Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

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.

---

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

---

This is what I'm talking about. Your argument was "how could Roman Catholicism canonize Augustine as a saint, if he disagreed with them?"

You're answering it. You'd just give him a "pass" like you are with Athanasius.

Like I said, inconsistency and double talk are the first and middles names of Roman Catholicism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings. You may not agree with it, but at least we've given you something.

Why should we believe, contrary to everything we know about Church teaching, that a saint of the Church considered the sacrament to be "purely symbolic?"

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings. You may not agree with it, but at least we've given you something.

Why should we believe, contrary to everything we know about Church teaching, that a saint of the Church considered the sacrament to be "purely symbolic?"

---

If you had just typed gibberish, that would also count as "giving me something". Pointless argument.

And your question has already been answered above, the first time you asked it. Let me add this - why should you trust what your Church has taught you, after you've been shown the countless times they've been wrong or outright lied to you?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

Just stop your stalling BS and give me the Augustine reference which shows he believed the "eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh and blood" is literal in any way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

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."

---

So it strikes me as if there is a disconnect between the 1376 summary and your TLDR. The implication of the wording of the 1376 summary (whole substance) is that there is a physical change to the elements. Your TLDR on the other hand seems to indicate that Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that there is a physical change to the elements, but rather only a metaphysical change?

I think this distinction will really drill down into why transubstantiation is a problem. If the Roman Catholic teaching is that there is a physical change, that change in the consecrated host and wine should be measurable in scientific terms. On the other hand, if the Roman Catholic teaching is that there is no physical change but only a metaphysical change, then despite the wording it brings transubstantiation into line with Lutheran and Orthodox teachings.

Or perhaps it is a case where the medieval Roman Catholic church taught that it was a physical change and in a world of electron microscopes and DNA testing that it has retreated from that view as it has become untenable?

Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation has never been an attempt to explain the how - that is the Holy Spirit acting (John 3:8). It has always been an attempt to explain what is occurring. Which is why we Orthodox simply say it is a mystery beyond our understanding and leave it at that. I mean, we can't adequately explain the feeding of the 5,000 so perhaps we should back away from trying to explain the Eucharist in greater detail than that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

---

You guys really aren't that bright. Wow.

Look at all your quotes. They are all variations of "This is my body", said in different ways but in the same figurative sense.

That was the point of the scenario. It's showing how you're arguing for literalism from figurative expressions due to your confirmation bias, in the exact same way that someone arguing for Jesus being a literal door would use any variation of the expression "I am the door" from a church father to show that he too believed that Jesus was a literal door. WOW, you guys just can't get it.

I suppose that if a church father had taken the same figurative sense of "I am the door" and wrote something like this:

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."

Then it would magically turn that phrase into meaning that the church father believes Jesus is a REAL, LITERAL DOOR!! How 'bout that!

There are just no words.... You Roman Catholics are mentally trapped and have lost the ability to critically think.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

I certainly never would have advised them to chose a radical Marxist.

FLBear5630 said:

---

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




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

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

---

He's doing just fine with Hispanics.

Full Week Trump Job Approval - Apr 26-30, 2026 - 1827 LV's

All Voters: 43%
Men: 46%
Women: 41%
18-29: 38%
30-39: 45%
40-49: 43%
50-64: 41%
65+: 47%
White: 46%
Black: 27%
Hispanic: 52%
Other: 33%
DEM: 17%
IND: 39%
GOP: 74% https://t.co/5nC7iaUEYv pic.twitter.com/nZiYKSRW4D

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) May 3, 2026

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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."

---

So it strikes me as if there is a disconnect between the 1376 summary and your TLDR. The implication of the wording of the 1376 summary (whole substance) is that there is a physical change to the elements. Your TLDR on the other hand seems to indicate that Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that there is a physical change to the elements, but rather only a metaphysical change?

I think this distinction will really drill down into why transubstantiation is a problem. If the Roman Catholic teaching is that there is a physical change, that change in the consecrated host and wine should be measurable in scientific terms. On the other hand, if the Roman Catholic teaching is that there is no physical change but only a metaphysical change, then despite the wording it brings transubstantiation into line with Lutheran and Orthodox teachings.

Or perhaps it is a case where the medieval Roman Catholic church taught that it was a physical change and in a world of electron microscopes and DNA testing that it has retreated from that view as it has become untenable?

Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation has never been an attempt to explain the how - that is the Holy Spirit acting (John 3:8). It has always been an attempt to explain what is occurring. Which is why we Orthodox simply say it is a mystery beyond our understanding and leave it at that. I mean, we can't adequately explain the feeding of the 5,000 so perhaps we should back away from trying to explain the Eucharist in greater detail than that.

---

I believe you are confusing "substance" with "accidents" (appearance).

There is NO physical change in the bread in either CCC 1376 or my TLDR paragraph.

Substance refers to the essential nature of a thing what it truly is
Accidents, on the other hand, are the observable properties, like shape, color, texture, or taste.

The substance upon which I am sitting is a chair.
The accidents are that it brown, Oak wood, four-legged, about three feet tall.

As far as I know, the Church only says

• What's changed - the entire substance
• What remains - the accidents
• Who causes it - God alone as principal cause
• Which instruments - validly ordained priest speaking the words of institution

But as to the full mechanism explained - NO. It surpasses the nature order and remains a mystery of faith.

With all due respect to my Orthodox brothers and sisters, they can't define anything because that can't even get unity amongst themselves today. This is why taken them nearly 1200 years to call the council held in 2016.

Roman Catholics, do you believe this about your Eucharist?:

"When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into heaven, brings Christ down from His throne and places Him upon our altar, to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. It is a greater power than that of monarch and emperors. It is greater than of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Virgin Mary was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man not once, but a thousand times. The priest speaks and lo, Christ the eternal omnipotent God bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest, who is thus privileged to act as ambassador and Vice Regent of Christ on earth. He continues the assertion ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applies to the priest, is that of Alter Christus, for the priest is and should be another Christ."

- John Anthony O'Brien, Roman Catholic Priest and author of The Faith of Millions (255-56)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

---

You guys really aren't that bright. Wow.

Look at all your quotes. They are all variations of "This is my body", said in different ways but in the same figurative sense.

That was the point of the scenario. It's showing how you're arguing for literalism from figurative expressions due to your confirmation bias, in the exact same way that someone arguing for Jesus being a literal door would use any variation of the expression "I am the door" from a church father to show that he too believed that Jesus was a literal door. WOW, you guys just can't get it.

I suppose that if a church father had taken the same figurative sense of "I am the door" and wrote something like this:

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."

Then it would magically turn that phrase into meaning that the church father believes Jesus is a REAL, LITERAL DOOR!! How 'bout that!

There are just no words.... You Roman Catholics are mentally trapped and have lost the ability to critically think.

---

It certainly would be bizarre if a door were part of the liturgy and Augustine had written about it in such terms.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

---

That's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

---

You guys really aren't that bright. Wow.

Look at all your quotes. They are all variations of "This is my body", said in different ways but in the same figurative sense.

That was the point of the scenario. It's showing how you're arguing for literalism from figurative expressions due to your confirmation bias, in the exact same way that someone arguing for Jesus being a literal door would use any variation of the expression "I am the door" from a church father to show that he too believed that Jesus was a literal door. WOW, you guys just can't get it.

I suppose that if a church father had taken the same figurative sense of "I am the door" and wrote something like this:

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."

Then it would magically turn that phrase into meaning that the church father believes Jesus is a REAL, LITERAL DOOR!! How 'bout that!

There are just no words.... You Roman Catholics are mentally trapped and have lost the ability to critically think.

---

It certainly would be bizarre if a door were part of the liturgy and Augustine had written about it in such terms.

---

You know what they say about opinions.

Now care to address the issue? Would that quote make the "door" literal?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

---

That's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem.

---

Pretty sure your Church's theology strayed FAR from the apostles a LONG time ago. You might say your succession was hardly a success.

I honestly can't say you've done much better than the Gnostics.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

---

You guys really aren't that bright. Wow.

Look at all your quotes. They are all variations of "This is my body", said in different ways but in the same figurative sense.

That was the point of the scenario. It's showing how you're arguing for literalism from figurative expressions due to your confirmation bias, in the exact same way that someone arguing for Jesus being a literal door would use any variation of the expression "I am the door" from a church father to show that he too believed that Jesus was a literal door. WOW, you guys just can't get it.

I suppose that if a church father had taken the same figurative sense of "I am the door" and wrote something like this:

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."

Then it would magically turn that phrase into meaning that the church father believes Jesus is a REAL, LITERAL DOOR!! How 'bout that!

There are just no words.... You Roman Catholics are mentally trapped and have lost the ability to critically think.

---

It certainly would be bizarre if a door were part of the liturgy and Augustine had written about it in such terms.

---

You know what they say about opinions.

Now care to address the issue? Would that quote make the "door" literal?

---

All of the quotes taken together would at least suggest it. That's my point, and the reason your analogy fails. Neither a door nor any other symbol is treated the same way.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant, as Athanasius existed long after the books of the canon recognized by Trent had been written. If the claim of Trent is that their canon was the canon held by the church since the beginning, then Athanasius belies that claim. And yet, you canonized him. You canonized as a saint someone who disagreed with your dogma. This is a fact you're not able to escape from. So I guess we're going to have to go through another round of your dishonest semantic games and lies.

---

It was not a dogma at the time.

---

But their reasoning was that it was always believed. Yet they canonized someone who did not. You canonized someone who provides the evidence that their dogma is wrong.

And then you guys argue "why would we canonize Augustine if he disagreed with the Church?"

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

---

That's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem.

---

I honestly can't say you've done much better than the Gnostics.

---

That doesn't surprise me. Fundamentalists and Gnostics have a lot in common.

I would offer that given the current dictionary definition of substance in English, the term "whole substance" leaves no room for the accidents as a mathematical remainder. But lets set that apart for the moment.

Would you say that Roman Catholic teaching is that there is no physical change in the elements, only a metaphysical change?

Quote:

---

With all due respect to my Orthodox brothers and sisters, they can't define anything because that can't even get unity amongst themselves today. This is why taken them nearly 1200 years to call the council held in 2016.

---

We're more unified than the Trads, the Novus Ordo types, and the SSPX. There are the Canonical Orthodox Churches, and non-Canonical churches. Sometimes patriarchates that were once in communion and canonical fall away (Rome, Ethopia, Alexandria) fall away. Others are born and join the (Moscow, Japan, India, the OCA). We hope for the return to the faith of the first millenium of all who fell away.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

---

You guys really aren't that bright. Wow.

Look at all your quotes. They are all variations of "This is my body", said in different ways but in the same figurative sense.

That was the point of the scenario. It's showing how you're arguing for literalism from figurative expressions due to your confirmation bias, in the exact same way that someone arguing for Jesus being a literal door would use any variation of the expression "I am the door" from a church father to show that he too believed that Jesus was a literal door. WOW, you guys just can't get it.

I suppose that if a church father had taken the same figurative sense of "I am the door" and wrote something like this:

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."

Then it would magically turn that phrase into meaning that the church father believes Jesus is a REAL, LITERAL DOOR!! How 'bout that!

There are just no words.... You Roman Catholics are mentally trapped and have lost the ability to critically think.

---

It certainly would be bizarre if a door were part of the liturgy and Augustine had written about it in such terms.

---

You know what they say about opinions.

Now care to address the issue? Would that quote make the "door" literal?

---

All of the quotes taken together would at least suggest it. That's my point, and the reason your analogy fails. Neither a door nor any other symbol is treated the same way.

---

So... how many figurative statements in a row causes it to magically become literal, especially after the writer specifically had already stated it was figurative?

That's a very interesting hermeneutic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

---

That's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem.

---

I honestly can't say you've done much better than the Gnostics.

---

That doesn't surprise me. Fundamentalists and Gnostics have a lot in common.

---

It doesn't surprise me that that those worse than Gnostics would come to such a bad conclusion.

Regardless... did you give up on my question?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You've explained how it is literal. But not from Augustine's writings.

If you were able to, then you'd done it by now.

---

I and others have explained it based on Augustine's writings.

---

Umm, NO, you haven't. That is, unless you count Thomas Aquinas' writings 800 years later as part of Augustine's writings.

What a joke.

---

Did you ever read the article that FLBear linked?

---

Do you remember that I already challenged you to provide anything in that link which proves your point?

Did you read my scenario about how you guys are arguing this?

---

Yes, I saw your scenario.

Augustine never said, "The door which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ."

He never said, "Not all doors, but only those which receive the blessing of Christ, become Christ's body."

He never said, "What you see is the door...But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the door is the Body of Christ."

He never said, "Recognize then in the door what hung upon the tree."

---

You guys really aren't that bright. Wow.

Look at all your quotes. They are all variations of "This is my body", said in different ways but in the same figurative sense.

That was the point of the scenario. It's showing how you're arguing for literalism from figurative expressions due to your confirmation bias, in the exact same way that someone arguing for Jesus being a literal door would use any variation of the expression "I am the door" from a church father to show that he too believed that Jesus was a literal door. WOW, you guys just can't get it.

I suppose that if a church father had taken the same figurative sense of "I am the door" and wrote something like this:

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."

Then it would magically turn that phrase into meaning that the church father believes Jesus is a REAL, LITERAL DOOR!! How 'bout that!

There are just no words.... You Roman Catholics are mentally trapped and have lost the ability to critically think.

---

It certainly would be bizarre if a door were part of the liturgy and Augustine had written about it in such terms.

---

You know what they say about opinions.

Now care to address the issue? Would that quote make the "door" literal?

---

All of the quotes taken together would at least suggest it. That's my point, and the reason your analogy fails. Neither a door nor any other symbol is treated the same way.

---

So... how many figurative statements in a row causes it to magically become literal, especially after the writer specifically had already stated it was figurative?

That's a very interesting hermeneutic.

---

You're reasoning in a circle, assuming your own conclusion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

---

That's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem.

---

I honestly can't say you've done much better than the Gnostics.

---

That doesn't surprise me. Fundamentalists and Gnostics have a lot in common.

---

It doesn't surprise me that that those worse than Gnostics would come to such a bad conclusion.

Regardless... did you give up on my question?

---

Which question?

historian said:

---

I certainly never would have advised them to chose a radical Marxist.

---

Any pope who upholds the Christian faith these days can expect to be called a radical leftist, a radical rightist, and whatever else. That's just a function of the confused world we live in.

Sam LowryIt certainly would be bizarre if a door were part of the liturgy and Augustine had written about it in such terms. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You know what they say about opinions.

Now care to address the issue? Would that quote make the "door" literal?

---

All of the quotes taken together would at least suggest it. That's my point, and the reason your analogy fails. Neither a door nor any other symbol is treated the same way.

---

So... how many figurative statements in a row causes it to magically become literal, especially after the writer specifically had already stated it was figurative?

That's a very interesting hermeneutic.

---

You're reasoning in a circle, assuming your own conclusion.

---

Which conclusion did I assume? That Augustine specifically stated it was figurative? I'm "assuming" what he directly wrote in text?? And since he did so, how are the other statements to the same effect not figurative as well?

Typical Sam logic.

Now how about an answer to the question, or do we chalk this one up to yet another in a very long list you've avoided? Here, I'll rephrase it: after Augustine had specifically stated that "eating Jesus' flesh" is figurative, NOT literal, how many references to "eating Jesus flesh" does he have to make for it to magically turn literal in his mind?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, no one is saying that a complete and authoritative list always existed. "What Christians have always believed" means only that. It doesn't mean all Christians believed all the same things always and everywhere.

---

By that reasoning, Gnosticism would be valid.

---

It certainly would not, since it was always separate from and opposed by the Church.

---

And the Gnostics can say the same for your beliefs, and how it's always been separate from and opposed by them.

---

That's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem.

---

I honestly can't say you've done much better than the Gnostics.

---

That doesn't surprise me. Fundamentalists and Gnostics have a lot in common.

---

It doesn't surprise me that that those worse than Gnostics would come to such a bad conclusion.

Regardless... did you give up on my question?

---

Which question?

---

You have so many you've dodged. Take your pick.

How about this one?: does the following excerpt mean that the writer believes "I am the door" to be literal?

"Enter by that opening, the way into the house of refuge, through Jesus, who is the door. Not just any door, but the sturdiest of all doors, a door whose hinges do not rust or warp, whose jambs forever remain straight, whose threshold never fails."