's back up. Please provide me what you think Catholic definition of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

I'll go first using the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Transubstantiation
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."


TLDR;
Real Presence is the fact that Jesus is fully present (body, blood, soul, divinity) in the Eucharist
Transubstantiation is the explanation of how this occurs: the substance of bread/wine changes into Christ's body/blood, while appearances remain.

I'm struggling to determine why you are so hung up on "anathema" and "Transubstantiation."

---

Yes, the actual definition of "Real Presence", in Roman Catholic understanding, is the containment of Jesus within the elements of the bread and wine - spiritually AND physically.

Therefore, it is CLEAR that Augustine did NOT believe in the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence".

Now regarding your statement: "You are very hung up on a Canonical penalty that it no longer enforced." - this is yet another example within a long, running list of unintelligent takes from you. Canonical penalty wasn't ever the issue, as my comments made perfectly clear. This is yet another example of why intelligent, rational discussions can't be had with you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So I'm going to ask you one last time - define "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed in your definition. If you argue that Augustine believed in the transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. transubstantiation, which RC requires you to believe in or be damned to Hell), and that is what's eaten in the Eucharist, despite what I quoted from him, then you are either just a complete idiot who has ZERO comprehension, or you're just lying to yourself.

So go ahead, make your case.

---

Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."


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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes)


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227)


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, the actual definition of "Real Presence", in Roman Catholic understanding, is the containment of Jesus within the elements of the bread and wine - spiritually AND physically.

Therefore, it is CLEAR that Augustine did NOT believe in the Roman Catholic view of the "Real Presence".

Now regarding your statement: "You are very hung up on a Canonical penalty that it no longer enforced." - this is yet another example within a long, running list of unintelligent takes from you. Canonical penalty wasn't ever the issue, as my comments made perfectly clear. This is yet another example of why intelligent, rational discussions can't be had with you.

---

My post immediately above this one illustrates only a few of the actual quotes from St Augustine showing the he believed in the real presence.

Your "figurative" paragraph (that keep repeating) that you believe is your smoking gun is just another example of you taking ONE verse or paragraph OUT OF CONTEXT and building a whole theology or believe system.

Talk about inability to have intelligent, rational discussions ...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

---

Augustine wrote and spoke in Latin. You're reading his writings in English 1600 years later and you've clearly gotten lost in translation. "Symbolically" and "figurative" have different meanings to you than a Latin writer in the 5th century. He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality. While looking like bread, his faith understands it is the body of Christ.

Matthew 24:30-31 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Matthew 12:38-40 "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ refers to his own Second Coming and Jonah's time in the whale as a "sign", but these were/are literal events.

Anyway, you clearly have a high reverence for St. Augustine, I'm curious if you hold his same opinions for the Sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Infant Baptism, and the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

If so, welcome to the Church, brother!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So I'm going to ask you one last time - define "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed in your definition. If you argue that Augustine believed in the transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. transubstantiation, which RC requires you to believe in or be damned to Hell), and that is what's eaten in the Eucharist, despite what I quoted from him, then you are either just a complete idiot who has ZERO comprehension, or you're just lying to yourself.

So go ahead, make your case.

---

Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."


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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God. ==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes) ==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227) ==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

Answers in bold above.

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

---

Augustine wrote and spoke in Latin. You're reading his writings in English 1600 years later and you've clearly gotten lost in translation. "Symbolically" and "figurative" have different meanings to you than a Latin writer in the 5th century. He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality. While looking like bread, his faith understands it is the body of Christ.

Matthew 24:30-31 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Matthew 12:38-40 "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ refers to his own Second Coming and Jonah's time in the whale as a "sign", but these were/are literal events.

Anyway, you clearly have a high reverence for St. Augustine, I'm curious if you hold his same opinions for the Sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Infant Baptism, and the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

If so, welcome to the Church, brother!

---

So, in circles we go.

Augustine explicitly explained what he meant by "figurative" in that quote, and it is exactly the same meaning we use today. So your point here fails. Go read that quote again.

You: "He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality" - REALITY IN WHAT WAY? PHYSICAL? For God's sakes, man, why are continually avoiding this? He could be believing in the spiritual reality of it, but not the physical reality. Good grief, guys, this is simple, yet you guys are making it like pulling teeth!

This isn't about "reverence" for any church father. Augustine has his errors, just like every other uninspired father. This is about the claim that the Protestant view of the Lord's supper is merely "500 years old" being false when one takes an honest look at history, even the history of one of Roman Catholicism's favorite fathers.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

---

Augustine wrote and spoke in Latin. You're reading his writings in English 1600 years later and you've clearly gotten lost in translation. "Symbolically" and "figurative" have different meanings to you than a Latin writer in the 5th century. He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality. While looking like bread, his faith understands it is the body of Christ.

Matthew 24:30-31 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Matthew 12:38-40 "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ refers to his own Second Coming and Jonah's time in the whale as a "sign", but these were/are literal events.

Anyway, you clearly have a high reverence for St. Augustine, I'm curious if you hold his same opinions for the Sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Infant Baptism, and the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

If so, welcome to the Church, brother!

---

So, in circles we go.

Augustine explicitly explained what he meant by "figurative" in that quote, and it is exactly the same meaning we use today. So your point here fails. Go read that quote again.

You: "He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality" - REALITY IN WHAT WAY? PHYSICAL? For God's sakes, man, why are continually avoiding this? He could be believing in the spiritual reality of it, but not the physical reality. Good grief, guys, this is simple, yet you guys are making it like pulling teeth!

This isn't about "reverence" for any church father. Augustine has his errors, just like every other uninspired father. This is about the claim that the Protestant view of the Lord's supper is merely "500 years old" being false when one takes an honest look at history, even the history of one of Roman Catholicism's favorite fathers.

---

Nah, you're a scrub. You've been hampering on a single Augustine quote for a week, not because you think it's true, but because you think it discredits our Church.

If it was figurative then more Early church fathers would've had the same message, also one would have to assume such a major principle would appear more than once in the 100+ writings he has. Finally, the Church wouldn't canonize him as a Saint if he rejected our doctrine.

And you need to specify which Protestant view of the Eucharist you are referring to as there are hundreds of different denominations.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

---

Augustine wrote and spoke in Latin. You're reading his writings in English 1600 years later and you've clearly gotten lost in translation. "Symbolically" and "figurative" have different meanings to you than a Latin writer in the 5th century. He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality. While looking like bread, his faith understands it is the body of Christ.

Matthew 24:30-31 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Matthew 12:38-40 "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ refers to his own Second Coming and Jonah's time in the whale as a "sign", but these were/are literal events.

Anyway, you clearly have a high reverence for St. Augustine, I'm curious if you hold his same opinions for the Sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Infant Baptism, and the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

If so, welcome to the Church, brother!

---

So, in circles we go.

Augustine explicitly explained what he meant by "figurative" in that quote, and it is exactly the same meaning we use today. So your point here fails. Go read that quote again.

You: "He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality" - REALITY IN WHAT WAY? PHYSICAL? For God's sakes, man, why are continually avoiding this? He could be believing in the spiritual reality of it, but not the physical reality. Good grief, guys, this is simple, yet you guys are making it like pulling teeth!

This isn't about "reverence" for any church father. Augustine has his errors, just like every other uninspired father. This is about the claim that the Protestant view of the Lord's supper is merely "500 years old" being false when one takes an honest look at history, even the history of one of Roman Catholicism's favorite fathers.

---

Nah, you're a scrub. You've been hampering on a single Augustine quote for a week, not because you think it's true, but because you think it discredits our Church.

If it was figurative then more Early church fathers would've had the same message, also one would have to assume such a major principle would appear more than once in the 100+ writings he has. Finally, the Church wouldn't canonize him as a Saint if he rejected our doctrine.

And you need to specify which Protestant view of the Eucharist you are referring to as there are hundreds of different denominations.

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

---

Augustine wrote and spoke in Latin. You're reading his writings in English 1600 years later and you've clearly gotten lost in translation. "Symbolically" and "figurative" have different meanings to you than a Latin writer in the 5th century. He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality. While looking like bread, his faith understands it is the body of Christ.

Matthew 24:30-31 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Matthew 12:38-40 "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ refers to his own Second Coming and Jonah's time in the whale as a "sign", but these were/are literal events.

Anyway, you clearly have a high reverence for St. Augustine, I'm curious if you hold his same opinions for the Sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Infant Baptism, and the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

If so, welcome to the Church, brother!

---

So, in circles we go.

Augustine explicitly explained what he meant by "figurative" in that quote, and it is exactly the same meaning we use today. So your point here fails. Go read that quote again.

You: "He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality" - REALITY IN WHAT WAY? PHYSICAL? For God's sakes, man, why are continually avoiding this? He could be believing in the spiritual reality of it, but not the physical reality. Good grief, guys, this is simple, yet you guys are making it like pulling teeth!

This isn't about "reverence" for any church father. Augustine has his errors, just like every other uninspired father. This is about the claim that the Protestant view of the Lord's supper is merely "500 years old" being false when one takes an honest look at history, even the history of one of Roman Catholicism's favorite fathers.

---

Nah, you're a scrub. You've been hampering on a single Augustine quote for a week, not because you think it's true, but because you think it discredits our Church.

If it was figurative then more Early church fathers would've had the same message, also one would have to assume such a major principle would appear more than once in the 100+ writings he has. Finally, the Church wouldn't canonize him as a Saint if he rejected our doctrine.

And you need to specify which Protestant view of the Eucharist you are referring to as there are hundreds of different denominations.

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

We've all answered your question but you're too boneheaded to comprehend the answer. Here's your final response from me:

For Augustine, a "figure" (Latin: figura) or "sign" was not something empty. For us, a "sign" represents something that is not present, such as a street sign. However, in his theology, a sacrament is a "visible sign of invisible grace". We can't see wind but we know it's there.

Augustine wrote about a Eucharistic miracle where one of his Priests offered Eucharist in a home possessed by a demon. Augustine wrote the demon left immediately after the Eucharistic prayer was performed; therefore, Augustine was aware this tangible object had supernatural power over the physical and spiritual world. How could a mere symbol drive out demons? Because Christ is active in the Eucharist.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God.
==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes)
==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227)
==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

I've separated your comments and re-bolded the important parts for you to read your words slowly.

Please notice that EVERYONE single comment you make is YOU ASSUMING that he means figurative.

I can list more than 12 other quotes showing that Augustine, a Catholic bishop and canonized Saint and DOCTOR in the Church, believed in the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

---

We've gone over this before. Just because Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, doesn't mean that he is ALWAYS speaking metaphorically.

No one believed that Jesus really thought he was a door or a vine. No one took exception to that. Contrast that to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, most of his devout followers walked away.

Your "door" argument is a silly comparison when investigated rationally.

Augustine was deeply influenced by a philosophical framework that distinguished between a sign (signum) and the reality (res) it points to. For Augustine, a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality. When he called the Eucharist "figurative," he was describing how Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine not denying that He is truly present.

When Augustine calls the Eucharist "figurative" in On Christian Instruction, he is doing so in the context of biblical hermeneutics not making a theological statement about whether Christ is actually present. The context of Augustine's text is not discussing the nature of the Eucharist, nor does the context refer to Augustine's other interpretations which show that he also interprets the Johannine passage as teaching the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The context is only discussing the hermeneutic problem when one comes across a biblical statement which seems to condone a known evil.

You've listed ONE paragraph, out of context, out of the five million words and the dozens of Eucharistic quotes that he wrote over his lifetime in the sermons, biblical commentaries, systematic theologies, and letters to make your point. Once again, you have fallen into the protestant trap of cherry picking ONE verse or quote and trying to build an entire theological or philosophical framework. It never works in the end.

Finally, do you believe that the Church would call Augustine a Saint and Doctor, if he really didn't believe in the Real Presence? This alone should give you pause to reconsider your opinion on the topic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

Sorry to jump in here, but there's a HUGE difference between disagreeing about the canon of scripture (before it was promulgated) and a theological truth that was believed since the beginning of the Church.

Trent was 1200 years after Athanasius died. I think we can give him a pass.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of God was that Eucharist. {Denis, 3, 3; on p.66}

It was the will of the Holy Spirit that out of reverence for such a Sacrament the Body of the Lord should enter the mouth of a Christian previous to any other food. {Ep. 54, 8; on p.71}

He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

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. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

And from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.

Augustine clearly believes bread and wine are transformed by the Eucharist prayer. Emphasis on the last quote. His beliefs are consistent with all of the early church fathers.

---

Are we just going to go in circles? To what does Augustine believe the bread and wine are transformed into? The actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus?

If that's what you're saying, you're saying that Augustine, who clearly said that "eating the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative and did NOT mean we literally eat his actual flesh and blood.... turns right around and says that we DO literally eat his actual flesh and blood. Does that make sense? If that's what you're saying, then you're only showing Augustine to be completely contradictory to himself. Therefore is unreliable, and thus he shouldn't be used as any kind of authority to base salvivic doctrine upon.

Now take that last quote that you referenced: "Take away the word, I mean, it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ." I agree with this! It no longer is just bread and wine, it is Jesus body and blood... symbolicallly.

So again - you're quoting Augustine who could be speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did. You're not showing what he means when he says these things - is he saying the bread and wine become the literal physical body and blood of Jesus, or is he speaking figuratively?

---

Augustine wrote and spoke in Latin. You're reading his writings in English 1600 years later and you've clearly gotten lost in translation. "Symbolically" and "figurative" have different meanings to you than a Latin writer in the 5th century. He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality. While looking like bread, his faith understands it is the body of Christ.

Matthew 24:30-31 "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Matthew 12:38-40 "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Christ refers to his own Second Coming and Jonah's time in the whale as a "sign", but these were/are literal events.

Anyway, you clearly have a high reverence for St. Augustine, I'm curious if you hold his same opinions for the Sinlessness and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Infant Baptism, and the Catholic Church's role as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

If so, welcome to the Church, brother!

---

So, in circles we go.

Augustine explicitly explained what he meant by "figurative" in that quote, and it is exactly the same meaning we use today. So your point here fails. Go read that quote again.

You: "He believes the Eucharist is both sign and reality" - REALITY IN WHAT WAY? PHYSICAL? For God's sakes, man, why are continually avoiding this? He could be believing in the spiritual reality of it, but not the physical reality. Good grief, guys, this is simple, yet you guys are making it like pulling teeth!

This isn't about "reverence" for any church father. Augustine has his errors, just like every other uninspired father. This is about the claim that the Protestant view of the Lord's supper is merely "500 years old" being false when one takes an honest look at history, even the history of one of Roman Catholicism's favorite fathers.

---

Nah, you're a scrub. You've been hampering on a single Augustine quote for a week, not because you think it's true, but because you think it discredits our Church.

If it was figurative then more Early church fathers would've had the same message, also one would have to assume such a major principle would appear more than once in the 100+ writings he has. Finally, the Church wouldn't canonize him as a Saint if he rejected our doctrine.

And you need to specify which Protestant view of the Eucharist you are referring to as there are hundreds of different denominations.

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

We've all answered your question but you're too boneheaded to comprehend the answer. Here's your final response from me:

For Augustine, a "figure" (Latin: figura) or "sign" was not something empty. For us, a "sign" represents something that is not present, such as a street sign. However, in his theology, a sacrament is a "visible sign of invisible grace". We can't see wind but we know it's there.

Augustine wrote about a Eucharistic miracle where one of his Priests offered Eucharist in a home possessed by a demon. Augustine wrote the demon left immediately after the Eucharistic prayer was performed; therefore, Augustine was aware this tangible object had supernatural power over the physical and spiritual world. How could a mere symbol drive out demons? Because Christ is active in the Eucharist.

---

You obviously have a failure of comprehension that just can't be fixed. NOTHING you are saying here is showing that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, or that this is what Augustine believed. Augustine did not say that by "figure" he meant "sign". He explicitly stated it was "figurative" language. He went on to explain that this meant it had a spiritual meaning, NOT a physical one. You are really reaching there. And EVEN IF he meant it as a "sign", STILL, that does NOT show that he believed the "sign" was physical.

A Eucharistic miracle, if they are even true, still would not show that the bread and wine are PHYSICALLY the flesh and blood of Jesus. A demon could be driven out by Jesus' spiritual presence. Saying that it meant Christ was "active in the Eucharist" doesn't necessarily mean that it was his actual, physical flesh and blood in the Eucharist. This is a non sequitur. Your entire argument is full of non sequiturs.

It is incredible and unfortunate that you just can't get this. Maybe it's for the best that you stop posting on it.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God.
==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes)
==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227)
==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

I've separated your comments and re-bolded the important parts for you to read your words slowly.

Please notice that EVERYONE single comment you make is YOU ASSUMING that he means figurative.

I can list more than 12 other quotes showing that Augustine, a Catholic bishop and canonized Saint and DOCTOR in the Church, believed in the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

---

We've gone over this before. Just because Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, doesn't mean that he is ALWAYS speaking metaphorically.

No one believed that Jesus really thought he was a door or a vine. No one took exception to that. Contrast that to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, most of his devout followers walked away.

Your "door" argument is a silly comparison when investigated rationally.

Augustine was deeply influenced by a philosophical framework that distinguished between a sign (signum) and the reality (res) it points to. For Augustine, a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality. When he called the Eucharist "figurative," he was describing how Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine not denying that He is truly present.

When Augustine calls the Eucharist "figurative" in On Christian Instruction, he is doing so in the context of biblical hermeneutics not making a theological statement about whether Christ is actually present. The context of Augustine's text is not discussing the nature of the Eucharist, nor does the context refer to Augustine's other interpretations which show that he also interprets the Johannine passage as teaching the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The context is only discussing the hermeneutic problem when one comes across a biblical statement which seems to condone a known evil.

You've listed ONE paragraph, out of context, out of the five million words and the dozens of Eucharistic quotes that he wrote over his lifetime in the sermons, biblical commentaries, systematic theologies, and letters to make your point. Once again, you have fallen into the protestant trap of cherry picking ONE verse or quote and trying to build an entire theological or philosophical framework. It never works in the end.

Finally, do you believe that the Church would call Augustine a Saint and Doctor, if he really didn't believe in the Real Presence? This alone should give you pause to reconsider your opinion on the topic.

---

You: "Please notice that EVERYONE single comment you make is YOU ASSUMING that he means figurative."

And every single comment you make is assuming it is literal. The difference is, I gave you quote from Augustine where he explicitly states that it is figurative. YOU CAN'T provide one where he is saying it is literal.

Can you guys just finally grasp this? It's really embarassing to have to explain fourth grade logic and thinking to grown adults.

And as I had already explained, the argument that the Church never would have made Augustine a saint if he didn't believe in the Real Presence is flawed. They have acted inconsistently before, and they have been dishonest with church history before, so they could even be wrong about what Augustine believed. What I showed you guys is Augustine's explicit comment that "eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus" was figurative. That precludes a belief in transubstantiation. You can refuse this logic all you want, but it would only mean you're not rational or intelligent. It would mean you're just creating your own reality, where words don't mean anything except what you want them to.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God.
==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes)
==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227)
==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

I've separated your comments and re-bolded the important parts for you to read your words slowly.

Please notice that EVERYONE single comment you make is YOU ASSUMING that he means figurative.

I can list more than 12 other quotes showing that Augustine, a Catholic bishop and canonized Saint and DOCTOR in the Church, believed in the Real Presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

---

We've gone over this before. Just because Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, doesn't mean that he is ALWAYS speaking metaphorically.

No one believed that Jesus really thought he was a door or a vine. No one took exception to that. Contrast that to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, most of his devout followers walked away.

---

As usual, you've missed the point. Good grief, you guys just aren't very bright.

Read my scenario again. What is that person who is arguing for the literal interpretation of "Jesus is the door" doing wrong, when he's quoting the church father and reasoning that it supports his literal view?

Think people, think.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

Sorry to jump in here, but there's a HUGE difference between disagreeing about the canon of scripture (before it was promulgated) and a theological truth that was believed since the beginning of the Church.

Trent was 1200 years after Athanasius died. I think we can give him a pass.

---

Are you really saying that transubstantiation was a "belief since the beginning of the Church", when just like the canon, it wasn't formulated as a doctrine/dogma until many centuries later??

There is NO difference. Your church's entire argument about the canon in the council of Trent was that it was the canon that was "believed since the beginning of the Church", just like you claim for transubstantiation (which is completely false - the early church fathers did NOT agree on this). So to canonize Augustine, who did not believe in a church dogma, would be no different than canonizing Athanasius who also didn't believe in one.

Inconsistency is the Roman Catholic Church's middle name. Your argument completely fails.

historian said:

---

Scripture is from God and authoritative. Tradition is from man and is not, unless based on scripture.

The church is the body of Christ, that is all believers. A politician in an ancient fortress in Rome is only a politician and has no authority over any Christian unless the willingly submit to him. Most of us have no reason to and many reasons not to.

---

I can see why you'd be the go-to guy when Catholics need advice on their pope.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So I'm going to ask you one last time - define "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed in your definition. If you argue that Augustine believed in the transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. transubstantiation, which RC requires you to believe in or be damned to Hell), and that is what's eaten in the Eucharist, despite what I quoted from him, then you are either just a complete idiot who has ZERO comprehension, or you're just lying to yourself.

So go ahead, make your case.

---

Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."


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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God. ==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes) ==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227) ==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

Answers in bold above.

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

---

Everyone understands what you're saying. What you don't understand is that you have the burden to prove your assertion. Why should we believe the sacrament is not just a figure but "purely figurative and symbolic" according to Augustine? That's the question you've raised. You haven't begun to answer it. Everything else is noise.

BTW, appealing to Catholic theologians on a matter of Catholic theology is perfectly valid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

Sorry to jump in here, but there's a HUGE difference between disagreeing about the canon of scripture (before it was promulgated) and a theological truth that was believed since the beginning of the Church.

Trent was 1200 years after Athanasius died. I think we can give him a pass.

---

Are you really saying that transubstantiation was a "belief since the beginning of the Church", when just like the canon, it wasn't formulated as a doctrine/dogma until many centuries later??

---

Yes, obviously.

Athanasius was 1200 years before Trent. The council's anathemas had nothing to do with him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So I'm going to ask you one last time - define "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed in your definition. If you argue that Augustine believed in the transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. transubstantiation, which RC requires you to believe in or be damned to Hell), and that is what's eaten in the Eucharist, despite what I quoted from him, then you are either just a complete idiot who has ZERO comprehension, or you're just lying to yourself.

So go ahead, make your case.

---

Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."


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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God. ==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes) ==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227) ==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

Answers in bold above.

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

---

Everyone understands what you're saying. What you don't understand is that you have the burden to prove your assertion. Why should we believe the sacrament is not just a figure but "purely figurative and symbolic" according to Augustine? That's the question you've raised. You haven't begun to answer it. Everything else is noise.

BTW, appealing to Catholic theologians on a matter of Catholic theology is perfectly valid.

---

LOL. Everyone understands what I'm saying... .that's why you guys repeatedly made the same mistake over and over, even as I had been explaining it over and over. Rrriiight.

And are you really this stupid and/or dishonest? Can you truly not read those quotes from Augustine and comprehend that he was saying that "eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus" was PURELY figurative?? What part of "It is figurative" leaves room for it to be partially LITERAL? What part of "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" leaves room for Augustine to believe that you ARE going to eat his actual flesh and you ARE going to drink his actual blood? Your argument is plain semantic nonsense. It's really all you have, so that's why you're attempting it. Intelligent, rational people know better.

**Here's how you're arguing: if God were to tell us "Gay marriage is a sin", and since he didn't say that it was PURELY a sin, it must mean that gay marriage is sometimes okay.

I've challenged you to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence where Augustine believes the eating of Jesus flesh to be in part literal (which would completely contradict what he had just said in that quote). Since you and others completely failed to provide even just ONE, then that is the proof (as if one even needed one) that Augustine meant "purely" figurative.

And get off this saying that Augustine called it a "figure". You have to do this to leave a sliver of room to sneak in the possibility that he believed it to be physical. He clearly said it was "figurative". And then he explained in explicit terms that this meant it was NOT physical, but spiritual.

I don't know what it is, but there is something mentally wrong with you guys, if you can't understand this.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

Sorry to jump in here, but there's a HUGE difference between disagreeing about the canon of scripture (before it was promulgated) and a theological truth that was believed since the beginning of the Church.

Trent was 1200 years after Athanasius died. I think we can give him a pass.

---

Are you really saying that transubstantiation was a "belief since the beginning of the Church", when just like the canon, it wasn't formulated as a doctrine/dogma until many centuries later??

---

Yes, obviously.

Athanasius was 1200 years before Trent. The council's anathemas had nothing to do with him.

---

If transubstantiation was a belief since the beginning of the church, why did Augustine not believe it?

And Augustine was also around 1200 years before Trent, like Athanasius. But BOTH held beliefs that Trent anathematized. This is hardly evidence for the dogmas being "beliefs held since the beginning of the church" by the "original, apostolic, unchanged" church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So I'm going to ask you one last time - define "Real Presence" and show how Augustine believed in your definition. If you argue that Augustine believed in the transformation of the bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (i.e. transubstantiation, which RC requires you to believe in or be damned to Hell), and that is what's eaten in the Eucharist, despite what I quoted from him, then you are either just a complete idiot who has ZERO comprehension, or you're just lying to yourself.

So go ahead, make your case.

---

Real Presence
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."


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

You cannot give adoration to something that is not God. ==> he's talking about the actual flesh of Jesus, his actual body that was sacrificed on the cross. The "nobody eats this flesh" part can be read as meaning the symbolic act of eating his flesh represented in the Eucharist. Once again, you're providing as "evidence" just another example where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative terms that Jesus did.

"Recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side." (Sermon to the Neophytes) ==> Again, is he saying that the bread is the same, actual, physical flesh that hung on the cross... or is he simply speaking figuratively, like he said the way Jesus spoke?


"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the Body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the Blood of Christ." (Sermon 227) ==> do I need to keep repeating? Is he saying the bread on the altar "is" the actual, physical, body of Christ... or is he speaking figuratively?


"Christ bore Himself in His own hands, when He offered His Body, saying: 'This is My Body.'" (Enarrations on Psalm 33) ==> I don't think I need to keep repeating.

---

Answers in bold above.

What you're doing, I've already explained to FLBear earlier - you're merely giving quotes where Augustine is speaking in the same figurative language that Jesus spoke in, and reading it as literal due to your confirmation bias. For example, you're looking at a father saying "Jesus is the door" to mean that Jesus is an actual, physical door, when he's only repeating the same figurative language that Jesus was speaking in when he called himself "the door". The argument I'm having with you guys is going just like this:

Me: "Jesus isn't an actual door. Jesus was speaking figuratively."

You: "NO, those are his actual words! Why do you question them? He's saying he is a real, physical door! Your view is a 500 year-old invention by Luther!"

Me: "500 years old?? Even Augustine said that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not literally there. Here is the quote: <gives quote where Augustine specifically states that Jesus calling himself "the door" is figurative, not liiteral.>"

You: "No, no, no, he isn't saying that. Here is a quote where Augustine says it is a literal door: < you give a quote of Augustine saying, "Jesus is the door"> See?! See?! See how Augustine said that Jesus IS the door? He's saying that Jesus is a literal door!!"

^^^^ PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS and hopefully you guys will finally get it.

---

Everyone understands what you're saying. What you don't understand is that you have the burden to prove your assertion. Why should we believe the sacrament is not just a figure but "purely figurative and symbolic" according to Augustine? That's the question you've raised. You haven't begun to answer it. Everything else is noise.

BTW, appealing to Catholic theologians on a matter of Catholic theology is perfectly valid.

---

Can you truly not read those quotes from Augustine and comprehend that he was saying that "eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus" was PURELY figurative?? What part of "It is figurative" leaves room for it to be partially LITERAL?

---

We've explained how it is literal. Christ's body and blood are really present, albeit in the figure of the bread and wine. This is consistent with Augustine's writings and the beliefs of the Church that recognized him as a saint. Feel free to explain your interpolation of "purely figurative" into the text.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, you aren't going to address my argument. I think that says it all.

And canonizing a saint that didn't line up with RC teaching wouldn't be the first time the RC church acted inconsistently. Not by a long shot. For example, Athanasius was declared a saint, yet did not agree with the official canon of the RC Church made official in the council of Trent - which anathematized those that didn't hold to their canon.

---

Sorry to jump in here, but there's a HUGE difference between disagreeing about the canon of scripture (before it was promulgated) and a theological truth that was believed since the beginning of the Church.

Trent was 1200 years after Athanasius died. I think we can give him a pass.

---

Are you really saying that transubstantiation was a "belief since the beginning of the Church", when just like the canon, it wasn't formulated as a doctrine/dogma until many centuries later??

---

Yes, obviously.

Athanasius was 1200 years before Trent. The council's anathemas had nothing to do with him.

---

If transubstantiation was a belief since the beginning of the church, why did Augustine not believe it?

And Augustine was also around 1200 years before Trent, like Athanasius. But BOTH held beliefs that Trent anathematized. This is hardly evidence for the dogmas being "beliefs held since the beginning of the church" by the "original, apostolic, unchanged" church.

---

No one ever claimed that a complete, authoritative list of canonical books existed since the beginning of the church. That is nonsense. The canon was determined over time by examination and investigation of each of the books. Athanasius was not responsible for a determination made long after his death.