BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

No.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

No.

---

Nice chop up job on my post, in order to avoid the question.

If you have to be dishonest to defend your beliefs, what does that say about your beliefs, and why do you keep believing them?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

No.

---

Nice chop up job on my post, in order to avoid the question.

If you have to be dishonest to defend your beliefs, what does that say about your beliefs, and why do you keep believing them?

---

I don't have unlimited patience. You should be able to follow the argument and figure out what your own assumptions are.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

Exactly, Hispanics are a group Trump has done well. He moved a great deal over with his positions and his Cuba stance. Why take on their religion and alienate? There is nothing positive for him in getting into a pissing match with the Pope on morals? It is like taking on a reporter, they buy ink buy the gallon. Why fight?

Stick to the economics, national secutity and freedom of the seas areas Trump has more standing than the Pope. That 52% could be 75% if he gives the Pope his due on morals and even says he understands where he is coming from but he doesn't have that luxury. Why the pissing match?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

No.

---

Nice chop up job on my post, in order to avoid the question.

If you have to be dishonest to defend your beliefs, what does that say about your beliefs, and why do you keep believing them?

---

I don't have unlimited patience. You should be able to follow the argument and figure out what your own assumptions are.

---

I'm the one following it correctly, you're the one chopping it out of your responses to avoid it.

You have comendable levels of patience....

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You have comendable levels of patience....

---

He's losing, and he knows it. He's continually engaging in order to find a way to squirm out of another one.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

---

It would be different if he'd said it was not literal in any sense, but he didn't. Just like he didn't say it was purely figurative and symbolic. That's the whole point.

Also, like I said before, what Catholics call the carnal understanding is different from the literal understanding of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

---

You were asking about the "door" passage, remember? As for the "figurative" language, no...it is not its own context.

Losing????? It is settled law, you are fighting from a position that already lost a thousand years ago and has been struck down by the Authorities that actually have standing in this argument - the Vatican and the Augustinian Order.

But, I get it. I don't like Paul. Think he is an ********. But, he is an Apostle, his writings are authoritative and I have to follow them. Doesn't mean I like him or agree. But, I lose on fact. I hate Trump, but in the end I know he has more data than I do and the decions being made are his to make. I know the truth and don't deceive myself into thinking I know more. Sure its fun to pull this group's chain to take the alternate position, but don't lost track of fact

You cross that line on this subject. You do not know more than the Pope or the Augustinian Order. They write the rules for what you are arguing and you are saying they are wrong. Think about it.

Keep on fighting for what you believe in, but don't lose track of the truth. I get where you are coming from we all tilt at windmills or at least those of us with a little imagination left.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

---

It would be different if he'd said it was not literal in any sense, but he didn't. Just like he didn't say it was purely figurative and symbolic. That's the whole point.

Also, like I said before, what Catholics call the carnal understanding is different from the literal understanding of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

---

You've got it completely backwards. If he said "It is figurative", then the onus is on YOU to show where he says it is literal in at least ONE sense, if you're going to assert that there is an exception to "It is figurative". This is just basic understanding of language. It's clear (at least to honest, rational people) that when someone says "It is figurative", they mean that it is entirely figurative unless otherwise stated. If you wrote "my heart is broken", and someone asked if that meant you had a heart attack, to which you reply, "no, it was figurative" - that obviously means you were being entirely figurative, that you didn't also have a heart attack. It would be nonsense for the other person to assume "well, since he didn't say it was purely figurative, we can conclude that his heart was also literally and physically broken, like from a heart attack."

It should really be embarassing for you that someone has to actually explain this to you.

Sam LowryThat's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

---

You were asking about the "door" passage, remember? As for the "figurative" language, no...it is not its own context.

---

Right, and the context was that the writer, like Augustine, had written "It is figuratve" regarding Jesus being a door.

You're the one not remembering. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous. I'M the one having to have the patience here.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Losing????? It is settled law, you are fighting from a position that already lost a thousand years ago and has been struck down by the Authorities that actually have standing in this argument - the Vatican and the Augustinian Order.

But, I get it. I don't like Paul. Think he is an ********. But, he is an Apostle, his writings are authoritative and I have to follow them. Doesn't mean I like him or agree. But, I lose on fact. I hate Trump, but in the end I know he has more data than I do and the decions being made are his to make. I know the truth and don't deceive myself into thinking I know more. Sure its fun to pull this group's chain to take the alternate position, but don't lost track of fact

You cross that line on this subject. You do not know more than the Pope or the Augustinian Order. They write the rules for what you are arguing and you are saying they are wrong. Think about it.

Keep on fighting for what you believe in, but don't lose track of the truth. I get where you are coming from we all tilt at windmills or at least those of us with a little imagination left.

---

Nothing you're saying here is addressing ANYTHING regarding the substance of the argument. You're still only appealing to authority.

Yes, losing. You all knew you lost when Augustine explicitly stated "it is figurative". The whole time after that in this thread was just defense mechanisms and cognitive dissonance leading to some silly, desperate arguments. You knew you lost. That's why you had to "block" me, which evidently you couldn't even do.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThat's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

---

You were asking about the "door" passage, remember? As for the "figurative" language, no...it is not its own context.

---

Right, and the context was that the writer, like Augustine, had written "It is figuratve" regarding Jesus being a door.

You're the one not remembering. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous. I'M the one having to have the patience here.

---

I missed that part, but it still leaves all the other statements about "our faith requiring us to believe," etc. Again, Augustine is highlighting the contrast between the carnal or cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual (not symbolic) meaning. Christ is literally present in the sacrament, though not in the form his disciples saw when they knew him on earth. At the same time, it is a figure or symbol of Jesus the man who walked and talked with them. Both things can be true. And not coincidentally, that happens to be exactly what Catholics believe. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

---

It would be different if he'd said it was not literal in any sense, but he didn't. Just like he didn't say it was purely figurative and symbolic. That's the whole point.

Also, like I said before, what Catholics call the carnal understanding is different from the literal understanding of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

---

If you wrote "my heart is broken", and someone asked if that meant you had a heart attack, to which you reply, "no, it was figurative" - that obviously means you were being entirely figurative, that you didn't also have a heart attack. It would be nonsense for the other person to assume "well, since he didn't say it was purely figurative, we can conclude that his heart was also literally and physically broken, like from a heart attack."

---

The problem is that Augustine wasn't answering the question you think he was. It's not that he was asked whether taking communion meant receiving the real body of Christ and he responded "no, it's figurative." He was asked whether taking communion meant committing the sin of cannibalism, and to that he responded "no, it's figurative." In other words, he gave the same answer that any reasonably well educated Catholic who believed in the real presence would give. At other times and in other discussions he emphasized the reality of Christ in the sacrament and the requirement of belief in it. Again, like any Catholic would be expected to do.

This is why context is so important.

Old Catholic priests are getting replaced by much more orthodox believing Priests and clergy

Big generational shift coming for the RCC

A national survey of religious leaders included this question,

"Would you perform the wedding of a same-sex couple if your religious group allowed it?"

Among Catholic priests born before 1950: 61% said yes.

Among Catholic priests born in 1970 or later: 19% said yes. pic.twitter.com/fhhldVK3H9

— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) May 7, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThat's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

---

You were asking about the "door" passage, remember? As for the "figurative" language, no...it is not its own context.

---

Right, and the context was that the writer, like Augustine, had written "It is figuratve" regarding Jesus being a door.

You're the one not remembering. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous. I'M the one having to have the patience here.

---

I missed that part, but it still leaves all the other statements about "our faith requiring us to believe," etc. Again, Augustine is highlighting the contrast between the carnal or cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual (not symbolic) meaning. Christ is literally present in the sacrament, though not in the form his disciples saw when they knew him on earth. At the same time, it is a figure or symbol of Jesus the man who walked and talked with them. Both things can be true. And not coincidentally, that happens to be exactly what Catholics believe. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

---

You missed that part, because you weren't keeping up. You had specifically argued that if the "context was the same", then one might conclude the literal meaning. So I made the context the same by adding that the writer also had said "it is figurative" just like Augustine did.

Regardless - Augustine was doing a whole lot more than just "contrasting the carnal and cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual understanding". He was explicitly saying it was NOT the former, and it was entirely the latter. "You are NOT going to eat this body". There is no room for any exception there. Your whole "he didn't say 'purely figurative' so therefore he possibly believed in a literal meaning too" was a disingenuous, nonsense argument.

Now, regarding the part of your comment I bolded above - Augustine was not saying "It is a figure" to mean that it is the symbol of the man Jesus they walked and talked with. You are being disingenuous here, yet again. He was explicitly saying that "eating Jesus' flesh" was figurative language, i.e. it was NOT LITERAL.

In your comment, you're also playing the motte-and-bailey game yet again. What does "literally present" mean? Do you mean physically present? If so, then you still have not shown that this is what Augustine believes. In fact, his quotes I gave show that he does NOT believe this. Otherwise, he would be completely contradicting himself. He would be insisting that "eating Jesus' flesh" wasn't literal and that "You are NOT going to eat this body", but then go on to insist that the bread in the Eucharist is his literal, physical body.... which we are indeed going to eat. "You are NOT going to eat this body".... except when you DO eat this body"?? At best, you'd be demonstrating just how flawed Augustine is, which ultimately means he is not reliable and therefore should not be trusted.

I remind you that your Church's view on "Real Presence" includes BOTH a spiritual AND physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist bread and wine. So if Augustine believed in a spiritual presence, BUT did not believe in a physical presence, then NO, he did NOT believe exactly what Roman Catholics believe. On the contrary, he would have been anathematized.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

---

It would be different if he'd said it was not literal in any sense, but he didn't. Just like he didn't say it was purely figurative and symbolic. That's the whole point.

Also, like I said before, what Catholics call the carnal understanding is different from the literal understanding of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

---

If you wrote "my heart is broken", and someone asked if that meant you had a heart attack, to which you reply, "no, it was figurative" - that obviously means you were being entirely figurative, that you didn't also have a heart attack. It would be nonsense for the other person to assume "well, since he didn't say it was purely figurative, we can conclude that his heart was also literally and physically broken, like from a heart attack."

---

The problem is that Augustine wasn't answering the question you think he was. It's not that he was asked whether taking communion meant receiving the real body of Christ and he responded "no, it's figurative." He was asked whether taking communion meant committing the sin of cannibalism, and to that he responded "no, it's figurative." In other words, he gave the same answer that any reasonably well educated Catholic who believed in the real presence would give. At other times and in other discussions he emphasized the reality of Christ in the sacrament and the requirement of belief in it. Again, like any Catholic would be expected to do.

This is why context is so important.

---

Right, so Augustine said the eating of Jesus flesh wasn't literal, it was figurative. We've already established that.

But when you say, "At other times and other discussions he emphasized the reality of Christ in the sacrament and the requirement of the belief in it" - and I'm going to keep asking this, but by now you should already know the question - what does the "reality of Christ in the sacrament" mean? Does it include the reality of his physical presence? If so, then when did Augustine say this, especially in light of the fact that he had already firmly stated that the eating and drinking of Jesus' flesh and blood was figurative, not literal??

Why don't you stop the motte-and-bailey game, and just come right out with it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThat's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

---

You were asking about the "door" passage, remember? As for the "figurative" language, no...it is not its own context.

---

Right, and the context was that the writer, like Augustine, had written "It is figuratve" regarding Jesus being a door.

You're the one not remembering. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous. I'M the one having to have the patience here.

---

I missed that part, but it still leaves all the other statements about "our faith requiring us to believe," etc. Again, Augustine is highlighting the contrast between the carnal or cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual (not symbolic) meaning. Christ is literally present in the sacrament, though not in the form his disciples saw when they knew him on earth. At the same time, it is a figure or symbol of Jesus the man who walked and talked with them. Both things can be true. And not coincidentally, that happens to be exactly what Catholics believe. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

---

You missed that part, because you weren't keeping up. You had specifically argued that if the "context was the same", then one might conclude the literal meaning. So I made the context the same by adding that the writer also had said "it is figurative" just like Augustine did.

---

Except that you ignored the context of all his other writings.

Quote:

---

Regardless - Augustine was doing a whole lot more than just "contrasting the carnal and cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual understanding". He was explicitly saying it was NOT the former, and it was entirely the latter. "You are NOT going to eat this body". There is no room for any exception there. Your whole "he didn't say 'purely figurative' so therefore he possibly believed in a literal meaning too" was a disingenuous, nonsense argument.

Now, regarding the part of your comment I bolded above - Augustine was not saying "It is a figure" to mean that it is the symbol of the man Jesus they walked and talked with. You are being disingenuous here, yet again. He was explicitly saying that "eating Jesus' flesh" was figurative language, i.e. it was NOT LITERAL.

---

He was not explicitly saying that, which is why you were trying to argue just a while ago that it was implicit. Make up your mind.

Quote:

---

In your comment, you're also playing the motte-and-bailey game yet again. What does "literally present" mean? Do you mean physically present? If so, then you still have not shown that this is what Augustine believes. In fact, his quotes I gave show that he does NOT believe this. Otherwise, he would be completely contradicting himself. He would be insisting that "eating Jesus' flesh" wasn't literal and that "You are NOT going to eat this body", but then go on to insist that the bread in the Eucharist is his literal, physical body.... which we are indeed going to eat. "You are NOT going to eat this body".... except when you DO eat this body"?? At best, you'd be demonstrating just how flawed Augustine is, which ultimately means he is not reliable and therefore should not be trusted.

I remind you that your Church's view on "Real Presence" includes BOTH a spiritual AND physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist bread and wine. So if Augustine believed in a spiritual presence, BUT did not believe in a physical presence, then NO, he did NOT believe exactly what Roman Catholics believe. On the contrary, he would have been anathematized.

---

This is just a way of saying that the Church views the Eucharist as a mystery. Welcome to the club.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryThat's why we have apostolic succession. Gnostics are your problem. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Like I said, if the contexts were at all similar, you could draw that conclusion.

---

So, even if that writer had explicitly written "This statement is figurative"?? That would make the context similar.

And could we get an actual answer to my question? I didn't ask about context. I just asked about that one excerpt.

---

The answer is that it depends on the context. We both know from previous experience that it's not literal. But if you read it in a complete vacuum, as you are so wont to do, there's no telling what it might mean.

---

The explicit statment "It is figurative" IS that context. Are you forgetting? It would seem that one (YOU) who is leaving that inconvenient fact out of the equation is the one who is reading things in a vacuum.

---

You were asking about the "door" passage, remember? As for the "figurative" language, no...it is not its own context.

---

Right, and the context was that the writer, like Augustine, had written "It is figuratve" regarding Jesus being a door.

You're the one not remembering. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous. I'M the one having to have the patience here.

---

I missed that part, but it still leaves all the other statements about "our faith requiring us to believe," etc. Again, Augustine is highlighting the contrast between the carnal or cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual (not symbolic) meaning. Christ is literally present in the sacrament, though not in the form his disciples saw when they knew him on earth. At the same time, it is a figure or symbol of Jesus the man who walked and talked with them. Both things can be true. And not coincidentally, that happens to be exactly what Catholics believe. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

---

You missed that part, because you weren't keeping up. You had specifically argued that if the "context was the same", then one might conclude the literal meaning. So I made the context the same by adding that the writer also had said "it is figurative" just like Augustine did.

---

Except that you ignored the context of all his other writings.

Quote:

---

Regardless - Augustine was doing a whole lot more than just "contrasting the carnal and cannibalistic understanding and the true spiritual understanding". He was explicitly saying it was NOT the former, and it was entirely the latter. "You are NOT going to eat this body". There is no room for any exception there. Your whole "he didn't say 'purely figurative' so therefore he possibly believed in a literal meaning too" was a disingenuous, nonsense argument.

Now, regarding the part of your comment I bolded above - Augustine was not saying "It is a figure" to mean that it is the symbol of the man Jesus they walked and talked with. You are being disingenuous here, yet again. He was explicitly saying that "eating Jesus' flesh" was figurative language, i.e. it was NOT LITERAL.

---

He was not explicitly saying that, which is why you were trying to argue just a while ago that it was implicit. Make up your mind.

Quote:

---

In your comment, you're also playing the motte-and-bailey game yet again. What does "literally present" mean? Do you mean physically present? If so, then you still have not shown that this is what Augustine believes. In fact, his quotes I gave show that he does NOT believe this. Otherwise, he would be completely contradicting himself. He would be insisting that "eating Jesus' flesh" wasn't literal and that "You are NOT going to eat this body", but then go on to insist that the bread in the Eucharist is his literal, physical body.... which we are indeed going to eat. "You are NOT going to eat this body".... except when you DO eat this body"?? At best, you'd be demonstrating just how flawed Augustine is, which ultimately means he is not reliable and therefore should not be trusted.

I remind you that your Church's view on "Real Presence" includes BOTH a spiritual AND physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist bread and wine. So if Augustine believed in a spiritual presence, BUT did not believe in a physical presence, then NO, he did NOT believe exactly what Roman Catholics believe. On the contrary, he would have been anathematized.

---

This is just a way of saying that the Church views the Eucharist as a mystery. Welcome to the club.

---

- No, I did not ignore the context of all his other writings. All his other statements were in the same vein as "This is my body" or some variation of it. None of them were explicitly stating whether he was speaking literally or figuratively in the same way he said Jesus was speaking when he said those words. That's why I specifically asked you if in that example about the "door", after the writer had explicitly stated that "I am the door" was figurative, and wrote "he is the door, the sturdiest of doors, with straight jambs and a threshold that never fails", etc, whether after that statement, one can validly conclude the writer believed the door to be literal. The answer, which I hope you're able to grasp, is obviously NO. THEN I asked if making many more statements in that same vein would somehow change that answer to "yes". This, I have never gotten an answer to from you. I presented you the "door" example in the same context as Augustine's.

- No, I didn't say it was implicit. I said that explicitly stating that something is figurative is explicitly saying it is entirely, i.e. purely figurative, by logic and basic understanding of language. The same way that you saying "my heart is broken" is "figurative" ONLY means it is figurative, and not partially literal.

- the point was not that the Church views it as a mystery. The point was that if you can't show that Augustine believed in the PHYSICAL presence in the Eucharist, then you can't say that he believed "exactly as Roman Catholics believed". Stop dodging, and address the issue - can you show that Augustine believed in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, or not? We're waiting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Anyone?

Sam? FLBear? Coke? BigGame? Do any of you believe this about your Eucharist?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Anyone?

Sam? FLBear? Coke? BigGame? Do any of you believe this about your Eucharist?

---

Read it in a poetical sense, not literal. Wording is a bit weird but it's a singular priest. Even if it was literal, one rogue priest doesn't discredit an entire religion

" one rogue priest doesn't discredit an entire religion"

The eye patch and peg leg were nice touches, though.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Anyone?

Sam? FLBear? Coke? BigGame? Do any of you believe this about your Eucharist?

---

Read it in a poetical sense, not literal. Wording is a bit weird but it's a singular priest. Even if it was literal, one rogue priest doesn't discredit an entire religion

---

Should even a "poetic sense" ever encroach upon such blasphemy?

Even if it's a singular priest - did not the Roman Catholic church endorse his book that contains this?

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:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

---

It would be different if he'd said it was not literal in any sense, but he didn't. Just like he didn't say it was purely figurative and symbolic. That's the whole point.

Also, like I said before, what Catholics call the carnal understanding is different from the literal understanding of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

---

If you wrote "my heart is broken", and someone asked if that meant you had a heart attack, to which you reply, "no, it was figurative" - that obviously means you were being entirely figurative, that you didn't also have a heart attack. It would be nonsense for the other person to assume "well, since he didn't say it was purely figurative, we can conclude that his heart was also literally and physically broken, like from a heart attack."

---

The problem is that Augustine wasn't answering the question you think he was. It's not that he was asked whether taking communion meant receiving the real body of Christ and he responded "no, it's figurative." He was asked whether taking communion meant committing the sin of cannibalism, and to that he responded "no, it's figurative." In other words, he gave the same answer that any reasonably well educated Catholic who believed in the real presence would give. At other times and in other discussions he emphasized the reality of Christ in the sacrament and the requirement of belief in it. Again, like any Catholic would be expected to do.

This is why context is so important.

---

what does the "reality of Christ in the sacrament" mean? Does it include the reality of his physical presence?

---

Probably not in the way "physical presence" is usually understood. I haven't gone deep into the philosophical details of that.

Why go through all these one off's? Just read what the Vatican Canon says and be done with it?


Part Two Section Two The Seven Sacrements Of The Church Chapter One The Sacraments Of Christian Initiation Article 3 The Sacrament Of The Eucharist V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence

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:

---

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?

---

... and still waiting for an Augustine reference where he says that "eating Jesus' flesh" also has a literal component. No one's forgotten that you're still failing on your assertion that it's not "purely" figurative.

---

Again, a multitude of his quotes have been interpreted that way, and many of them would be extremely odd if they referred only to a symbol. That calls your conclusion into question, which is all I'm asserting for purposes of this discussion.

---

That's what I'm trying to figure out from your thinking - if Augustine clearly and explicitly says that "eating Jesus' flesh" has spiritual meaning, NOT a literal physical meaning... then how many of those quotes would it take to reach a threshold where we can say that Augustine is no longer referring to "eating Jesus' flesh" in the figurative/spiritual sense, but in the literal and physical sense, at least in part?

---

It would be different if he'd said it was not literal in any sense, but he didn't. Just like he didn't say it was purely figurative and symbolic. That's the whole point.

Also, like I said before, what Catholics call the carnal understanding is different from the literal understanding of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

---

If you wrote "my heart is broken", and someone asked if that meant you had a heart attack, to which you reply, "no, it was figurative" - that obviously means you were being entirely figurative, that you didn't also have a heart attack. It would be nonsense for the other person to assume "well, since he didn't say it was purely figurative, we can conclude that his heart was also literally and physically broken, like from a heart attack."

---

The problem is that Augustine wasn't answering the question you think he was. It's not that he was asked whether taking communion meant receiving the real body of Christ and he responded "no, it's figurative." He was asked whether taking communion meant committing the sin of cannibalism, and to that he responded "no, it's figurative." In other words, he gave the same answer that any reasonably well educated Catholic who believed in the real presence would give. At other times and in other discussions he emphasized the reality of Christ in the sacrament and the requirement of belief in it. Again, like any Catholic would be expected to do.

This is why context is so important.

---

what does the "reality of Christ in the sacrament" mean? Does it include the reality of his physical presence?

---

Probably not in the way "physical presence" is usually understood. I haven't gone deep into the philosophical details of that.

---

This is as about as meaningless as an answer can get. Obfuscation isn't helping your case. You're really just saying you have no idea. Which means you aren't in a position to determine whether Augustine believed in the "Real Presence" at all. So why are you arguing with me?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

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

---

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

I've stated this before -

• Only those that are Catholic were anathematized.
• Anathemas didn't apply to protestants.
• Anathemas NO LONGER EXIST. Code of Canon law removed them.
• The doctrinal truths still remain, but the anathemas that protected them don't.

Please find another hook for your hat.

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

So many twists and turns, seems like the Catholic church gets it wrong a whole lot.